recklesscow Reviews

Suspiria (I) (2018)

A director's project, once again.

[8/10 · 3 November 2018]

Despite the dearth of plot, the original "Suspiria" is in my top 5 list of horror films simply for the extravaganza of color, sound, and visuals that make it so unique. But far from considering a remake some sort of sacrilege, I was more than ready to accept a modern take on the tale, knowing full well no remake ever "ruins" an original (and to suggest such is a silly concept). I feel stating this is important because my view of the remake was not tainted by some type of devotion to the original. If the remake was better than the original, I was prepared to concede that point.

"Suspiria" 2018 is an odd bird. Seemingly cognizant of the fact the original film had a shoestring plot strung together by various set pieces, the writer(s) confoundingly expand on new themes only to stubbornly refuse to make them dramatically satisfying or relevant. When a film begins with a title card announcing an odyssey of "Six acts and an epilogue set in divided Berlin", one would expect something in the way of heavy lifting to uphold the act structure. Indeed, there was plenty of material to mine--an aging psychiatrist's search for his missing wife, Susie's rapid rise in the company and her strange relationship with Madame Blanc, fellow student Sara and her growing suspicions--but, by film's end, none of it has much consequence. Oh, there are plot progressions, but "Suspiria" straddles the line between character-driven horror and having too much "fat" in the plot, with the end result proving lackluster on both fronts.

In terms of production technicalities, for all the original's beautiful colors and careful framing, "Suspiria" 2018 makes some tradeoffs in exchange for improved acting and better effects, but as to which film has the better cinematography and editing, it's more than a toss up. While succumbing to hokeyness at times, the original is certainly not a poorly-made production. One can hardly claim Guadagnino's direction here is in any way superior to what was already a directorial tour de force of a film to begin with. Instead, Guadagnino focuses on a decidedly more muted tone, both in color palette and mood, which tampers down the more psychedelic aspects of the original and brings more attention to the subtleties of acting and the minutiae of directorial mood-enhancers via seemingly constant rain only to be replaced by snow. The result is a very bleak film that does put one in a rather subdued state throughout. This is miles from a shock-a-minute film, and, indeed, the thrill of constant stimulation may be what most find so lacking in the film, for in the first 120 minutes of its nearly three-hour runtime we are treated to one (albeit gruesome) death. A slasher film it is not. One has to sit quietly and mine "Suspiria" for its supposed depths and revel in its atmosphere, even if it is often lacking in any real sense of foreboding that one would expect from what is, after all, a horror film. I found myself thinking that the film would be decidedly more suitable to watch on a cold, rainy day...or perhaps after a few tranquilizers to set the tone.

Guadagnino's effort is commendable for his use of restraint, however; so at odds with Argento's instincts in the original that I wonder how he even got the job (and that's not a complaint). For every bombastic moment in the '77 film, there's a quietly subdued scene of dialogue in the '18 version to match. And it's precisely this reason why, I imagine, most mainstream horror fans, used to a barrage of jump scares and carnage, won't enjoy it.

"Suspiria" languidly ambles along until the finale, which is so gonzo that I couldn't quite grasp how to feel about it. Revelations are made, blood is spilled, and we get treated to some delightful lighting and dancing, but the lack of coherent exposition can leave one scratching their heads as to what, exactly, is going on. That's not to say there aren't answers, but whether intentionally or not, the narrative feels obfuscated. In quite the treat, however, we do get some lovely blood-red filters that come the closest in the entire film to being an homage to the original.

Should you see it? Definitely. It's reluctance to conform to the standards of other mainstream horror films earns it points alone. Whether a success or a failure, I feel originality should always be commended. We need more films like "Suspiria." Let's just pray they have a better script.

Halloween (I) (2018)

Tonally inconsistent and spreads itself too thin.

[7/10 · 19 October 2018]

For starters, I'm a huge "Halloween" buff, so I was anticipating this "recalibration" since it was announced.

Jamie Lee back in action, Carpenter on board as a producer and scorer--what could go wrong?

Unfortunately, a few things.

One, this new "Halloween" seems to be having an identity crisis. It's a somber psychoanalysis on the effects of severe trauma. It's a teenage relationship film. It's a babysitter-in-peril slasher film. It's an action-packed revenge movie. It's too many things, none of them consistent. One moment we're watching hand-held, soft-focus camerawork focusing on a crying Jamie Lee as she copes with her past trauma--a beautiful, poignant shot with diffused lighting that's very "indie." The next, we're transported back into a 1980s slasher film before taking a veer into an episode of "Dawson's Creek" with two teenagers at the school dance. Scenes and tones transition without much coherency, almost as if the director was trying to force several film genres into one movie to cover all possible audience bases. You want a thumping action flick with shootouts and fights? We gotcha covered. A classic slasher film complete with 80s synth score? We got ya there, too. For the kids, you want something to relate to, some high school problems? Come on in. Had the film chosen to stick to one or even two of these genres, I feel the tone would have benefitted from it massively.

