This is a rare film that actually did better at the box office it's second week rather than the first week of release. There is only one reason for that, the tie in to Valentine's Day. In fact February 14th was the highest grossing day for the film, almost double the take from the Friday before. People must be desperate for a film that they can share on Valentine's Day, if this is the thing they committed their romantic holiday to. It is not very good. The level of stupidity can be offset just a little bit by attractive casting.
"Heart Eyes" is a romantic comedy that morphs into a slasher film, in spite of the fact that it starts with a couple of gruesome murders. That is because the murders are so disconnected from anything that we know about this world. The initial couple that we see killed are trying to produce the perfect tick tock video proposal, and you will dislike them immediately. They are self absorbed and controlling, but that doesn't mean they should be murdered or that we should care that they are. The real story starts with a young ad executive who has miscalculated how to promote romance and engagement jewelry, at the wrong time and in the wrong way. We are supposed to see immediately that she is a darling who has just made a mistake and is uncomfortable with her tasks. I see a stereotypical female romantic lead, who is portrayed as clever but makes every silly mistake you can imagine in the first two acts. The meet cute with her rom-com counterpart is actually a nice play on the trope and he is attractively packaged.
The problem is that the psycho killer is stalking couples and they accidentally become one that the killer is focusing on. Because we know nothing about the killer, other than their costume, we have no idea what the motive is or how the killer thinks. We are getting less than half of the usual slasher film here and the romantic comedy stuff gets run over by the repeated attempts on the lives of our two "non-lovers". Once in a while that pays off with a funny bit of business but not consistently.
If the reveal of the killer feels like an anticlimax, that's because it is. There is more to it and we get a stapled on ending in the third act. If you don't feel cheated by the preposterous new reveal, then all I can say to you is I have an extremely rare copy of "Speed" on Laserdisc that I will let go for $200. Look, I'm a horror fan and I forgive a lot of bad storytelling to allow a fright film room to operate in, but this film expects too much of us simply because it centers around a holiday.
The best "kills" are revealed in the trailer, so save yourself some time, watch that and get your gore fix. Now put on your LED lit goggles and go out and find somebody to share a real movie with.
How some films become cult classics is beyond me. It's obvious that a film like "Rocky Horror Picture Show" was picked up by fans because of the obvious opportunities to participate in the fun. I never understood why "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension" wasn't a hit in the first place, but it makes perfect sense that it is revered now because it's concept and execution are finally recognized. There however is little reason to believe that "My Bloody Valentine" from 1981 will ever be seen as a hidden gem. The remake from a dozen years ago was far superior in every way. How does that happen?
This Canadian film as little going for it, except the title. The production values on the movie are not great, the script is at times preposterous, and frankly the acting is atrocious. I know they were working on a small budget, and the actors are relatively inexperienced, but it never seems like they got a second take to fix things in their original line deliveries. Sometimes the presentation is so wooden you think the movie is a parody of horror slashers. It's not a parody, it's simply not a very good. Maybe the final song and the demented fade out account for whatever credence the film has.
This criticism should be seen as a reason not to see the film. I still enjoyed being in the theaters the other night, sort of experiencing a nostalgic rush of '80s Horror. As long as you don't mind a horror movie that is not particularly frightening, and is not very titillating, then you can enjoy this film. The main thing that it has going for it is that preposterous concept. A crazed miner, rescued from a cave in after surviving by cannibalizing other coworkers while awaiting rescue, became a spree killer. Now 20 years later, it seems that the spree killer has returned, provoked by the Valentine's Day celebrations which ignored the lead up to the disaster two decades earlier. The pickaxe that is used to kill some of the victims is a good concept but it's not visualized in a very interesting way. Which is why the movie fails to satisfy fans of gore. The kills are relatively tame, and most of them lack of jump scare to pull them off.
