DarthVoorhees Reviews

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024)

Cynically nostalgic but I can't say no to Slimer...

[6/10 · 26 April 2024]

'Ghostbusters' had a long road to be resurrected. The 2016 film was a broad comedy and the negative aftermath I think led the creative forces at Sony to overthink themselves and remove almost all comedy from the future installments. 'Afterlife' is a movie I think works but I don't know if it has a single laugh in it. Instead Jason Reitman wanted to use as much Spielbergian whimsy and wonder and that never was the appeal to 'Ghostbusters'. I think it worked in the end for a self contained story about the family but nothing can be self contained anymore. That of course was never going to be in the cards. 'Frozen Empire' is a sequel and tries to outdo the other entries in terms of scale. It's bigger, has more fan service, and ostensibly a larger threat looming over the Ghostbusters. It becomes sensory and story overload especially when the film tries to exhibit some of the humor it was supposed to have.

The strongest thing about 'Afterlife' was the family dynamic. As I mentioned earlier it tried to invoke a 'Close Encounters' Spielberg vibe. It doesn't work for a comedy but I was engaged with it for that film. The best performance in the film comes from Carrie Coon. The character as written could have been a shrew but Coon had a vulnerability and warmth where I really could see a developed character. The biggest difference between 'Afterlife' and 'Frozen Empire' is that Coon and Rudd play their roles for ditsy comic relief. Rudd has a line where he flirts with Coon about 'busting making him feel good'. I don't think I've heard a more cringe inducing line in a tent pole film in a good decade.

The humor isn't funny because the movie thinks all its jokes are derived from winking at Ghostbusters iconography as if liking Ghostbusters is an inside joke. This is a problem that a lot of nostalgic reboots have but 'Frozen Empire' might be the most irritating if you are not a 'Ghostbusters' fanatic. I mean in what world does William Atherton's Walter Peck become Mayor other than a sequel attempting a cheap attempt at nostalgic titillation?

Yes, we get the original Ghostbuster cast and it's a treat to see them. I love Ernie Hudson who is always charismatic and actually gets a chance to be the leader of the remaining crew. Bill Murray can barely conceal his contempt for the material but it is good to see him.

This is a crowded film however with too many characters and too many plot threads. The idea of Kumail Nanjiani and his character being an ancient warrior is a good one and Nanjiani is very funny but it doesn't quite work . Logan Kim's Podcast and. Celeste O'Connor's Lucky are brought back inexplicably and have nothing to do. The only new idea that sort of works is Emily Alyn Linds' melody but even then the execution is very heavy handed.

I like 'Ghostbusters' too much to hate an entry. This is disappointing and the worst one but even so the set pieces are fun. I need to build up my defenses a little bit more . Slimer is my guy though and he is always going to make me smile.

A Day at the Races (1937)

The last of the really great Marx Brothers films.

[9/10 · 31 March 2024]

The conventional wisdom that MGM took the edge off the brothers is true. 'A Day at the Races' is the last of the really great Marx Brothers films. It does not have the manic energy or menace of the Paramount films. The Brothers have to work even harder to get their presence across. And so it is good even then it doesn't hold a candle to 'Duck Soup' or 'Horse Feathers'. The lore is that Irving Thalberg softened them when they came to MGM and all put got rid of the anarchic surrealism. 'A Night at the Opera' is still a masterpiece but 'A Day at the Races' shows how the flaws of this formula paralyze the Brothers. My problem is that they think infantile characterization makes the brothers likeable. In 'A Night at the Opera' the boys are still rebels while in this one Groucho spends an awful lot of time worried about being exposed as a fraud because it will let the young heroine down.

Chico delivers this mopey line "You don't have to pay me but you can't fire me"

It is disappointing but the humor divorced from some of the story is still very funny. And MGM had the capability to do huge comedic set pieces that are exciting to watch.

Thanksgiving (I) (2023)

Disappointingly self-important.

[2/10 · 27 February 2024]

I was in the audience for 'Grindhouse' all those years ago. It was a great crowd who was totally into the film and the reactions were loud and joyous. Eli Roth's 'Thanksgiving' trailer was the biggest hit. It captured the era perfectly. The trailer was a relentless and careful recreation of exploitation. I didn't know if the concept had a movie in it but for the schtick in 'Grindhouse' Roth had a thematic home run.

And now Roth returns to the material almost twenty years after the fact and he has forgotten what made that initial idea work. 'Thanksgiving' seems like one of those remakes from the 00's in that it is sleek looking to the point where it has no personality.

I think my overwhelming problem with the film is that 'Thanksgiving' is still such a bonkers concept and Roth actively rebels against having even a dash of self- degrading genre humor. This is the perfect sleazy slasher film concept so revel in the muck. The film spends a lot of time with the drama surrounding Nell Veralaque's Jessica Wright. Roth's screenwriting with his female leads in films like this is horrendous. It reads like the worst cliches. Why not highlight the set pieces? They are the only thing Roth is good at.

'Thanksgiving' ends up being more like 'Saw' or 'Scream' as a whodunnit and so when we find out who our mad pilgrim John Carver is it really isn't all that thrilling. It's meant as a shock but the star has contempt for the material and a ridiculous Boston accent that makes you laugh.

I don't know. I just haven't been a Roth guy. He's like Rob Zombie in the fact that I appreciate him more as a pop culture historian and Horror fan than as a filmmaker. Maybe 'Werewolf Women of the S. S' will finally get made and be a masterpiece but 'Thanksgiving' is unfortunately not meant to be served as a full course meal.

Frankenhooker (1990)

A movie that totally owns its sleaze...

[5/10 · 29 January 2024]

'Frankenhooker' is just a great poster and title. To hear the name you instantly are intrigued by the promises of camp and sleaze. When the movie goes for peak outlandishness it doesn't disappoint. The problem is that 'Frankenhooker' is a padded film with about two duds for every joke or horror scene that works. I have a taste test for these trashy films. I love trash but the entire experience has to be sustainable for a feature length motion picture. 'Frankenhooker' doesn't pass this test. The problem with it is that the film is only really entertaining with the titular monster who doesn't come to life until the final act. When we see the monster brought to life amidst the set pieces 'Frankenhooker' is weird and funny in the right way.

I guess my biggest problem with the film is that James Lorinz as Jeffrey never really finds that right balance between the extremes they want the character to go. He wants to be a jersey Colin Clive but also tragic while still being an 'Animal House' type frat boy. It never really works because he just doesn't have that range. I like it best when they indulge in the fact that he's sleazy but then you can't really develop any sympathy for him. There's a scene with the character's Mother talking about loss that just halts the momentum of the film. I think they needed some of that to fully commit to the 'Frankenstein' motif and it just doesn't quite work. I mean maybe I'm asking for a lot from a film called 'Frankenhooker' but otherwise it becomes boring spending time with him to stretch out the runtime between the admittedly spectacular special effects sequences.

When Patty Mullen comes to life it is a madcap macabre Looney Tune cartoon. No notes or complaints whatsoever. 'Frankenhooker' is really one of the underrated character designs and performances. I love the way she moves and contorts her face. It may not be Karloff but it definitely is an original take that Mullen is totally committed to. This is a 'Frankenstein' story that you need to skip to the 'It's Alive' moment. Not only is she funny but she delivers the only pathos the movie has. I like that we get to see her before the accident and briefly have her regain her humanity at the end of the film. She isn't Meryl Streep but there is a sweetness to her. Her final scene with Jeffrey is so satisfying. She delivers more than a little bit of the 'Frankenstein' arguments about bodily autonomy and playing God that aren't quite there on the page otherwise.

'Frankenhooker' gets a mild recommendation from me. I don't think it's a good movie but I like where it's twisted heart is. As a poster and a pitch it is a masterpiece.

The Verdict (1982)

A quintessential "Great American Movie" if such a title is worth anything.