Yes, Michael is back and deadly, the kills being more akin to Rob Zombie's entries in terms of explicit violence. When Michael is on-screen, the film works wonderfully. Unfortunately, this being a "Halloween" film and a slasher, he's in it far too seldom for my taste. In the original "Halloween", Michael is a presence in the film from the opening right towards the very end, barely going 5 minutes without an appearance of some sort--lurking around bushes, watching from street curbs, etc. In this "Halloween", there's an entire 20-minute segment with no Michael at all. What's more, entire narrative segments have either been left unscripted or edited out for running time, leaving some jarring transitions where some offscreen action is explained via dialogue. One of these is the critical bus crash that allows Michael to escape--the scene is never witnessed in the film, only the aftermath. The same can be said for the fate of one character, whose death we only see in hindsight.

There are also two completely out-of-left-field subplots that spring up and go absolutely nowhere. How they weren't written out is beyond me, as they promise much exposition in the coming scenes only to completely be abandoned or forgotten about in the next. One has to wonder if such "twists" were really necessary to get said character from point A to point B--certainly there are less outlandish ways, no?

But all's not lost. The film does provide several hair-raising moments of suspense, and, when it plays to its slasher root strengths, works. One can't help but lament how much better it would have been had these elements been the sole priorities throughout.

Jamie Lee is fantastic again as Laurie Strode, and the new cast members all hold their own. The cinematography, albeit ranging from tonally inconsistent indie shots to glossy big-production horror film, is all very good, as is the music.

There's fun to be had here, no doubt, but the overall product is a strange mishmash of ideas and genres, like putting multiple kids' breakfast cereals into one bowl.

The original "Halloween" sequel still reigns supreme.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)

By-the-numbers fare.

[4/10 · 7 July 2018]

The film is mildly entertaining and occasionally tear-inducing (as animal deaths always get me more than human ones), but the film feels too cut-and-paste and tonally off-kilter.

The returning characters exist merely to provide a moral base for the audience amongst evil men looking to make money at all costs, and their new sidekicks are total cliches given lines merely to make ten year-olds chuckle (as they were wont to do constantly every time the sheepish computer nerd made a badly-scripted "I'm such a wuss, I'm so funny" one-liner).

The portion on the island should have and could have been handled better, but the entire thing felt rushed as an excuse to get our group and their dinosaur captors into the second phase of the story, which was the most interesting. The darker second half involving the evil corporations and military industrial complex saved the film from total humdrum, but the contrast between settings only serves to highlight how uneven the film is as a whole.

The special effects are typically amazing, but the thrill of seeing dinosaurs on screen has long passed, hence the creators rooting for us to connect with them emotionally rather than visually. It works, but one wonders what the franchise is saying when you're rooting for the dinosaurs more than the humans.

No set piece "wows", but there are enough decent ones to make some fun entertainment if you don't have your standards set too high.

It's too bad they didn't put as much effort into the script as they did the special effects.

Clinical (2017)

A pedestrian psychological thriller.

[3/10 · 20 April 2018]

I'll admit to being drawn into "Clinical" for its first 45 minutes. The plot, centering around a disillusioned psychiatrist reluctantly taking on a PTSD patient after her last go-around with an "intensive" client ended badly, offers up enough questions and mystique to lock you in. Then, somewhere around the hour mark, the film dives headfirst into a cheap plot twist that signals the film's narrative decline. The film dispenses with logic and heads into the rabbit hole, offering up a preposterous conclusion that destroys anything it previously had going for it. Twists in stories can often be used to wondrous effect, or they can derail your narrative into muck and make you wish the writer had played it straight. Often, you'll find it would have been a much better film had it dispensed with the shock factor and stuck to its guns. Such is the case with "Clinical."