I can see what this movie wants to be, and I can also see where it misses the mark on a regular basis. The 2009 3D version at least had the good sense to include an eyeball impaled on the end of the pickaxe, in a 3-d effect. That's a movie that knows what it's supposed to be doing. So for nostalgia and for setting up the concept, "My Bloody Valentine" is adequate, the problem is it never gets to be insane until the last moment when the crazed killer is finally revealed and runs off screaming curses and a vow to kill again. That's sort of the delivery which could have made this a lot more entertaining.
Updating a classic monster to contemporary times sometimes requires a little creativity. The Wolfman from 1940, was a Universal horror movie that featured a Sad Sack leading character slowly being turned into a murderous animal. He had a fairly warm relationship with his father, he met a girl he was interested in, and he was way laid by a werewolf and thus began his own transformation. The formula for the movie today varies this a little bit. The main protagonist is still a bit of a sad sack, but he has a great relationship with his daughter, a strange relationship with his father, and is married to a woman that he loves but is growing distant from. His transformation doesn't wait for a full moon, and it is a slow build. We don't have to wait for a silver bullet, we just know that there are monsters out there and that our main characters are going to be threatened.
It's a little bit odd that I saw this movie the night after I saw Flight Risk. Both movies are essentially three character stories, mainly set in one location. A lot of horror movies benefit from the simplicity of such a setting because it forces the directors to become creative how Danger can be just about anywhere. Director Leigh Whannel, is an Old Pro at making horror films, and does a pretty good job at tightening the screws up. Wolfman is a Slow Burn is but it is generally effective.
My reservations about the film are mostly due to the casting and performances. The lead actress, Julia Garner, who was so wonderful in the TV series Ozark, is miscast in this role. She seems to be too young for the kind of character she is supposed to be portraying. She is also not as emotionally engaged in the first part of the film if she needs to be to make the second part of the film work. She does fine with the fear elements of the script, but her characters connection with her husband feels detached and Lacks energy. I did think however she had a good moment when the family picks up a neighbor as they are trying to locate instead. That may have been her best scene in the film.
The husband , played by Christopher Abbott, is also so low-key that it takes us a while to recognize anything is really a danger to him. His physical transformation is put off for quite a while, and well there are animalistic characteristics, it is mostly his physical activity rather than his appearance that makes him wolf like. There are two or three really good bits of business that illustrate this transformation without his face growing hair. I don't want to give too much away let's just say when he investigates a noise upstairs in the house his discovery of its source is one of the best surprises in the film. The other element of the movie that works well in showing how he is losing his Humanity and ability to relate to his family, is the 180° camera move that changes perspectives from the husband to the wife and Back Again. The filters used, and the visual effects as well as the sound editing are very clever it explaining exactly what's going on.
There are a few jump scares, and there is quite a bit of screaming and panic as dangerous characters Chase the family around The Farmhouse and barn that are the primary locations of the film. By the way the film is set in Oregon, produced in New Zealand, and largely shot in Ireland. I'm sure this hybrid of locations is a result of financing rather than artistic choices. I did mention that there are primarily three characters in the story, but they aren't the only ones that do play A Part. Early on, we get a sequence that sets up our main character as a young boy, and tells us of the life he led with a paranoid prepper father. I suppose it is supposed to set up the characters actions later in the film, but I found the sequence to be the most suspenseful and interesting in the movie. Too bad it's over in the first 10 minutes.
This is not a bad film, it's just not as good as it ought to be. The characters are sympathetic but I never felt particularly engaged by them, with the exception of the relationship between the little girl and the story and her father. It's just too bad that most of the suspense elements of the film focus on the mother's actions, and it simply feels like any other horror chase film where the character is being pursued they can to improvise and get away from the monster that's chasing them. The movie sets up the idea that there is a subtext, but never delivers on that. It stays at a very surface level, which is okay for a horror film, but keeps it from being particularly distinctive.