[10/10 · 29 December 2023]

'The Verdict' lingers with you. I've always greatly admired it every time I've watched it but it's a slower burn. 'The Verdict' is not a movie that wears its self on its sleeve, repeat viewings are going to increase your opinion. Paul Newman's brilliant performance as Frank Galvin is readily apparent and rightfully heralded as a triumph. But 'The Verdict' is not just Newman. In fact it has grown tremendously in my estimation as a take on the American fable. Frank Galvin is a hero in the mold of so many. 'The Verdict' is Frank Capra with an edge. It confronts the country and its myths with rightfully placed cynicism that makes you cheer all the more when justice ultimately prevails.

Paul Newman is giving one of the great screen performances of all time. There is no question of that in my estimation. The caveat is 'The Verdict' feels like a summation of the Newman type. Frank Galvin feels like we are revisiting an old broken down Hud or Luke. The fire has been extinguished. You don't see a performer like Newman not only go against his type but subvert it so well. Frank Galvin is like a cynical middle aged Hud grown up and nursing away his regrets of his bad boy rebellions in drink. And he can be despicable throughout the film. Galvin is not an ethical man but Newman never condemns him. He always subtly conveys that there is good beneath the surface. It truly is a performance to be studied.

'The Verdict' is every bit a fairy tale. The plot doesn't really hold up to scrutiny in areas. It doesn't take a law degree to know Galvin would be disbarred several times over for his legal strategies. 'The Verdict' wins you over though because it is such an earnest human drama. The David vs. Goliath story has no merit unless you see the people David champions. And Paul Newman's flawed hero delivers that slice of life portrait quite well but credit also must be given to the brilliant Sidney Lumet. Lumet made the blue collar urban scapes a character in his films and 'The Verdict' is arguably the best example of this. We see the contrast between the dive bar and ratty office.

It doesn't hurt that Galvin is going against the Catholic Church. All the values the Church and the Courts supposedly champion ring hollow until Galvin challenges them.

And in the end the movie doesn't end happily. Galvin isn't riding off into the sunset. The system still stands aside from his brief interruption to the gears in the machine. It makes the triumph over adversity all the more satisfying.

The Marvels (2023)

May have earned Marvel a brief stay of execution from Martin Scorsese

[7/10 · 12 November 2023]

No one was more prepared to hate 'The Marvels' than I was. I have vehemently agreed with every complaint and critique leveled at the MCU for years. Individually I've liked and even loved some entries but as a cohesive whole the MCU has brought moviegoing to cynical cashgprabbing and story telling lows. Post-'Endgame' has been a real chore and with the MCU on the ropes and having hated the last four or five films I was sure there would be nothing to like in 'The Marvels' when I was brought with to see it.

Well, I ate some humble pie. 'The Marvels' is an interesting film to dissect because in truth it doesn't do much right. Those MCU problems are all still there...(in fact this might be the absolute worst in being a commercial for half realized properties) and it has a horribly dull villain who is evil for the sake of evil. The drama is all contrived as well.

And despite that you cannot deny that 'The Marvels' has a distinct personality of its own. The worlds visited are all very unique and don't mimic the grey Russo Brothers look of 'Captain America Winter Solider' that nine out of ten Marvel films have in the past decade. The idea of the singing planet is very funny and shockingly irreverent for a Marvel film. The sequence with the Flerkens is equal parts gross and cute which is a great combination. So in a movie with a mercifully short runtime I ended up smiling a lot between some moments of groaning.

But let's be honest what elevates 'The Marvels' is the performance from Iman Vellani as Kamala Khan/Ms. Marvel. She is charming and funny and steals every scene she is in(and Brie Larson and Teyonah Parris are no slouches either). I know the bar is low but Vellani injects a sense of fun and wonder into Khan that is infectious especially compared to someone like MCU veteran Samuel L Jackson who has stretches where he seems like he is sleepwalking through the material. The true testament to how much I liked Vellani's performance is that she is given a cringe sequel set-up that she is able to make genuinely hilarious despite the fact I hate sequel set ups.

The Titanic that is the MCU is still sinking but 'The Marvels' is a banger rendition of 'Nearer My God to Thee.'

Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives (1986)

Jason, we hardly knew ye

[6/10 · 26 October 2023]

I find as I get older that of all the horror franchises old Jason and 'Friday the 13th' has aged the roughest. And it's kind of a shame too because I was raised on Jason during my formative middle school years. I remember 'Jason Lives' being the best of the bunch and I probably still agree that it is but the bunch isn't all that good anymore. 'Lives' stands out but it has to work overtime to do so and it's meta script isn't quite as biting as advertised. 'Jason Lives' offers the DNA for better films that have followed it.

Horror films have tropes. All media and stories do. I do not want to punish 'Friday the 13th' for having tropes because it is an exercise in snobbery and elitism. That being said you have to do something with your tropes. 'Friday' was really only about Jason massacring bland characters. As a horror fan I like the weird twisted entries like 'Jason Goes To Hell' or 'A New Beginning' because they upset the established order and shake up the apathy. 'Jason Lives' is the only film that points out that these films are formulaic but that is the extent of the commentary. We still get bland stock characters and so Tom McLoughlin's script isn't much of an improvement over standard fare. The acting though is better than usual. Thom Matthews and Jennifer Cooke are likable and have charisma. The film is populated with interesting side characters too who give these sacrificial lambs a bit of irony before Jason offs them. I particularly love David Kagen as Sheriff Garris,Vincent Gustafaro as the sleazy deputy, and Bob Larkin's brief but memorable bit as Martin the Caretaker.

The film also has some of the best set pieces of this era of slasher films. The rest of the movie starts to blend together because the opening sequence where Tommy disinters Jason is so fantastic and creepy.

I mildly recommend this one as a mediocre movie. It's better than being "good bad". It is "goodish".

Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990 TV Movie)

A disappointing end for Perkins and his iconic character...

[3/10 · 17 September 2023]

'Psycho' in the end actually ended up being a respectable series of horror films. Of course the original was an untouchable masterpiece but 'II' and 'III' are standout horror films from this era in large part thanks to Anthony Perkins and the humor and gravitas he continued to bring to the Norman Bates role. Out of all the 'Psycho' films 'IV' is the only one to seem gratuitous and soulless. It plays with some interesting ideas but in boring ways that strive to be sensational but end up being melodramatic and hokey. Not even the great Anthony Perkins has the ability to lift the poor choices to make them appear fresh and compelling.

'Psycho IV' has a problem. The whole prequel foundation is a loser and thus 'IV' is the followup that suffers the most because the original is such an icon. This lame TV film is trying to reveal the secrets behind the master Hitchcock film. We never met Norma Bates, not in the flesh, and frankly she should have stayed dead. The Norma the audience and Norman conjure up is better than whatever will be done here. You show this story and Anthony Perkins Norman Bates loses his mystery and tragedy. Part of Norman's appeal is that he is an unreliable narrator and if we see the whole story he really isn't scary anymore. 'IV' also chooses the wrong way to do a prequel. We don't spend any real time in the immediate aftermath of what Norman did to his Mother which is the most interesting area to explore. The brief bit where we see Norman steal his Mother's corpse is really the only frightening scene in the film.

The rest plays like a bad soap opera. Norma Bates is played very broadly by Olivia Hussey. Her performance is loud enough to be annoying but not in the fun campy way. And poor Henry Thomas is just awfully wooden as the younger Norman. He clearly didn't study young Perkins who found that perfect balance between creepy and likable. Thomas just looks sullen and doesn't give any level to the character. Frankly, it is almost unbelievable that this Norman has women to bring home to meet "Mother".

Perkins' heart just isn't in this. He's given the least to do as his Norman is basically a glorified narrator but even on those terms his delivery seems lethargic. It seems like all that is being asked of him is to appear spooky on a surface level. Every shot of him looks like it's meant to be in a trailer or a poster. This Norman is a caricature and not a character. Even so I think CCH Pounder and Perkins have a chemistry at times and are the only saving graces here.