I won't consider it a spoiler to say that, towards the end, things happen that beg a big "Huh?" from viewers. It's probably not a good sign for the writer when the character discovers a dead body and the viewer has to stop and ask themselves who the person is. Nor is the film in any way forthcoming about providing coherent answers to many of these questions. I'm not a lazy viewer. I don't demand a long, complicated piece of exposition to tell me everything, nor do I think all films should answer every question. But when so much of your story hinges on certain plot elements that you don't bother to fully elucidate in your narrative, the viewer can be left feeling a bit cheated. Much like the feeling one gets when a film ends before we see a proper conclusion to various plot threads that the writer has asked us to care about. Really, it's just not nice.

"Clinical" could have been something worthwhile, but ultimately the script lets the entire venture derail into frustrating ambiguity and lazy writing, offering up no compensation for the befuddled viewer who, by film's end, is left wondering why they even cared in the first place.

47 Meters Down (2017)

A humdrum affair.

[2/10 · 19 April 2018]

In "47 Metres Down", two sisters descend into a shark cage that falls to the bottom of the ocean floor when its cable breaks, forcing them to defeat the odds in a race against time to get to the surface despite the sharks trolling through the area before their air runs out. They encounter obstacles, panic, discover that rescue-saving attempts that were supposed to go off smoothly never do when there are 20-foot Great Whites involved, and meanwhile their air slowly but surely gets used up as they desperately attempt to be rescued.

It sounds exciting on paper. The trailer even managed to be somewhat exciting. In reality, the film's paper-thin plot simply doesn't offer up enough creative ingenuity to sustain its running time. Everything you expect to go wrong does. Nine times out of ten, if you think something is about to happen, it probably does. That's because the film feels all-too-familiar, even if it is the first one to have this plot specifically. It's simply a variation on a type, and as such we already know what to expect.

There really isn't a whole lot going on in "47 Metres Down." Mandy Moore and her costar manage to be just capable enough given the material, but their acting really isn't the point here. Nothing really is, beyond the supposed chills and thrills we were promised, which come all to predictably and much too sparingly. The film is a humdrum affair through and through.

What elevates it above one star is its ending, which manages to leave a more lasting impression than its previous 90 minutes. Had the film maintained the tone of its ending throughout, no doubt this could have been a much more interesting affair.

The Open House (2018)

Like an average episode of a horror anthology series drug out for 90 mins.

[3/10 · 19 April 2018]

There's not much to say about "The Open House" beyond the fact that, while it isn't outright terrible, it's just incredibly mediocre. The plot feels like something that would have made for an average episode of a horror anthology series, ruined by making it an hour too long.

I will admit that, at first, I was intrigued by certain events. Was the threat going to be supernatural, or human? Why did the realtor's assistant act so strangely? How did the kooky neighbor fit into all of this, and what was the deal with the flirty store owner? The goings-on in the house were appropriately creepy and served to ratchet up the tension factor while my brain tried to figure out what was going on. Unfortunately, my interest soon began to wane as the film drug on and on with no sign of livening up the proceedings to give us something new to think about until the final twenty minutes when, mercifully, some things finally begin to happen. And, as it turns out, most of those plot devices mentioned earlier end up being either red herrings or a whole lot of nothing.

There really isn't a whole lot of imagination going on in "The Open House", despite first appearances. The execution is quite misleading in making us think there's something far more elaborate going on than what the movie actually reveals it is. One can't help but feel duped at the end. Tricked, if you will, into thinking the film had more to offer. Oh, suspense scenes are carried out with a certain aplomb, but when it all amounts to mediocrity in the end, was the journey there really worth it?

None of this is helped by the fact that the film seems to struggle with its tone--something that can probably be attributed to the fact it had more than one director. The tone of the ending, in particular, feels out-of-character and as if it belongs to another, darker film entirely, given that until then the proceedings felt so very much like an expensive episode of a TV series.

I'm tempted to give the film another star it doesn't deserve simply due to the fact that Dylan Minnette is nice to look at, but I'll refrain.

Gerald's Game (2017)

Occasionally effective but hampered by its sub-genre.

[3/10 · 19 April 2018]

There have been a litany of films that have, whether for budgetary concerns or artistic liberty, had to make do with mostly one location for the duration of their running time, and they've run the gamut from entertaining ("Devil") to plodding ("ATM", "Phone Booth"). I have an instinctive distrust for films in this sub-genre, as I know it's hard to pull off a script that contains enough moments of inspiration to make the use of mostly one location seem inspired and less of a narrative convention imposed by budget or (less rare these days) novelty. Rare is the film in this sub-genre that offers anything of re-watch value, but "Gerald's Game" comes close to surmounting the inevitable trappings of this trope. Unfortunately, close is still...close. It's not a win.