This is one of those films that I hope I’ll be able to draft tomorrow on my Lancaster show. We are having a draft of horror films made and released prior to 1973. Rosemary’s Baby from 1968 not only fulfills the requirement okay in the appropriate time, but also being a truly creepy horror film, and one that is extremely well made. It was produced surprisingly, by William Castle, who was Notorious for making the budget gimmick horror films, like The Tingler, 13 Ghosts, and the House on Haunted Hill. He snapped up the rights to make the movie, by buying a book for adaptation before anyone else could get to it. Unfortunately for him, he spent all of his money buying the rights, and had none left to make the movie, which forced him to seek financing, and resulted in a studio-based film, and the studio insisted on hiring their own director. Roman Polanski is notorious nowadays, but at the time he was one of the hot directors in Europe, and this is a movie that put him in the top ranks.
The film is a very literal story about the birth of Satan’s child. You can struggle to look for metaphor or allegory here, but when it comes to the main plot line, Satan rapes a young woman and she is forced to carry out a pregnancy it is going to result in the birth of what is likely to be the Antichrist. This movie came out 5 years before The Exorcist, and 8 years before The Omen. It has very few horror effects, there is one death on screen, and a couple that are implied which take place off screen. The makeup in the film is not full of Prosthetics and goo with blood, there’s only a hint of the devil’s actual appearance with some close-ups on demonic eyes. Most of the makeup involves showing star Mia Farrow as becoming somewhat emaciated in the early stages of her pregnancy. Instead of glowing like a pregnant woman would she seems to be disappearing, pound by pound.
Mia Farrow gives on heroic performance as Rosemary, loving wife of a struggling New York actor, who is befriended by some oddballs in the somewhat sketchy apartment building she and her husband have taken up Residence in. Early acquaintance, when Rosemary has met in the laundry room basement, ends up dead and that is the most gruesome scene in the film. The young woman was staying with the older couple who lives next door to Rosemary and her husband. And it seemed that they were helping her recover from a sordid life of drug use and promiscuity. We never really learn why she died, but it is strongly suggested that the appearance of Rosemary suddenly was a opportunity that was a lot more promising for the coven of witches that occupy the building. Yes that’s right, I said witches.
The older couple next door, take up a particular interest in Rosemary and her husband, and begin to insert themselves into the young couples lives. To some degree Rosemary is happy to have some company, but she does seem to recognize that her husband is taken an unhealthy interest in their neighbors life story. He frequently spends time with the older couple, well Rosemary tries to maintain some distance. Rosemary’s husband is played by the great John Cassavetes, and at times he is a solicitous husband, but at other times he’s an insensitive prick. He and rosemary seem sexually compatible and happy, but he struggles with career uncertainty, and the fear that comes from where your next job is going to be coming from. Things get a little desperate when he loses a part in a play that could have brought him some much-needed attention. Like Cassavetes himself, the actor resents having to work for money, particularly in television commercials. His luck suddenly changes when tragedy strikes the actor who had been cast in the role that he was up for, and the part defaults to him.
This is all my way up set up, because this is really a character based film more than a plot based movie. Rosemary is driven to preserve her marriage in the face of the economic uncertainty that the two of them are confronted by. She also is in the process of nesting, and the desire for a child feels very natural at this point in their relationship. Once it is discovered that Rosemary is pregnant, the old couple next door begins to offer assistance. Ruth Gordon is an eccentric woman who has what appear to be friendly intentions, and some odd cooking skills. Her husband insists that Rosemary see the obstetrician that he is friends with. So the story focuses on this vulnerable young woman, being prayed upon with affection by her husband and Neighbors, and she doesn’t realize how much she is being manipulated. The doctor she sees is played by Ralph Bellamy, and he seems the picture of a wise and comforting older doctor, full of credibility. He needs all of that credibility because he keeps dismissing the problems the Rosemary is facing in her pregnancy. It’s hard for us to imagine the pregnant woman will allow her health to deteriorate the way it did in the early stages of the pregnancy, without seeking some substantial Medical advice. The assurances of her doctor only carry weight because of his reputation. It takes the intervention of some of her younger friends to convince her that she needs to see the original doctor she visited with in order to get a second opinion. Conveniently at that point the negative symptoms she’s experiencing cease, and it seems that the doctor was right all along, which reinforces The credibility he had originally.