The production values for the TV movie are nonexistent. 'Psycho IV' looks and feels cheap. It has no flair or interesting visual appeal. Director Mick Garris is a great Horror aficionado and historian but I haven't seen a film he's made that has a distinct flavor or personality.

The only thing that really saves the film is the final act. Norman discovers that he is going to become a father and has to exorcise his demons once and for all. It isn't done with care or subtlety but the final sequence where Norman faces the ghosts in the burning Bates house is a great idea. Call me a sick sentimental sap but I can buy a the finality of the ending where Norman's better half gets a happy ending.

Psycho III (1986)

Another surprisingly excellent horror sequel to the iconic classic.

[9/10 · 3 September 2023]

'Psycho' is such an iconic film and so legendary that it really can't surprise new viewers. No one who seeks it out for the first time is coming in fresh. And so it all comes down to Anthony Perkins and Norman Bates and how he deals with that complex character and there was more to mine. I'm sure everyone thought the idea of 'Psycho II' was asinine when it was originally announced. I mean just the idea of it is offensive to the cinema snobs and Hitchcock's status as a saint of cinema. Well, when you actually sit down to watch 'Psycho II' you find that it is really one of the best horror films of the 80's. I know some are hesitant to name 'Psycho' as Hitchcock's best film because part of the gimmick of the film was Hitchcock engaging in exploitative schlock. Norman is a shocker plot twist in the original and these sequels enrich the original by fleshing him out as a character. The whole arc of the picture was that Norman was cured and he desperately wanted to stay sane and keep Mother dead and buried. It ends with Norman relapsing into his old ways and it's a downer ending because Perkins made us root for Norman's better half. 'Psycho III' picks up there and it goes darker.

You think you know Norman Bates with the telling and retelling but these 'Psycho' sequels deliberately try to subvert your expectations in clever ways. 'III' really works well because Mother isn't a secret. There are several sequences where Perkins plays off of Mother's corpse. You'd think seeing that blatantly on screen might lessen the impact but the opposite is true. Norman becomes downright pathetic and fascinating. The best scene in the film is when Norman gets a note to visit his Mother in Cabin 12. Norman walking to the cabin feels like a scene Hitchcock would have composed....

I guess if I had a complaint about the film it's that you can tell it was released in the era of 'Friday the 13th' and 'A Nightmare on Elm Street'. There are some crude gory kills that don't really feel necessary because the psychological part of the story is so strong. There isn't any suspense because we know Norman is the killer again here and so these scenes just feel kind of redundant especially when they have to introduce such superfluous party goers as a plot device to up the body count.

Also, I must say the retcon is appreciated. 'Psycho II's abrupt ending with Norman meeting his supposedly real biological Mother just doesn't feel earned. I think that partially because it messes too much with the lore we love so much but also because they just don't foreshadow it at all. I forgave it because 'II' is more about Norman's mind and his better half than it is about the actual killer. 'III' realizes that ending was stupid and retcons it with a deeper exploration into the lore and it uses the revelations as a way to drive Norman's motivations. I commend the writing because doing all of that is pretty hard to do.

If you want 'Psycho' the way to go is the Hitchcock original but because 'Psycho' is so good you often turn it off feeling exhilarated and its sequels are very satisfying. Credit goes to Anthony Perkins who embraced this role with love and intelligence. These sequels arguably shouldn't be good but I have to say in terms of 80's pulp horror I think they're classics in their own right.

Skidoo (1968)

It really is hard to find that diamond in the rough bad movie...

[2/10 · 2 August 2023]

'Skidoo' is infamous and has coasted on an infamy it almost doesn't earn. On paper it seems like it could be unforgettable cult movie. It isn't. The thing about 'Skidoo' is all the entertainment value you get from it is through the word of mouth backstory and the credits. It is an awkward movie but not in the good way I know I hoped it would be. The problems with 'Skidoo' aren't complicated. It commits the sins the bad movies always do, it's padded and boring and has characters I don't care about.

I suppose the main draw to 'Skidoo' is the attempt by Otto Preminger to dissect the hippie and drug culture. If you don't go in without some appreciation of film culture and a knowledge of Otto Preminger as a personality you already are at a loss to whatever camp value might be gained from the film.

And of course Preminger's take on the hippies is out of touch and stupid but so what? It isn't any more funny than other bad takes on the hippie movement. To be fair I don't think there have been many great cinematic takes on the free love hippies. Hollywood has always sort of scoffed at it and so 'Skidoo' kind of gets a little bit of credit in not doing that. The infamous drug moments are kind of weird in that the juxtaposition of Jackie Gleason to them sort of is amusing but the movie isn't really a "drug" movie. Preminger probably knew whatever fake controversy would get people in the seats. The LSD thing is a small episode in a flamboyant mob comedy and with a subtle rewrite it could easily be excised.

I guess the choice about 'Skidoo' that really stands out is that it is a movie about the current youth culture populated with middle aged and geriatric performers. I think this is the only thing that registers anything more than apathy from the audience. The problem is the script is terrible and heavy on plot. And so Gleason has to deliver a lot of exposition in between his comedic bits. And comedy is a foreign concept to Preminger. His "jokes" seem to consist of nothing more than mugging the camera.

No one should have to suffer 'Skidoo's full runtime. Youtube is a God send tool to distill the hefty bad movies into more palatable compilations.

Here's what you need if you must experience 'Skidoo'...

Jackie Gleason's trip, Carol Channing's screeching musical finale, and all of 'God'.

The rest is awful but I suppose even my 2/10 is generous but I can't help myself. I did quite enjoy old Groucho and his cue card reading and utter contempt for the material...

"Pumpkin...

Oppenheimer (I) (2023)

Arguably Nolan's Masterpiece

[10/10 · 29 July 2023]

I feel as though I've grown up with Christopher Nolan as a fan of the movies. 'Inception' and 'The Dark Knight' left me exhilarated upon leaving the theatre and I haven't missed a Nolan film since. He raises passions to a boiling point though and sometimes I just don't feel like using the energy trying to engage with his films. That being said 'Oppenheimer' is a return to form and a film I want to praise loudly. I think it is a distillation of what people have liked about Nolan in the past for while offering his most mature dissection of character to date. I don't think 'Oppenheimer' will convert people but it is filled with surprises we don't expect.

'Oppenheimer' is entirely built around the buildup to that fateful test and it plays you like a fiddle. The final countdown towards Trinity is one of the most harrowing half hours of film I've experienced with an audience. And it is a slower burn than you'd expect because in the long run 'Oppenheimer' isn't large in scope or scale aside from the moment with the bomb. It's really a costume drama. Who deserves the credit here? Honestly, the marriage of Cillian Murphy and the script is 'Oppenheimer's greatest achievement aside from the visuals. You'd expect Oppenheimer to rhapsodize endlessly but the script is intelligent enough to wait to explore that. Murphy plays Oppenheimer as intelligent but unaware of the implications of looking at the consequences of his actions. There's a motif that keeps repeating about theory vs practice and all along our characters convince themselves that the terrible things they are going to do are necessary until it is too late. The denouement isn't as dramatically compelling but it is essential to the story. This is where the film asks the most of Murphy who loses his intellectual bearing and charisma. Murphy is going to be the odds on favorite at the upcoming Academy Awards and with good reason.

A common point of debate I've seen about Nolan is whether or not his films cross into fantasies about right wing strongmen. Frankly, I don't see it even in 'The Dark Knight' where you could most logically make that argument. 'Oppenheimer' puts that complaint to bed for me. The only emotion I felt it invoked was fear. This plays like a taut psychological horror film in areas. America isn't shown to be a good to an evil and Oppenheimer being forced to reconcile with that is one of the films strongest dramatic beats. The ending is probably the vaguest Nolan has ever offered. Oppenheimer achieves a vindication of sorts through the course of the film but it doesn't add up to much in the face of what he has unleashed. Who cares if his intentions were pure? My one complaint about the film and I feel it must be said is that I think there needed to be shown the effects of the bomb on the body and with real photos from Japan in 1945. There is a moment where Oppenheimer is watching a slide show and we see the reaction on his face. The audience needed to be confronted directly.