I don't imagine myself ever going back to view "Gerald's Game" again, despite the fact it does have several positive things going for it: the main actress gives an incredible performance and the "is he real or is he just a figment of her imagination" subplot of the Moonlight Man is deliciously creepy in the few brief moments he is utilized. I say I probably won't return to it because, while it was entertaining enough on its first run-through, a re-watch would simply be exposing myself to the same dialogue and psychological analyzation that would undoubtedly get old having to sit through again. Because unless there's constant action or tension most of the way through, that's pretty much all films of this nature CAN rely on to get to feature running time: dialogue. And usually lots of it.

Much has been made about a particularly gruesome scene that comes in the film's last third. Yes, it is gruesome, and a word to the wise would be to not watch or show the film to anyone who is in the least bit squeamish when it comes to gore or human anatomy. Personally, I prepared myself for an uncomfortable experience by telling myself doctors see much worse, which made the ensuing assault on the senses somewhat more bearable, although I doubt anyone would truly enjoy such a scene unless they're somewhat depraved (or just a really, really big fan of practical effects).

"Gerald's Game" is often draining and uncomfortable, offering just enough creep factor and psychological tension to make the first go-round worth it...almost.

The Ritual (I) (2017)

A creepy cross between "The Blair Witch Project" and "The Wicker Man."

[6/10 · 18 April 2018]

I'm always sold on horror films that take place in the woods, as humans tend to have a natural fear of unknown environs and we seem to have carried a primordial fear of dark woods for generations, evident in many fairy tales.

But just choosing a woodsy location isn't always enough, as there have been plenty of bad horror films set in the forest. What makes a good one is the same thing that makes any horror film good: a good plot, good acting, tension, etc.

While relatively simple on plot, "The Ritual" does have a stellar opening five minutes that help set the tone for the rest of the film and elevate the human characters beyond the mere teenage fodder we normally get in films such as this. No, this time there's a real human element involved, as their motivation for visiting said woods they eventually find themselves in goes beyond a juvenile desire to drink it up, smoke pot, and have sex behind some trees. The human drama is just as palpable as the eerie forest itself, though a particularly sinister-looking abandoned house does take the cake for some time during the opening half.

"The Ritual" relies on the always-classy and seldom-seen rule that "less is more", leaving enough ambiguity to make the goings-on incredibly creepy as things predictably go from bad to worse for our characters. It helps that the film utilizes its location to the max. I'll go as far as to say that the woods in this film are even creepier than the ones seen in "The Blair Witch Project", and there's certainly no absence of dread once night falls. You come to be on the edge of your seat every time the sun goes down, as, along with the aforementioned film, that's typically when the you-know-what hits the fan.

Films of this nature usually involve some character or another almost deserving their fate for engaging in poor decision-making or being so irksome that we root for the threat to take them out. So it's a relief to be able to say that the men in this film really have little control over what's happening to them, and their lack of "bro-isms" and juvenile delinquency makes us care for them beyond the teenage cliches we normally get in films with this setting.

Where the film does stumble a bit is in its last half hour, when the tables are turned, so to speak, and a different type of threat emerges in addition to what we've already seen. Without giving too much away, I felt the film's scare factor decreased significantly during these scenes, but the film nevertheless manages to recover enough for a suitably thrilling finale that leaves us with just enough closure to have made the journey worthwhile.

Words of advice: don't watch this while camping. You've been warned.

Veronica (I) (2017)

The production values make it.

[7/10 · 18 April 2018]

I'll say it right now: supernatural films don't scare me. Being a non-religious person, the subject matter always seems irredeemably hokey to me, and certainly the idea of a film about the aftereffects of a seance seemed like a recipe for a whole lot of eye-rolling cliches.

Well, the film does have the characteristic cliches that plague nearly every film of this nature, but the film's production values are otherwise so top-notch and the execution so on-point that these can all be forgiven.

Taking place in Spain in the 1990s, the film uses its locations to full effect (the apartment the title character lives in would be creepy enough on its own, and don't even get me started on that creepy school basement), the music and sound design are top-notch, the acting is convincing, and the scares, albeit cliche, are directed and edited so well that one can forgive any shortcomings in the script department.

The film oozes with atmosphere throughout, aided in no small part by an amazingly simple yet effective score that really heightens the tension. Plot-defining moments such as the seance in the school basement (which begins the trouble) are made all the more eerie by the music, which, combined with the stellar direction, really sets the mood for what's to come.

But the film works beyond the horror level as well, painting a convincing and utterly sad portrait of a family still coping with the loss of one parent and the ensuing challenges this loss forces on our main character, whose motherly surrogacy isolates her from her friends and makes her all too relatable to those of us who led turbulent teenage years.