The whole movie is about atmosphere, and the old apartment building that’s a couple moves into is full of it before we even meet the characters that fill it up. There’s a long sense of dread in the last third of the film, but they’re also some comical moments with the witches coven struggling to deal with playing nursemaid to hell spawn. Mia farrow’s expression when she finally gets a chance to see her baby is one that is perfectly horrifying, and ultimately maternal which is the real horrific twist in the film. Roman Polanski Maybe a horrible human being but he was a hell of a director, and as noted in another film, this movie made him the biggest director in the world at the time.
This is a worthy follow-up to the two previous films, set in the world that suddenly has to be silent. The original "A Quiet Place" was one of the best films of its year and continues to inspire us in the performance of Emily Blunt. She does not make an appearance in this film which is set in New York City on the day that the aliens first arrived on Earth. Our new protagonist is named Samira, and she has a different set of problems that she has to manage. She doesn't have children and she's not pregnant, but she does have a cat and I don't think this is much of a spoiler, but she is also terminally ill. This puts a new face on the survival theme of the movie, and the perspective is an interesting one especially when contrasted with the other characters she encounters.
Samira our lead character is played by actress Lupita Nyong'o, who speaks sparingly and communicates so much with her eyes and body language. She is a defiant patient at a hospice facility, she is much younger then most of the other clients there, and this displacement has given her additional attitude toward the world around her. It may in fact be that defiant attitude that helps her navigate the crumbling city as the auditory predators are taking out the population rapidly.
The characters in this version of the story don't have the advantage of speaking sign language, they have to rely on descriptive gestures, pointing, and occasional notes on whatever surface is available for them to write on. This adds an extra wrinkle to the story and makes every potential attempt to communicate a bigger threat because of the high concentration of aliens in the city. Having established that the waterfall effect blocks the aliens ability to hear low-spoken dialogue, there is an interesting sequence where Samira encounters two children hiding inside of a water fountain and she tries to direct them to a safer spot. In the long run we never discover what happens to the vast majority of people that she encounters. We do get a dramatic moment with some of the people that she knew from the hospice, but those folks on the streets are not likely to make it to the next scene, at least not for long.
It is probably essential that another person be involved in the story for us to be able to engage with the character. About a third of the way into the film Samara encounters a frightened law school student from Great Britain who is so uncertain about what to do that he is practically in tears. The two of them form a tenuous alliance in order to navigate the treacherous streets of New York City in an attempt to reach a pier on the river. Supposedly boats are being used to transport survivors off of Manhattan Island, where it appears that the aliens have trapped themselves due to their inability to navigate water. We know from other films that this is it best a short-term solution, but that's not really part of this particular story. (Although there is one link to the second film)
The first act of the film sets up the conflict and establishes Samira's character, it also provides us with a lot of action beats. During the second act the action moments are more subdued but there are occasional outbursts of violence and more people are sacrificed to the narrative of overwhelming odds facing them. One of the best moments in that opening act involves Samira taking in a marionette puppet show, that she has been maneuvered into attending with other patients at the hospital. Although very resistant to the idea, she did become entranced by a couple of moments in the show, which of course is exactly the point at which the alien invasion arrives. The contrast between human ability to create something beautiful and the aliens ability to destroy everything that humans have created is exactly what was needed at the start of the story. We also get a sense of how headstrong Samira is because of the way she handles being dragged to the puppet show.
The movie is not quite as frightening as it's two predecessors, in large part that's because we already know what the rules are concerning the aliens. We also see the alien creatures far too much in the light of day, and up close. So it is mostly the sudden lightning-like appearance of the aliens when alerted by a sound that gives us a jump scare or two along the way. Most of the fright that takes place in this film is a result of anxiety as we watch the characters that we are growing to care about, struggle to hide and remain silent in the face of the threat. Djimon Hounsou has two brief scenes in the film, in the first act, a moment of desperation changes him forever, but in the final act, we see that fear and survival instincts have not eliminated his humanity.