'Oppenheimer' is Nolan at his best. I don't know what will come next but I won't take for granted that we get big spectacles with this caliber of maturity and complexity.

Beau Is Afraid (2023)

Imitation Lynch and not the Ari Aster of 'Midsommar' and 'Hereditary' but still pretty impressive

[7/10 · 20 July 2023]

'Beau is Afraid' is an achievement but I couldn't help myself when I left feeling empty and a tad disappointed. Don't get me wrong I think I have to recommend it but as a huge fan of 'Hereditary' and 'Midsommar' it must be acknowledged that the film is dramatically a different beast. Of course it isn't really fair to hold one film in the shadows of two modern classics. The comparisons are inevitable and point out why 'Beau' isn't quite as engaging.

Aster is a brilliant screenwriter and so it's disappointing to see him abandon that approach here. David Lynch's influence is heavily felt and while Aster's imagery is as shocking and frightening as ever 'Beau' doesn't have the same dramatic weight as Aster's earlier efforts where the writing and characters were grounded and had motivation. 'Beau' is a neo-expressionistic nightmare. Broad to the point of being inaccessible. I can admire Aster for using his clout to expand the canvas because the film is bigger in scope and the cast is collectively his best but it can't make up for mood over meaning.

And despite my reservations I cannot deny that Aster makes bold choices with his imagery and 'Beau' hits it's thematic targets. There are several moments in the film that are genuinely shocking but 'Beau's shocks are like a brick to the face. 'Midsommar' and 'Hereditary' are slower burns that stay with you a lot longer and demand being rewatched. I prefer to have my horror get under my skin and we know Aster can do that.

'Beau' is a frustrating film because it seems like I dislike it but it's just because I am such an Aster fan. I just hope that he's gotten his experimental avant garde film out of his system.

Rocky V (1990)

'Rocky V' is bad but it is a fascinating and entertaining bad...

[5/10 · 18 June 2023]

As Sylvester Stallone enters his twilight years it is becoming really hard to assess him as a performer and cultural icon. He peaked with the original 'Rocky' and through out his career he's tried to repackage and reclaim that glory. I think there have been times when he's been able to do this. Say what you will about 'Rocky' but it is a franchise that continues to endure with both the good and bad entries. 'V' is the worst one and it makes some ridiculous choices that elicit laughs but upon this recent rewatch I felt the rationale behind the ridiculous choices is often understandable.

I think it is a common opinion among 'Rocky' fans that in the series proper the most beloved film after the original is 'IV'. 'IV' is the most thematically ambitious film while also really being the simplest and cartoonish in regards to character development. I mean 'IV' has a brisk runtime that is already padded with montages. Rocky Balboa graduates to superhero in it and all but ends the Cold War in the ring...

How do you follow that? Stallone made the understandable choice to try and go back to basics. And it should have worked. Stallone as at his best when he plays vulnerable characters hiding behind the machismo image. 'Rocky V' takes everything away from Rocky in one fell swoop. He becomes the character from the original again...

I understand the why but the how is stupid. My biggest problem might be the whole plot about Paulie squandering his money away because of fraud. It is ludicrous and the movie never really recovers from it. Too much of it is played for laughs especially with the supporting characters and nowhere is this more apparent than Burt Young. I mean I'm laughing at times but not for the right reasons. Drunken Paulie as Santa Claus really is cringeworthy.

The heart of the 'Rocky' films is Rocky and Adrian and Talia Shire as Adrian is thanklessly cast aside and is more shrewish than ever as she protests against Rocky almost for the sake of doing so.

The central conflict of the film is Rocky and his son. It is clumsily handled. The movie just isn't subtle enough about it. Rocky's punchy attitude which is usually charming is kind of grating with the melodramatics of seeing little Rocky Jr pout about being tossed aside. The late Sage Stallone tries his hardest but the script does him no favors and the resolution of the subplot doesn't feel earned even though it is punctuated with an almost after school special quality.

Tommy Morrison's character Tommy Gunn being a violent protege is an interesting idea that I think could have laid the seeds for a better film. 'Rocky' romanticizes boxing so much and the thing I like about 'Rocky V' is that it showcases some harsh realities about the sport. It wrecks the body and attracts sociopaths with a bloodthirsty outlook. Richard Gant as the Don King knockoff is a good idea even if his campy performance is highly entertaining in the wrong way.

The entire thing sort of falls apart with the street fight. Rocky has too much character to do that. And the cheering from the neighborhood and Adrian just makes it all the more otherworldly. Rocky needs to fight Gunn to end the film but put it in the old ratty Philly club and the movie is so much more credible.

'V' is the dress rehearsal for 'Rocky Balboa' which is the best sequel to the original. I won't skip it in a marathon of the series though. Stallone goes for bold choices and sometimes they work and sometimes they don't.

Evil Dead Rise (2023)

Masterful in many ways but it's too polished and thus lacks a soul to swallow...

[8/10 · 3 May 2023]

'Evil Dead Rise' is going to be a tough one to review because it really comes close to being just about perfect in so many areas. I almost think the 'Evil Dead' franchise connection does the film a disservice because it is the trappings of the 'Evil Dead' mythology that kind of harm the film. With 'Evil Dead Rise' you are getting the ultimate 'Evil Dead' film in terms of size, scope, and ambition. If this movie couldn't get the NC-17 for carnage alone I don't think any film can. On face value you'd think this would be a rave and the basic ideas and performances are incredible.

Try as you might though 'Evil Dead Rise' is in the shadow of the Raimi/Bruce Campbell films. And... a little Raimi snark could have gone a long way to make this more palatable. 'Evil Dead Rise' has no sense of humor whatsoever not even a macabre one. I wasn't expecting 'Evil Dead 2' but some levity is a part of the appeal of these films. Even the low budget first 'Evil Dead' had a little Curley Howard in its DNA.

That isn't necessarily a complaint. I guess you could say it's a matter of preference. The movie rests on the shoulders of it's lead actress. The fact is Alyssa Sutherland is sensational as the doomed Ellie and as what she becomes to the point where I almost like her more before she becomes possessed. Sutherland gives Ellie a sense of sweetness and vulnerability that really makes us feel for this character. I suppose this is a high compliment for an 'Evil Dead' film because I didn't want to see Ellie chopped to bits. I dreaded it. And you know what dread is something a great horror film should build. In a lot of ways this feels like 'Hereditary' on LSD but even so I compliment the film because it is the most grounded 'Evil Dead' picture. 'Evil Dead Rise' is about it's characters and that is what makes the film special because the rest of the cast are all excellent too. Lily Sullivan's Beth is destined for horror scream queen legend.

But that's not what we came here for...

Yes, 'Evil Dead Rise' is a bloodbath. But it is a bloodbath created in 2023 with computers. The set pieces and scares are all intricately choreographed and designed but they ring hollow. I can't think of another recent horror movie where the artifice of the whole experience was as much as a downer. I would have loved to have seen this thing done in the 80's and believe me I know that is such a cop out criticism but the people in this movie are too movie star pretty even caked in CGI blood.

'Evil Dead' will return. I think they've discovered a way to keep the series going in a way that will be fresh and fun. I wouldn't mind seeing the prequel set up by this film. Look to Raimi though. I don't want an 'Army of Darkness' but surely someone must be clever enough to put their own spin on 'Evil Dead 2's gallows humor.

Renfield (2023)

If you only came for Cage as Dracula you'll be satisfied. Everything else is unwatchable...

[3/10 · 29 April 2023]

Renfield is a true disappointment. It is another example of how Universal really has no idea on how to revisit its horror heritage. As far as I'm concerned Renfield fails at it's main goals. It is a comedy that is not funny and it doesn't offer any new insights on the Dracula myth. I appreciate the Nicolas Cage renaissance and so for those who want to see 'Renfield' for the poster line "Nicolas Cage is DRACULA!" well I say to them...that is all the movie has going for it at all. And even then Cage camp cannot elevate a loser to being watchable as a good movie.