By the time the eerie ending came, I barely felt like an hour and forty-five minutes had gone by--I was having too much fun.

Victor Crowley (2017)

"Hatchet" on a plane.

[18 April 2018]

Aside from the fact that I never found the character of Victor Crowley to be frightening in any sense of the word anytime throughout any of the previous three installments, I could get behind the films for their level of comedy and entertaining, over-the-top gore that all congealed to make a fun throwback to 80s slasher franchises that never took themselves too seriously.

So it's unfortunate that this, the fourth installment, is such a turd. Hampered by an obviously sub-par budget that forces the film to utilize mainly one location for the majority of its running time, the film treads water agonizingly before ending at an hour and sixteen minutes. Did I mention that the first five minutes of the film are a prologue? That means we get roughly an hour and ten minutes of actual film, with the great majority of the action taking place on a crashed plane.

You'd think that once the character of Victor Crowley mercifully, finally shows up after what seems an eternity of foreshadowing that the ensuing payoff would be worth the wait. You'd be wrong, however. Crowley is simply "going through the motions" once more, doing what he does best yet failing to offer anything original. The franchise feels, by and large at this point, tired.

What's worse, the jokes are either unfunny or are delivered by actors that manage to make their lines incomprehensible, rendering them flat. The director also deemed it fit to cast an actress with an annoyingly high nasal voice that grates on the nerves throughout.

After the anticlimactic and, typically, abrupt ending, the film falls from the memory, completely failing to make any sort of lasting impression whatsoever. Too bad that a fourth installment in a previously fun, if silly, franchise wound up being without any redeeming qualities whatsoever.

A Quiet Place (2018)

A unique premise let down by a simple script.

[7/10 · 16 April 2018]

The concept of a film dominated by long periods of silence may not be incredibly original (an episode of "Buffy" once adopted such a premise), but it's original enough to offer something different in the thriller/horror landscape IF your script doesn't simply use the concept as a gimmick.

Unfortunately, "A Quiet Place" never does aspire to justify its plot beyond the selling factor of being somewhat original, and that's the problem: it knows you don't often get films like this, it knows you know that, and therefore the writer never feels he has to try too hard.

It may be too cynical to say that all one need do is insert a cliche family into a world where sound kills, develop a bare minimum of familial drama (mostly conveyed via sign language), and then simply devise scenarios where they get into trouble, but yet that's exactly what the film does. That's, essentially, all the film IS: set pieces hinging on borderline fleshed-out members of a family trying their best to be quiet in a world where monsters hunt by sound.

That's not to say the film doesn't have genuine moments of suspense--it does. But one can't help escape the fact that nearly any writer with a modicum of imagination could easily devise twenty or a hundred more scenarios where characters inadvertently make noise and bring the wrath of hungry creatures down on them. We LIVE in a world with sound, so the highest level of imagination one has to have to write these situations is to imagine their characters trying and failing to perform ordinary human tasks quietly, or, as this film often relies on, reacting to physical pain.

By all means, go see it for the suspenseful set pieces, but don't be deluded into thinking it's more than the sum of its parts.

Twin Peaks (2017)

Sure to repel traditional watchers and please anyone looking for something different.

[10/10 · 22 May 2017]

If you don't know anything about the original 1990s predecessor, I can't imagine what you'd be doing here, so let's skip all that introduction nonsense.

The new "Twin Peaks" is out, and you're most likely an old fan wanting to know what you're in for. Is it the same as you remember it? Yes...and no. Lynch, ever known for his weirdness, is no longer operating under the wing of ABC network interference this time around and has been given full creative control for these 18 episodes. As you can probably expect, Lynch when he isn't being reigned in is Weird with a capital "W", but unfortunately for those fans looking for more of the same old "Twin Peaks" you're used to, Lynch isn't serving up that. Oh, the main players are all back and the town still has a neat local dive with some dreamy musical acts, but this is a bigger story in terms of scope and vision.

For one, the series is not confined to the town of Twin Peaks and features many characters in different locations. As for the tone, Lynch obviously saw the opportunity to go all out on his weird style with no one to reign him in, and go all out he does. This is bad news for those expecting a traditional, linear plot to unfold, but great news for those who loved the more surreal aspects of the original series.