I can recommend the film as a piece of tense theater with two central performances that are very effective. Our terminally ill hospice patient and her frightened companion the British law student, are an unlikely match, but in the long run they show us that humanity can exist even in the worst circumstances, and even between people with very little to connect them, that is ,except maybe a cat.
This is a movie that would have worked so much better if the premise had not been given away in all of the advertising and the trailer. What starts off as a tense kidnapping story, takes a turn a quarter of the way into the movie, and it's a very clever twist. The problem is that we all knew it was coming, which undermines a lot of the stuff they get set up at the start of the film. That said, there is still fun to be had here because when it hits the fan, there's a glorious amount of Gore, violence, and ironic comedy.
Basically this is a variation of 100 other horror stories over the years. 10 Little Indians, Alien, The House on Haunted Hill, and dozens of other movies where a group of people are trapped in a situation where they will be picked off one at a time. Will they be able to figure out a solution? Will the antagonist reveal a motive? Is there any point to the story? The answers to these and other questions will come if you stay to the end of the movie. As in a lot of contemporary films, the people involved are not particularly pleasant, and we may very well feel that as things go along that some of them are getting what they deserved. Let's face it, everybody in this house was there because they were kidnapping a little girl. Maybe some of them are worse than others, and maybe there is possible redemption, but we're going to have to get a lot of dead bodies before we get to the point where we're glad that anybody is surviving.
Imagine if you were Claudia from the film "Interview with the Vampire", and you had to spend your eternal life as a child. What kinds of amusements could you come up with to keep you interested and at the same time allow you to continue your cover as an innocent child? Well that's basically what this film attempts to answer. The fact that the house it's full of booby traps, secret passages, and dark foreboding images adds to the fun. Characters betray one another and sometimes they actually support one another, but we're never sure of which outcome we're going to get before the events play out. This is where some of the fun comes in. This movie is not quite as engaging as "Ready or Not", the film from the directors that preceded this, but it's unlikely that you'll feel ripped off by watching it. Especially if you enjoy over the top monster action that results in blood splattered all over the screen on the set.
Actor Kevin Durant is a Canadian performer that I have seen in movies since the late 1990s. He's a big guy with a distinctive face and I've enjoyed most of his performances. This week, after not having seen him in films for several years because he was working regularly on on several television series, he turns up in two movies that I saw back to back. In "Abigail" he is the muscle on the team of kidnappers, and in "Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes", he performs and voices the King, Proximo. It's strange sometimes how little things line up and create interesting coincidences. He's actually very good in this film trying to be a sympathetic monster of a human when faced with a real life monster it's even more evil than he is.
It's true that in most survival stories, the participants are going to be faced with choices that they have to make which involve moral dilemmas. It's also true that we can probably pick out some of the characters who will not have any moral qualms about stabbing their fellow survivors in the back in order to be the ones who are still standing at the end of the story. We got a couple of those in this film, Complicated by some storytelling that is a little shaky. The resolutions come however they're kind of satisfying.
Don't be too panicked, the people who deserve to go will. Some people who don't deserve to die will. And logic will go out the window pretty quickly, actually just as fast as the windows are shut to close people into the house. Then all bets are off and you should just enjoy the bloody Mayhem.
The trailer is included above, but like a lot of horror films, I think you will enjoy the movie more if you don't watch the trailer first. I knew nothing about this film before I saw it, except that there was a hand. I kept trying to call the movie "Take My Hand" or "Hold My Hand". When the film started, I suddenly discovered that it was an Australian film. OK, I did know that it was a horror film because that's why it was recommended to me. This is the debut feature film from Danny Philippou and Michael Philippou, who collaborated with a bucket load of people to come up with the idea and the script.
The premise will sound like a lot of other horror films, people get enamored with an object that seems to have supernatural abilities, and they end up taking the playful interaction with the spirit world too far. Maybe you remember JoBeth Williams as the Mom in Poltergeist, playing with the spot in the kitchen? It's like that, or as Ian Malcolm would say, "Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and um, screaming." The problem here is that you can't really run away. Somewhere there is also a fentanyl allegory here, because it does not take much to push things over the edge.