I suppose it is fair to warn you that I came into this looking forward to it as a Dracula movie and a Universal Monster flick. In those regards 'Renfield' is kind of a disappointment. Why call your film 'Renfield' at all? It's a reference that will scare away the casual fan. You call the movie 'Renfield' and I expect a little dash of Dwight Frye and the classic iconography which is gone aside from the bits you see in the trailer. This isn't the movies major problem mind you but it was unfortunate.

I mean the Dracula tale has been told so many times that any new attempt has to really work hard to stand out. I honestly think taking a moment to make a slower more methodical Dracula film is what the genre needs. 'Renfield' thinks the opposite. It is LOUD for the sake of being loud. I love Evil Dead gore as much as the next guy but...the whole story of Renfield reclaiming his life from the toxic Dracula and feeling sorry for him doesn't demand your investment. The movie is too much of a cartoon to work with us identifying with this character and his plight. It also doesn't help that Nicolas Hoult doesn't quite know how to play this. The performance is wildly inconsistent and is actually the worst when the movie plays it straight between the set pieces.

The problem is that 'Renfield' has the fingerprints of the MCU all over it. There is no reason why this should be an action story. We've all seen the quirky MCU origin story before where our hero becomes a superhero with so much fake ironic reactions to the supernatural and 'Renfield' is the absolute worst version of this.

I wonder also if 'Renfield' is deliberately trying to rip off 'What We Do in the Shadows' or if it was just subconscious. You won't be able to get the show out of your mind. Hoult dresses up in the same sweaters like Harvey Guillen at one point...

Okay, Cage...yes. It as as wonderful as it sounds. But it isn't because the material is good. This is Nicolas Cage chewing the scenery to compensate for an awful script. It is an example of Nicolas Cage doing this to an insane degree and yes it is entertaining. But remember you aren't watching Nicolas Cage's Dracula. You are watching 'Renfield' and Dracula is a supporting character. The problem is that the movie has the right amount of Dracula in it. If Cage appeared anymore I think it would lose some of it's luster. Cage can't prop up Hoult.

The most exciting moment was when the movie briefly recreated moments from Browning's Dracula. I don't know what they did but it looked like Cage was CGI imposed on Lugosi and it worked. Do more of that next time...

Scream VI (2023)

Despite some set pieces that rank among the best of the series 'Scream VI' is conceptually a disappointment.

[6/10 · 28 March 2023]

'Scream VI' is a hard film to really review because in a lot of ways I think it delivers what you want from a slasher film but not necessarily a 'Scream' film. When it is divorced from its grand story and distilled to moments of suspense then 'Scream VI' deserves credit as an expertly crafted thriller. The problem is 'Scream' has always been given credit for its universe building and meta commentary. 'Scream VI' delivers none of that. It is totally uninterested in saying anything about horror films anymore. Okay. I could see this happening and in someways it is an overcorrection to last year's film which veered close to being too meta. So you have to ask yourselves what you want.

I feel as if I have to get my complaints out of the way. I still think that despite everything a sequel hasn't come close to capturing the Kevin Williamson lightning in a bottle that the first classic film did. I think part of the problem has been the 'Stab' universe in the film where the lines between fiction and reality always blur. 'Scream VI' begins with Ghostface proclaiming "Who gives a **** about movies ?!" This is the starkest divorce from a Kevin Williamson mold yet and so it kind of does matter who this killer is by the end of the picture. The movie comes to a crossroads several times when it has a chance to make a subversive choice or a lame safe one and every time it chooses the safe choice. The resolution is the lamest the series has ever had despite it playing with hinting at an ending that would have ranked among the series best. Every 'Scream' film advertises that no one is safe and that this 'Ghostface' is more brutal than ever before... this time I can definitively say that it is fluff to get you in the seats.

And despite that, despite everything 'Scream VI' is frightening in places. The scene in the bodega, the subway, the ladder between the apartments all had the audiences on the edge of their seats and played them like a fiddle. This is a movie that was heightened by the fact that I saw it opening night with a packed crowd.

The torch has been firmly passed to a new generation or the "core four". And I like them but the weakest link is Melissa. Barrera's Sam Carpenter, our lead. Neve Campbell's shadow hangs over this film and Melissa Barrera is just a little too wooden for the places they want to take this character. It doesn't help that seeing fifty some year old Skeet Ulrich's ghost give her spiritual advice is really really stupid.

But yeah I love Jenna Ortega, Mason Gooding, and especially. Jasmin Savoy Brown who steals the picture. They all have warmth and humor and are well written for this kind of film.

I think 'Scream' should be put to bed for a while. 'VI' is good enough on its own but it is unsteady foundations for future installments. Wait for the next big milestone anniversary or for some new trend in horror to comment on. 'VI' is a better picture than last years 'Scream' but I liked last years 'Scream' better as a 'Scream' film because although it's commentary could be a little ham-fisted it had something to say. I found myself thinking that I wouldn't necessarily mind 'Scream' going the David Gordon Green 'Halloween' route and make a 'Scream' that ignored all the others save the first. I think the commentary and horror would be fresher. The last thing this series needs is to stay in Richie Kirsch's shadow.

Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975)

It lives up to all reputations...

[8/10 · 13 February 2023]

I was intrigued to see 'Jeanne Dielman' after the new Sight & Sound list was released. It had not really been on my radar other than vaguely knowing of it's existence. In many ways I can see why 'Jeanne' has become a film of the moment. It's brutal attack on gender roles is unfortunately as relevant today as it was when the film was released. I went in doing a little bit of reading and yes the movie lives up to its reputation...good and bad...

'Jeanne Dielman' is a superbly crafted and acted film that stretches how narrative cinema works....

'Jeanne Dielman' is also a very hard film to sit through. It's run time is an excruciating endurance test and I doubt anyone can get through it in one sitting. To be frank yes it is a boring movie and it is not enjoyable in the traditional sense of the word....

but...and I know this sounds like a cop-out it seems to be all by design. Everything done here by Chantal Ackerman is deliberate to the point where it seems almost pointless. The whole film is designed to play on our emotions and even that runtime kind of works for the goal of exhausting us. It is a meta-movie that is as much about filmmaking as it is telling a story. Pretentious? Yes but admirable too. The film unquestionably benefits from its lead Delphine Seyrig who succeeds in being dynamic with the utmost minimal character.

But in the end 'Jeanne Dielman' isn't an accessible film. I admire what it sets out to do more than I do the final execution of it. It isn't for everyone and if you can't engage with it it isn't because you aren't a brilliant patron of the cinema. Ackerman asks an awful lot of the audience.

But for a one time viewing I'm glad to have broadened my horizons. I still think 'Kane' is probably a sounder choice to top that list but history isn't written in stone. 'Jeanne Dielman' certainly is an interesting thematic piece and the discussions raised by the film about filmmaking and gender are very much worth having.

Terrifier 2 (2022)

'Terrifier 2' is a masterclass in the horror hype machine building up a listless product

[5/10 · 8 January 2023]

We are living in a pretty good era for the Horror genre. There's a variety and respectability to the genre that has never seemed to exist in all my years as a fan. But as much as I love a good A24 thematic dissection I get the desire for a good old fashion sleaze fest. 'Terrifier 2' fought its way to be on your radar through good old fashioned word of mouth and embellishment. It did the trick I went and sought it out despite the fact that I really didn't know if I wanted to...