There are long, drawn out scenes of dialogue, or sometimes just actions. The pacing is often slow and deliberate. The insanity of the original series finale comes to the fore and gets served up in heavy doses. If the original managed to pull in some viewers for the murder mystery despite the quirky aspects of the series, this one disregards those fans altogether by refusing to throw them a bone. Oh, there is a story here, but it's no longer centered around a marketing campaign masquerading as a murder mystery and it isn't going to be told in clear and cut A to B fashion. You have to either be willing to follow Lynch on where he wants to take you or give up in frustration and part ways. Because in terms of differences, that seems to be the main one here: Lynch is doing this his way...and you're either with him or not. This doesn't make it easy on traditional viewers, and I fully expect them to be out once they get to the end of the premiere.

Me, I am loving the fact that there is nothing else like this on TV. The same could be said of the original when it aired, and it's shocking how much changes and yet stays the same considering we're 25 more years along and it still takes David Lynch to serve up something truly unique on television. What have these other guys been doing? My boyfriend watched an episode of "Sense8" when I was finished watching the premiere, and the difference in what is passing as entertainment today felt like I had gone from a pristine environment with "Twin Peaks" to breathing in pollution. This is the perfect antidote for someone tired of having their emotions led and manipulated by TV shows that tell you exactly how to feel and think. It's not going to cater to you or babysit you like a child. If requires patience and imagination, and for those willing to stick with it, the results can be so rewarding. Think of it as a purge from all the derivative crap we watch without even realizing how banal it is. Because it takes watching this new "Twin Peaks" to realize just how mediocre our "hit" shows really are. I look forward to being cleansed once a week for the next few months.

Sense8 (2015–2018)

Melodramatic music video with some dialogue.

[22 May 2017]

Seemingly aimed at millennials moved by pretty cinematography, pretty actors, pop music, and the occasional orgy, I just can't seem to get into this show.

Why is it that every scene has to have music in the background? Is it to make your story feel more exciting or are you covering up the bad dialogue by distracting the viewers? And what is up with the music montages set to dance/pop music that seem to crop up every five minutes? Is this "Baywatch"? Why can't you just focus on the story and keep it flowing without randomly inserting a music video in the middle of the show? I have a feeling I am simply not the target audience for this show, and I'm 32. It feels catered to those with short attention spans who mistake quality for being led around by the nose and shown how to think and feel about every scene. Everything from the music to the dialogue is manipulative in the sense that it wears its heart on its sleeve and drives the emotion of the scene through your brain like a railroad spike. There is no subtlety, it's all right there on the screen being spoon-fed to you in sugary doses. This is not intelligent writing or even good direction, it's just flashy and emotionally manipulative.

This series is honestly like a new pop song on the radio. It may feel good going in, but once you process what's being said or dig deeper into it, it's just a generic piece of entertainment fodder with no lasting substance. Maybe that's what people are into these days, but I have a feeling this won't stand the test of time and 20 years from now this show will be ripe for a few good parodies.

Alien: Covenant (2017)

A very frustrating film experience.

[20 May 2017]

If I had to make an analogy involving this film, it would be a stupid one involving let's say, bacon. You love bacon. On burgers. And you've just ordered a bacon burger from a fast food restaurant you love. Your mouth is watering as you open the wrapper for what is sure to be a delicious bacon burger, only your heart sinks when you realize there's just one measly strip on it. While you can enjoy the parts of the burger where you can taste some of the bacon, you can't ensure there's a piece in every bite. So the rest? It's just not the same. In this case, the "Alien" franchise itself is the bacon, and "Alien: Covenant" is the rest of the burger.

It's unlikely anyone going into an "Alien" film with original director Ridley Scott behind the helm can put aside their expectations. Maybe that's our fault for going into it with baggage and not judging this new installment on its own merits. But given how great Scott was with the original material back in the 70s, one can't be faulted for hoping another film involving the notorious creatures on a ship in space directed by the same man contains a modicum of the directorial style and suspense as his first effort. And this is where the film lets us down.

I understand it's 2017 and maybe audiences can no longer cope with such a slow burn as "Alien." They need faster pacing, special effects, and more blood and gore. Fair enough--we do get all of that. But the problem this time around is that while the scenes not involving the alien were spent on building suspense in the original, this time they're all centered around people walking around and talking...walking around and gazing at a new planet...walking around and philosophizing...basically, where the original used its quiet moments to increase fear and isolation, this one fills the non-alien segments with a bunch of "can we please get on with it already" moments. There's a moment when the characters are exploring an unknown, apparently human-friendly planet that seems to drag on forever, only that's the thing--it really doesn't. It just feels that way. I found myself wondering when the hell the creatures were going to show up, whereas with the original film I enjoyed every minute of anticipation getting there. To put it succinctly, the pacing is all over the place this time out and everything feels uneven.