Our hero is Mia, played by actress Sophia Wilde, a teen who is dealing with the grief of having lost her mother. She has adopted her friend's family as a surrogate when she has difficulty interacting with her dad. Here Best friend Jade and Jade's younger brother Riley are her closest confidants. Like all teens, they sneak out to party, but this time they are going to a gathering where people are taking turns interacting with the spirit world. I don't really believe in that sort of supernatural stuff, but I would not be taking those chances anyway, why tempt fate? Of course if people never made stupid choices, most horror movies would end before they begin.
There are a couple of jump scares but the most horrifying moments are of self destructive behavior by those in the thrall of the supernatural hand at the center of the disturbances. Horror movies often leave things abstract, because an answer to some questions would minimize the mystery of what is happening. There is a bit of that here in the second and third acts of the film. Mia is drawn to the spirit world for one reason and repulsed by it for others. Is she hearing the truth or is she simply imposing her fears on the voices she is listening to. It is not quite clear, and the resolution does little to make it easy to understand.
I did think the final moments of the film work pretty well. We get some good suspense, an ironic outcome and a sense that the story is never really finished. Because we are seeing a distorted world it is not entirely clear how some of the other characters get resolved, but that is a minor quibble. The film was able to create a sense of dread, follow that up with some shocks and finish off with a frightening coda. That makes it a successful outing as far as I'm concerned and I would recommend the film to you.
So far, I have not been disappointed with any of the "Scream" films. They are a great amalgam of horror, film tropes, meta analysis and comedy. The fact that these have managed to sustain themselves for twenty-five plus years is impressive. Watching each new version is also an opportunity to peek into the development process of the franchise because they put their thinking right in the script and invite everyone to appreciate and laugh at it. The movies have managed to stay this side of parody but to also enjoy some of the clear cutting that parody allows.
The previous iteration of the films was a "requel" , a term I'd not heard before but is a perfect sniglet for the type of film we are seeing. These are not reboots where the series is starting over, and the two most recent films are not direct sequels to the original four films. What we are getting is an integration of new characters with the old (legacy) characters, and a new scenario that ties back to the previous story lines but usually in a circuitous manner. In this case, we need a link to the original series of murders and the deaths in the previous film. When the resolution comes, the tie in is just adequate enough to satisfy the desire for this universe of killings to all be interrelated.
One way that the film subverts itself is in the opening. There is the traditional phone exchange and then a gruesome murder, but the the identity of the killer appears to be revealed. Will we be looking at this story with a completely different perspective for the remaining time? I won't spoil things for you but I will say that the traditions of the tropes are respected, even as they are being mocked. I found that sequence very clever and enjoyable. The new cast, which may be referred to as the "core four", then gets the front and center attention we are expecting. Jasmin Savoy Brown as Mindy, again gets to pontificate on the traditional tropes of a horror film, but then expand on the convoluted explanations that her character provided before. Everyone questions their role on the story, and people who are in on the joke (that's you and me) get to laugh at the obviousness of some of the points and the cleverness with which we then get thrown off of the trail, and finally the realization that the film has stuck to it's stated "rules" after all.
Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega are back as the main characters of the Carpenter sisters. Big Sister Sam is trying to cope with and manage her heritage still and the trauma she has undergone. Younger sister Tara is trying to sublimate the trauma, and that forms the early conflict in the story. Once the more active pursuit of Ghostface starts however, those sibling issues get shunted aside for the horror tropes we are looking for. Courtney Cox returns as Gale Weathers, and there is a little contentiousness because of events that supposedly happened between the two films, but that goes away pretty quickly as well.
I'm not ashamed to say that in most of the previous films, my first time through, I was fooled by the tricks and taken in by assumptions which lead to my surprise at the reveal. This was the first of the films where I saw what was going to happen, at least in part, before the final reel. In trying to play fair, the screenwriters gave one character a piece of dialogue which is a tell. If you are looking for it, you will probably see it as well. Everything won't be explained, but you can connect the dots rapidly as the conclusion plays out. I don't consider this a flaw in the film, just a moment of clarity that comes from having seen this form of story subterfuge play out before.