It's good to remember that none of the claims surrounding 'Terrifier 2' are unique. People supposedly puked when they saw 'Night of the Living Dead' in the 60's. I'll say what I said about the infamous 'Human Centipede' movies...'Terrifer 2' needs to be seen with a like minded audience in a theatre. It needs to feed on the adrenaline of a Horror fan crowd because otherwise 'Terrifier' is a very boring film. The gore and sleaze which might titillate a crowd at a midnight screening just becomes redundant and gross especially with the bloated run time. My opinion of the movie is colored by the fact that I saw it on Blu-Ray alone. There's something that separates the Wes Craven's from the Damien Leone's and the 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' from 'Terrifier 2'. The heights of this genre that stand above their exploitive value are reached because a creep hacking up people is only as interesting as the ambiance and story surrounding it. 'Terrifer 2' is entirely a face value blood fest...

And those scenes are technically impressive. I mean I guess I can appreciate the effort and craftsmanship needed to create Art the Clown's handiwork. There's no CGI here and that is praiseworthy. But there's something to be said about leaving them wanting more. By over exploiting the gore you see the artifice of it. I found myself thinking about Monty Python's gory bits a lot because 'Terrifier 2' plays like a feature length Black Knight bit.

In the end 'Terrifier 2' is kind of review proof. It knows its audience and it has found it. Any trashing the movie gets Art the Clown will wear with reverence honor. The whole thing seems like the answer to Siskel and Ebert's infamous 'Women in Peril' take down of slasher films and okay If the movie was designed to make Roger Ebert roll over in his grave it is a masterpiece of epic proportions. It already seems to be heralded as a classic and the horror conventions are lining up to market Art the Clown as Freddy's heir. I'm sure with the overwhelming success 'Terrifier 3' is inevitable but I won't be rushing to see it. I guess I've become the old man shaking his fist at the kids...

But who knows? The hype train might lure me back. I'll say this though I kept my lunch in.

A Night at the Opera (1935)

Probably the best introduction to the Marx Brothers and their most accessible film but...still deep in the shadow of their Paramount heights

[9/10 · 29 December 2022]

'A Night at the Opera' is probably the best known Marx Brothers picture and the most marketed. It came with all the MGM flair and in terms of production value and scale no other Marx film comes close to matching it. If I were introducing the Marx Brothers to a younger kid 'A Night at the Opera' is the film I would show because it is funny and exuberant. Of course once you get your taste of the Marx Brothers and become a devotee you seek out the whole catalog and want to know everything. And that is where 'A Night at the Opera' begins to suffer. Fans of film lore know that kid producer Irving Thalberg set out to make the Marxes more palatable to a wider audience. No longer could they be the brutal anarchists of 'Duck Soup' or 'Horse Feathers'. They had to follow some sort of logic and be in the service of good. Well the results are certainly mixed. 'A Night at the Opera' has some wonderful moments and hilarious routines but it begins the slow death of the Marx Brothers...

I sound doom and gloom but really I mean this only as a point of comparison. 'A Night at the Opera' is rightfully called a classic. It does play into the strengths of the Marxes and makes great use of Groucho. What it lacks in quick wit it makes up for in spectacle and there is something to be said for that. The State Room sequence and the finale where the boys bring down the show are exhilarating and showcase why MGM was the industry standard at the time. The musical numbers which were a little more chaotic and humorous in their earlier works are impressive on a more technical and thematic level. Chico and Harpo deliver their best work on their respective instruments.

The MVP of the film may be Sig Ruman as Herr Gottlieb. Margaret DuMont was wonderful as was Thelma Todd but Ruman is just as good a foil for Groucho. Thalberg's formula changed a lot for the brothers but their assault on high society is left intact and Ruman as trying to keep his composure under the onslaught of Groucho is hilarious. He's loud and comical but it is all in the service of trying to stay dignified. He would appear with the Brothers again but I sort of wish he had appeared earlier. Sig could have slipped into the Trentino part in 'Duck Soup' seamlessly.

Now we get into the problems with the picture of which there are many and they all stem from the changes to the formula. While I like Kitty Carlisle and Allan Jones and their wholesomeness I don't like how the story centers around them. The central conflict of the picture is Ricardo and. Rosa's budding romance and thus the Marx Brothers become sidekicks in their own picture. The romance is more palatable than say 'At the Circus' but this just sets up the Marxes for failure. And I have to say I kind of miss Zeppo Marx. I think he would have vastly improved the picture. It is hard to say what exactly Zeppo adds to the films but when he's gone it feels wrong. He wasn't handsome or as charismatic as Allan Jones but in a weird meta way that worked for him. He was like an ironic mirror that showed how boring romantic leads were.

Harpo never recovered from Thalberg. The Harpo character just doesn't work as a lovable oaf. He needs the sinister edge he had in the Paramount pictures to be funny. The kind of clowns Harpo played post MGM really aren't all that unique. What Harpo did before was groundbreaking. And the sad fact is that Harpo's character aged the worst. The Marx Brothers all withered as time went on and tastes changed but poor Harpo became creepy when he tried to elicit the childlike wonder of the MGM pictures. 'A Night at the Opera' isn't as bad but it is a stark decline from 'Duck Soup' which was only a year and a half earlier. No where is this more evident than the attempts to get sympathy for Harpo by having him be bullied by. Lassapari. It's off putting and depressing.

These changes mean a lot. 'A Night at the Opera' in total is still classic Marx with a lot of what you love. The music, the malaprop, Groucho tormenting Margaret Dumont are all there. A crack is starting to form in the marble though and it's all the more noticeable if you have a double bill of 'Duck Soup' and this picture.

Glass Onion (2022)

A bigger (not necessarily better) 'Knives Out'

[7/10 · 30 November 2022]

'Glass Onion' does what a good sequel should. It takes what we liked about the first film and uses the resources a sequel provides to expand upon it. Rian Johnson has created a franchise that I think has the power to stay fresh and reinvent its self. 'Glass Onion' does not repeat motifs or narrative threads from the original film and that is very welcome. For the most part it is a fresh experience but the problems I had with 'Knives Out', I have here and in all honesty they stand out even more in this picture. Johnson's script is again masterfully written and is a subversive deconstruction of the Agatha Christie breed of mystery.

Upon reflection I think the biggest strength of 'Knives Out' and 'Glass Onion' is the casting. Every role is expertly filled. Leslie Odom Jr, Dave Bautista, and Katherine Hahn are under appreciated character actors that really get to shine here. Kate Hudson gives a performance that is hilarious and bravely self-deprecating and one I think is worthy of Best Supporting Actress consideration. Make no mistake, 'Glass Onion' does go bigger and while 'Knives Out' ensemble was stronger I think 'Glass Onion' may be a funnier film. It' is a real shame that the theatrical window was so limited because this picture has moments that scream for an audience.

'Knives Out' and 'Glass Onion' are fun mysteries but beneath the surface they are really clever indictments of excess and privilege. I mean once we see the mystery play out in our first viewing, the staying power these films have is their commentary. Benoit Blanc becomes secondary as the film goes on and I think that is very clever and by design. In both films we have a cast of unremarkable people who despite all their supposed convictions are completely willing to stab people in the back for money and clout... and 'Knives Out' does this story better. The Thromby family was far more sinister and two-faced than this group of 'Disruptors' who are played for more camp value. 'Knives Out' had more peril and menace. And it is of no fault to Janelle Monae but Ana de Armas' Marta was a stronger character. There is a surprise with Andi that Monae plays beautifully but that takes too much time to reveal and hurts the pacing of the picture and a time when it was picking up steam.

My problem I guess is the conclusion. 'Glass Onion' does what 'Knives Out' does, the entire film is an exercise in turning the mystery formula on it's head so many times that the red herring ends up being our "killer". Like Chris Evans in 'Knives Out', our "killer" is loud. It is a highly entertaining performance and satisfying to see this character get their commupance but it's also kind of dare I say it predictable...

If you liked 'Knives Out', 'Glass Onion' makes a great bottom part of a double bill. A 'Godfather Part II' it isn't but I'll welcome Benoit Blanc back anytime...

Halloween Ends (2022)

Destined to be controversial but I think it is a treat and not a trick...