Complicating matters are the interchangeable characters whose names I cannot even remember, spare David and the briefly mentioned Elizabeth Shaw...both from the previous film "Prometheus." Ask anyone who the main characters in "Alien" were and you'll get Ripley for sure, if not Dallas and Lambert to boot. But when I walked out of the theater after seeing "Covenant", I couldn't even tell you the name of the main female lead. Yeah.

Like "Prometheus", director Ridley Scott also places the CGI front and center rather than making it feel like an organic part of the film. We know these people are living in the future, but rather than let the special effects serve as a backdrop, they too often dominate the film and become set pieces in themselves.

All of this is a real shame considering Scott clearly still has what it takes to deliver some fantastic suspense sequences. There is one scene in particular that I felt rivaled the intensity of the "chestburster" scene in the original, and a certain sequence taking place in a shower room is also commendable for how well it is shot and executed. But these standout bits are few and far between.

"Covenant" is a mashup of the battle scenes from "Aliens", the "monster loose on a ship" setup from the original, with a dash of "Prometheus" thrown in. The result is uneven all around, but still showcases some of Scott's flashes of brilliance here and there (the bacon!). What a shame the overall result couldn't have been more consistent.

24: Legacy (2016–2017)

Missing that old spark.

[4/10 · 20 March 2017]

I remember when the original "24" began, it was the best thing since sliced bread in terms of TV. In 2001 we were just beginning to see the upward tick of quality series that would eventually lead to a golden age of television with networks like HBO, FX, AMC, and now Netflix contributing some of the most engaging series ever made for the small screen and turning television into an experience akin to going to the cinema.

"24" was dark, edgy, it had novelty with the fresh real-time concept, and it had a very engaging plot and a great lead. It was TV crack.

"Legacy" attempts to recapture that magic, but ultimately fails. It's not that Kiefer is no longer around. It's not that the real-time format is old hat now. It's the fact that the human drama is no longer interesting and the plot is a rehash of old ideas like being served warmed-up leftovers that have been in the fridge a day too long.

The suspense isn't as intense, the actors aren't as intriguing, and there's no blonde little girl running around getting into mishaps with cougars and everything else. In essence, the "magic" is missing from this reincarnation and that feeling of being on the edge of your seat for the entire hour is sorely lacking. This is "24", no doubt, but it's a hollow version of its predecessor that lacks bite and feels so very routine. Even the dark, brooding nature of the original series is absent and composer Sean Callery's themes are strangely lackluster and fail to pull you in.

I am holding out hope that this improves, though as of this writing we are currently on episode 5. As of now, this is watered-down "24" with no soul, no grit, and no spunk. What do you have left? A by-the-numbers action series with shootouts, explosions, and people running around "doing things." This reboot needs a soul. Right now it's "watch in the background while playing on your phone" material.

31 (2016)

A mashup of Zombie's greatest hits.

[3/10 · 10 March 2017]

You've gotta hand it to Rob Zombie: no matter how many complaints he gets about his tropes, the man uncompromisingly refuses to alter his style and continues to churn out tonally similar films as a F.U. to those who bash anything with his name on it. The man has shown he has zero you-know-whats to give when it comes to his "haters" and, over a decade and 6 films into his career, you should know by now whether he's your cup of tea.

"31" continues to expand on the "white trash horror" trope we've all come to expect from Mr. Zombie, focusing almost as a showcase for his greatest hits, if you will. There's the repulsive characters with foul mouths who look like they haven't bathed in five years, the grimy sets, the over-the-top gore, a pulsing soundtrack evened out with some 70s rock hits, shaky cam, extreme close-ups, his wife, 8mm-style footage...name anything in more than one of his films and it's here.

This time around we get: the sheer insanity and crazy kaleidoscopic colors of "House of 1000 Corpses", the grittiness and desert locations of "The Devil's Rejects", the violence of his "Halloween" films, and the lens flares and stylish shots from "The Lords of Salem", which Zombie has thankfully chosen to revisit here on a few occasions. Oh, and it all takes place on...Halloween! Like I said, this literally plays out like a "Best Of" showcase incorporating elements from all of his previous films. Given that, there's something that should be obvious by now: if you didn't care for any of his previous films, your mind still won't be swayed by this one. But that's the beauty of it for his fans: they know what to expect and Rob continues to deliver it.