[8/10 · 16 October 2022]

This one is very unique and strays the farthest from the series formula. Your enjoyment of it will largely depend on how willing you are to go along. There's no getting around the fact that 'Halloween Ends' is going to live forever in infamy but in an odd way the risks the movie takes will make it a series stand out for good or evil.

I get the sense that David Gordon Green and co. Felt that after the massive bloodletting of 'Halloween Kills' they needed to scale back and tell a more rounded story. 'Halloween Ends' feels very weird as a companion piece to that film. 'Ends' does what I've wanted to see from a 'Halloween' film. It is far more character and story-driven. The problem is that 'Ends' is totally uninterested in exploring Laurie Strode and especially Michael. As an individual entry, I think 'Ends' is a pretty cool experiment. As the culmination of an epic series and a send-off to Jamie Lee Curtis...'Ends' is a failure. I actually liked a lot about 'Halloween Ends' but as a 'Halloween' fan I understand the rage. Corey's story isn't a marquee event and it's no fault for the ideas being played with here which are fresher than the stale 'Kills'.

This new 'Halloween' trilogy definitely does not feel creatively necessary or cohesive. I'm reminded a lot of our beloved and non-polarizing 'Star Wars' sequels. I can only say that I loved the 2018 'Halloween' and I'll even go out on a limb and say it is my favorite save the Carpenter original. I felt it had that right mix of carnage and character. I also felt that it did not lend itself to a sequel. Michael and Laurie's arc in that film felt pretty complete. The follow-up Kills' was a real low point in the 'Halloween' mythos. 'Kills' offered non-stop carnage with the filmiest characters to be offered up to Michael.

'Halloween Ends' is an overcorrection to 'Kills' This new movie is all about the abstract concept of evil and how it has infected a new generation. Corey Cunningham is definitively the main character. Is his story interesting? Yeah, it is. Michael has been portrayed as a superhuman robot killing machine and frankly, he's less frightening or intriguing that way. I've always thought the stronger entries of the series had a Michael Myers who had mortality. When our hero appears in 'Ends' (and he doesn't appear often) he's banged up and elderly. His only remaining power is his legend and now we have Corey basking in it. This is pretty subversive stuff and I felt that Rohan Campbell was up to the challenge. We see a progression from a boy who went through hell to a monster. Does the script handle it well? No, at times it's bungled. The scene where Michael stares into his soul is kind of redundant. But despite the underdeveloped bits of the basic idea, I think this is intriguing stuff. 'Ends' is a movie that could have used another rewrite to flesh out the themes and give more motivation to the ensemble cast. The infatuation with Corey sidelines Laurie and makes Allyson look oblivious. Jamie Lee Curtis and especially Andi Matichak deserved better material.

Now we all know Michael will never die but 'Halloween' has had the good sense to trim the branches when they got too convoluted. I mean it when I say I get the rage and totally understand it. 'Ends' isn't a great 'Halloween' film in the mold of the formula and you know what I love that formula too. It is kind of insulting to release 'Ends' with that title and Jamie Lee Curtis. I have to think this movie probably would have played better had it been the second part of the trilogy or a stand-alone sequel to the original 78 film. 'Kills' despite the shortcomings is a more epic movie and probably would have been a better conclusion than 'Ends'. When Michael finally enters the story it's an afterthought.

'Halloween' will never end and Michael Myers will never die. To those disappointed in 'Ends' let Michael rest for a while. He'll be back. I think time will be kind to this film and it will be reassessed but if it's not I guess I'm a weird outlier and I can live with that.

The Munsters (2022)

It isn't a redemption story for Rob Zombie nor is it a failure. 'The Munsters' offers mild scary fun

[5/10 · 5 October 2022]

Rob Zombie and Sheri Moon Zombie have become the two most loathed figures in modern horror films. And to be honest that infamy is often justly earned. It's hard to examine Zombie but I think part of his divisiveness has been that he has shown flashes of brilliance. 'The Devil's Rejects' is still a pretty effective horror film and there are stretches of his later works that do elicit fear. I almost feel bad because in all the interviews he comes across as affable and passionate for the genre. Every new Zombie film comes along and I feel compelled to give him another chance... But time and time again they've gotten louder, more obnoxious, and filthier even for the hard core non-prude horror fans. His career cumulated in '3 From Hell' which to me is an almost unwatchable movie. And then came news of 'The Munsters' and in the horror circles it set off fiery passions. I could see why baby boomers and monster kids were aghast at the thought of Zombie touching the sweet and innocent Herman and Lilly. 'The Munsters' presented an interesting challenge for Zombie. This is a case of a filmmaker making a radical departure from his comfort zone. In the end it isn't a redemption story for Zombie but it does rank among the best films of his career. Try as he might it isn't the gore, Sheri Moon, or the heavy metal ham fisted horror that has been Zombie's Achilles heal. The problem with 'The Munsters' as with his other pictures is his terrible screenwriting but ironically his Zombie acting troop almost saves him.

'The Munsters' is a comedy and a children's film, both genres we don't typically associate with Rob Zombie. And...that's for good reason. The humor does not land here. The picture is full of juvenile jokes we have heard thousands of times before in different ways and Zombie really does not do a good job repackaging them. The humorless experience is exacerbated by the fact that Zombie is totally incapable of creating a plot. I know people did not originally tune into 'The Munsters' for gripping stories but even they took rudimentary sitcom-y tropes and put the monster spin on them. Even on those basic terms Zombie struggles. This 'Munsters' adaptation is a great series of short vignettes that kind of don't really connect all that well. I almost think that Zombie had it better with his hard core horror. In '31' if the story hit the skids he could jolt us with a disgusting shock but with 'The Munsters' it feels awkward when he trods along with a lame joke.

We get hints of several stories, Herman and Lilly falling in love, Grandpa disapproving of his new Son-In Law, Lilly's brother Lester trying to scam them out of an inheritance. Each one of these could have been drawn out and have been somewhat interesting but none of these stories are fleshed out let alone resolved. And so 'The Munsters' ends up being a series of set pieces and yeah some of these bits are really cool. And it's no wonder given Zombie's history with music videos. They're just kind of stitched together like a poorly made Herman and so 'The Munsters' would be great to watch in little bits but as a full length movie it feels padded and at times quite dull.

The one thing that 'The Munsters' gets absolutely right is the casting. All of Zombie's actors are having a ball and that joy is contagious. Richard Brake(who single handedly carried '31') is absolutely delightful and does an amazing Vincent Price caricature called Dr. Wolfgang and he is backed up by Jorge Garcia as the droll hunchbacked assistant Floop. Zombie nails the casting of his leads too. Daniel Roebuck perfectly threads that thin line between emulating, honoring, and parodying Al Lewis. He makes for a great Grandpa and probably could have been even better with even more risqué material. Jeff Daniel Phillips makes Herman the lovable teddy bear we want him to be. He isn't Fred Gwyne but he has that warmth and innocence. His accomplishments with the role are in spite of the fact that Zombie gives Herman the lamest material. This Herman walks around delivering the zingers and in the hands of a lesser actor who was afraid of making a fool of themselves...well 'The Munsters' could have been Zombie's worst film yet.

I save my greatest praise for Sheri Moon Zombie. She has received so much venom as an actress and there comes a point where you do kind of feel bad about it. Yes her career is entirely built on nepotism but it's clear that Sheri and Rob must love each other very much and that there must be some creative passion between them even if it is entirely misguided. That being said... yeah Sheri Moon Zombie is the breed of terrible where she can single handedly ruin a film...

But she doesn't here. In fact I think she may be the best thing about 'The Munsters'. I don't know but there's an earnestness and sweetness to Lilly that obviously Baby Firefly did not have. Lilly isn't particularly funny but she is charming and sincere and gives the movie a weight that a cartoon like this kind of needs...

I'm sure Eddie and Marilyn were excluded because Zombie is hoping on making 'The Munsters Return'. Okay, I reluctantly say go for it...but please please Rob hire somebody else to write it... Stick to what you do best, the visuals and ambiance. This is an okay to mediocre 'Munsters' film. Jeff Daniel Phillips, Sheri Moon Zombie, and Daniel Roebuck have the capabilities to make a good 'Munsters' film.

X (II) (2022)

Visually striking and intricately constructed throwback horror

[8/10 · 25 September 2022]

'X' is the kind of horror film we want to see today. It looks to the heights of the genre's past but is also highly innovative and character driven. I ended up liking a lot about it despite some of the short comings of the script. The credit must go to lead actress Mia Goth and Ti West's visual style.

Horror has been a constant nostalgia trip lately. I know a major discussion point surrounding 'X' is how much of a spiritual child of 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' it is. It's fitting that this movie comes out the same year as a subpar 'Texas Chainsaw' film because yes 'X' reminds me a great deal of the grind house feel. The film is painstakingly visually crafted. The lighting, set design, and especially the costumes have that backwoods filth feel. There are a few moments in the beginning and towards the end where West adds title cards and film grain reminiscent of the 70's but the movie earns it and it doesn't feel cheap or exploitive. That's really the highest compliment you can give a picture look this.

Mia Goth gives one of the best recent performances in a horror film in the dual role of the homicidal Pearl and the unhinged Maxine. In fact I think her work in bringing out the subtleties really hammers home the themes that West's script kind of doesn't get. Maxine is young and wants to burn through her youth for all the sexual release and adventure she can get from it while Pearl is what Maxine could become if she had a life of repression. 'X' doesn't always find the right words to say something profound. It's more of a slasher than an elevated slasher but it is Goth that does the elevating.

I'd also like to commend the ensemble. This is an extremely well cast film. We all know the complaint about horror films like this that the cast is meant solely to die. That isn't the case here. Every member of our slasher troop is likable and has something of a dramatic arc. I especially liked the juxtaposition between the motivations of Martin Henderson's Wayne and. Jenna Ortega's Lorraine. We understand the nuisances the characters have about sex. It's a movie about smut but none of the characters are shown to deserve death because of some higher morals. In a way 'X' is kind of progressive in the face of some of the uglier ways horror has looked at sexuality.

So, yes I would say 'X' is a special horror film that breaths life into the slasher film and lays foundations for new life. After 'Halloween Kills', Netflix's 'Texas Chainsaw', and 'Scream' 'X' is a treat.

Lightyear (2022)

A largely joyless film that totally lacks whimsy and wonder

[5/10 · 30 August 2022]

I was very disappointed when I heard about 'Lightyear' but I wasn't surprised. It must have been awfully tempting for Pixar to take their Buzz Lightyear and repackage him in an MCU shine complete with a Chris Evans voice over. The entire conceit though is a thankless task and we need only look to 'Toy Story' to see why...

What thematic surprises does Buzz Lightyear have to mine? The movie starts by saying that 'Lightyear' was the movie that Andy fell in love with as a child and that created a marketing frenzy. Okay, but everything in 'Toy Story' was about how Tim Allen's Buzz Lightyear was a hollow commercial for toys brought to life. He was a character incapable of growth or insight because he was designed to sell cheap plastic. Pretending otherwise and telling this story kind of takes away the magic of 'Toy Story'. The toy Buzz is the superior character and 'Lightyear' does nothing new with him...

But let's meet the movie on its own terms. Lets say a young child watched it in 1995... I think they'd be largely bored with it. If this was released as 'Spaceman' instead of 'Lightyear' I really think it would have been trashed. The plot is derivative of far superior sci-fi films and they are further riddled down of their substance. 'Lightyear' does something that the best of Pixar films have never been guilty of... it panders and it unsubtly hammers in the lessons for the kiddies. Nothing feels organic especially the dialogue where characters deliver exposition in the clunkiest manner...

Chris Evans seems uncomfortable and awkward in the role. He isn't funny and he isn't charming and you know you haven't utilized Chris Evans right when this is the case. The biggest problem with 'Lightyear' is that it isn't funny at all. This incarnation of Buzz is too self serious to take a moment to laugh at himself. Evans would have been great with this approach to the material. Instead he plays it like a bland action hero who will sometimes go into Tim Allen's lines with a wink.

The animation as usual is stellar and meticulously crafted but it isn't awe inspiring. I don't know if this is just Pixar malaise on my part but everything really only served it's purpose and nothing more. The color palette is pretty blah too and the film is darkly lit to the point where there are action sequences that are hard to see.

I guess I liked Sox and the animation but as a story? Nobody asked for 'Lightyear' and nobody needed 'Lightyear'...Largely joyless and total lacking whimsy or wonder...

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022)

Very mixed feelings about this one....

[5/10 · 15 July 2022]

'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness' for the most part continues the MCU's lackluster continuation following the creative peak of 'Avengers Endgame'. Each MCU movie has to convince us it has a need to exist as its own entity and that it has surprises and hints of what lies ahead. There is a lot to like here visually and stylistically. Kevin Feige thankfully largely lets Sam Raimi do what Sam Raimi does best. This feels more like 'Evil Dead' than even his 'Spider-Man' films did and so the fans of vintage Raimi are going to crack a smile. The problem I guess with the movie is that as a piece of universe building, 'Multiverse' is an inept venture that is way overhyped and feels inorganic as a story piece.

This 'Multiverse' has promised to be a game changer but there hasn't been much creative cohesion in how the different properties have dealt with it. There's a sequence where Strange flies through a montage of different worlds for split seconds and it is a really cool eye-catching piece of film but he doesn't stay in the paint world. He scatters around largely boring sterile looking worlds with super subtle differences. It certainly didn't help this movie that it came out the same year as "Everything Everywhere All At Once"

There were moments of collective groaning in the theatre when the end credits ended and the title card 'Doctor Strange Will Return...' flashed before us. I find it amazing that we've come to this point with the MCU who could do no wrong. They really were a victim of their own success as 'Avengers Endgame' lived up to being that giant interconnected event movie. We've been divorced from that Thanos storyline for three years now and the foundations for new adventures are shaky at best. Marvel has turned out some of their best work with 'No Way Home' and 'Wandavision' and some of their worst with movies like 'Eternals'. 'Multiverse' is advertised like it's important. It's not and the MCU diehards will be severely disappointed if they sought such a thing. The cameos you see are quick and to the point and gimmicky. They will not be on the test... although they are subjected to some delightful macabre Raimi treatment.

Part of the problem here is that 'Multiverse' is a horrible continuation of 'Wandavision'. I don't care what deep cut comic book exposition you can conjure but the radical change in Wanda's character isn't earned and feels insulting after the terrific writing and Elizabeth Olsen performance in 'Wandavision'. She COULD have become this iteration of the character but the growth and lessons she learned in that series prevented her. I don't mind an Avenger becoming a villain. It's fresh territory but it gives the impression that all the claims of MCU interconnectivity and world building are just marketing ploys...(which they very well are). The movie also very awkwardly handles the events of 'Wandavision'. Vision himself isn't referenced by name.

The joy I got from 'Multiverse' is it kind of is Raimi getting to make a big flamboyant multi-million dollar 'Evil Dead'. This movie works overtime to prevent the dreaded R-rating and I say all the power to it. It's gooey and gory and kind of irreverently almost mocking superheroes....

The problem is the 'Evil Dead' brand of film doesn't quite have the same effect when it's this polished. The CGI is probably the fakest it's ever looked. Nothing at all looks tactile or has any weight to it. I would have killed to see a version of this with Ray Harryhausen inspired effects like in 'Army of Darkness'. It must exist somewhere in that great Multiverse...

Also, it's kind of a joy to see Benedict Cumberbatch get the Raimi punishment that Bruce Campbell was so often subjected to once upon a time. Cumbers got off easy though because of the CGI but the scenes where the reanimated corpse struggles to come to life are throughly entertaining.

So there you go. 'Multiverse' is a perfectly unoffensive, uninspiring, but mildly entertaining film. Pair a binge of 'Wandavision' and 'Army of Darkness' instead though. It's the same product but better.