I would argue that this film is well-directed and I imagine that would elicit a few shocks, but so what? The truth of the matter is that Rob has visited these streets so often that it should be clear by now he knows exactly what he's doing. The man overwhelmingly makes a particular style of film--one many people fail to connect with--and I would argue he does it well. Over the years, he has managed to create a style all his own, to the point I'd argue anyone familiar with horror would be able to pick out a Rob Zombie film if it didn't have his name on it. That's the beauty of directors like Argento, Zombie, Bava, Tarantino, etc.: that even if you don't like their work, you can almost immediately identify it. Some may balk at me lumping him in with those greats, but tell me, how many modern horror directors have such a distinct style associated with them that you can actually pick them out from the herd of other horror directors all making endless cookie cutter mainstream fare? For every James Wan, there's directors making jump-scare films with no personality to them--faceless directors you wouldn't be able to distinguish between had the credits not told you. Zombie, love him or hate him, does not fall into that category.

Is this a perfect film? No. As usual, Rob's dialogue remains his weakest link in the creative chain, but his visuals remain spot-on. Oh, it's all shaky cam, you say? Nonsense. He has developed a distinct use of color and utilizes his aspect ratio admiringly well on some shots, showing he CAN make a conventional "beautiful" horror film should he want to--and indeed "The Lords of Salem" is the closest he's ventured in that direction--but, for most of the running time, chooses to disorient the viewer with crazy angles, hellish images, and the always-present feeling of being dirty. I still can't watch a Rob Zombie film without wanting to shower afterwards.

What did I enjoy about this one? I loved the pacing, I dug the 70s tracks and the thumping music during the suspenseful bits, I appreciated his willingness to revisit the beautiful lens flares and stylish shots from "The Lords of Salem", I admired the desert scenery and the homages to his past work (the abduction scene is immediately reminiscent of the one in "House of 1000 Corpses") and I thought his long takes of dialogue and close-ups really fleshed out his style on this one.

For those that care, there's also a definite "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" vibe going on here that I dug.

So non-fans, sorry: this isn't the one that will sway you and it's looking increasingly unlikely that film will ever come unless Rob completely alters his approach. For those that enjoyed his past work (even just one of them), there may be something for you here.

Keep on rockin', Mr. Zombie. I can always count on you to put on a good show. In the theater, of course. I haven't listened to your music...

Blair Witch (2016)

One of the most over-hyped letdowns of 2016.

[3/10 · 15 September 2016]

So much for months of hype starting with The Woods trailer months ago which was eventually revealed to be this film.

You want scary? You won't find it here unless you've never seen one of the Insiduous/Paranormal Activity/Conjuring clones to come out in the past 5 years. It uses the exact same scare tactics that made those films so successful, bringing nothing but a completely derivative experience to the table.

This completely failed to capture anything that made the original such a disturbing experience. They replaced subtlety and dread with loud sound effects, jump scares, and video game glimpses of cliché figures.

Did you see VHS? Did you handle it well? Congrats, you'll have zero problems sitting through Blair Witch. The first segment of VHS and the religious cult segment of part 2 are both scarier than the entirety of this film.

The worst part is Wingard and his crew don't even attempt to bring any original story elements to the table. This is literally a rehash of the original story with more characters and a flying drone with updated cameras. And don't expect to have the experience enhanced by any of these.

It's funny that even with the new expanses in technology they still couldn't make this thing more interesting than something that was filmed with 1999 equipment.

This isn't a spiritual successor to The Blair Witch Project, it's a found footage jump scare film for millennials who loved VHS and Paranormal Activity. I'm stumped as to who this was even made for. Certainly not people who saw the original in 1999 like me. We're a little too old to fall for this shtick.

Girl House (2014)

A surprising slasher gem!

[4/10 · 14 March 2015]

I didn't have high hopes given the premise and thought it would be a cheap excuse to show more porn than actual horror, but boy was I wrong: as a fan of slashers, I can say this is quality stuff! There is some really slick direction going on in some scenes ala other films like You're Next where a scene will suddenly transition into slow motion during the action, the acting is surprisingly impressive given the fact these actresses had to be comfortable showing some skin at various parts of the movie (that usually tends to attract lesser-quality actresses), there is some nice tension, some great and inventive kills, and a truly hair-raising killer. The mask and outfit are crucial in a slasher film, and this one gets it right. The killer also runs (heck, he hauls butt at various points) and is physically foreboding, all adding up to a menacing villain. Treat yourself to one of the few good slashers to come along in quite some time because I know I enjoyed the heck out of myself with this one. P.S. The score is great, too!