David Arquette is missed but only because his character was well beloved. Mason Gooding as the fourth corner of the "core four", clearly looks like he will be taking over many of the tropes that Deputy Dewey had in the previous films. There is a callback moment near the end which make me laugh really hard. Some characters just are too resilient. If you stick it out through the credits, there is one more joke and good laugh to be had, but be warned, it will be at your expense.
This looks like a home invasion horror film, but it has a different take on that genre, one that is not quite given away by the trailer, and it is a pretty good turn. That said, the biggest spoiler that is possible is to say that M. Night Shyamalan leans into the concept of the story, and there is no big twist ending. It plays out in a very straight forward manner, generating all of it's tension from the impossible choice that is being given to the family.
Without going into too much plot, the family is tasked with making a sacrifice and the four strangers who have captured them in the vacation cabin, attempt to convince them that the prediction of the apocalypse is real. Most of the dramatic elements of the film revolve around this attempt at persuasion. The strategies used seem to de-escalate instead of building. Force and threat is the first approach, conveyed by Ron Weasley himself, Rupert Grint. Since this approach dissipates quickly, you might think that the tension level would drop, but instead it actually increases.
The emotional plea is very effective if you can empathize with Adrienne, the cook played by Abby Quinn. She is sincere and seems motivated by her desire to save her own child from the horrors that the visions hold for the four heralds who have invaded the house. One of the reasons that her empathetic pleas fail to register with one of the two dads in the story, is that he dismisses even the existence of her child. In a strange quirk, one of the reasons he doubts any of the people who have shown up is a prejudice he has built up in reaction to an attack on him many years earlier. He has associated the homophobic assault from earlier, with religious beliefs, and since the four people presenting this scenario seem to believe that this is a divine message, then the whole thing appears as a plot to Andrew, played by Ben Aldridge. The other dad, Eric, played by Johnathan Groff, has some religious background and he seems more open to at least listen to what has been said.
Another element that keeps the tension up is that the two das and their little girl, respond exactly as you would think a rational person would to this kind of approach. They are fearful, convinced that the four people are delusional fanatics who have met on a message board and are playing out some social contagion of end of times beliefs. They fight in any way they can when given the opportunity. The irrational beliefs of the four invaders overwhelm their rational explanations and approaches to the embattled family. Apart from one character, the other three all seem sincere and even tempered. One is a little desperate, but all of them are trying to find convincing ways to influence the family to choose.
Dave Batista as Leonard, the apparent leader of the four, is calm, even tempered, and approaches the little girl Wen, in as non-threatening a manner as a man of his looks could come up with. There are a couple of action moments, but Batista is not here to exert control through his physical power, but rather, his level even toned voice and his demonstrable regret at what he feels they are compelled to do. It is a very good performance from an actor that is going against type to make the story work.
I have a few reservations about the interpretations that get offered in the climax of the film. I think that the flashbacks of the family are fine, but I also think some history of the antagonists would have made this more understandable. The effects found at the end of the film, are not quite enough to explain how it all came together. The cryptic drawings and doodles in the opening are not much help either. This was a pretty effective thriller, if you can buy into the premise. It is easy enough to do, most of us have played "would you rather" a couple of times in conversations. This just gives us the ultimate version of that party prompt.
Throwback Thursday on the KAMAD site will be a regular occurrence in the next year. As a motivational project, to make sure I am working on something, even in a week where I don't see a new film in a theater, I am going to post on movies from 1975. Along with 1984, this is one of my favorite years for movies and it is full of bittersweet memories as well. 1975 was my Senior Year in High School and my Freshman Year in College. The greatest film of the last 60 years came out in 1975, as well as dozens of great and not so great cinematic endeavors. Most of the films in this weekly series will have been seen in a theater in 1975, but there are several that I only caught up with later. I hope you all enjoy.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
I have been an apologist for this movie since the very first time I saw it, which unfortunately was not during it's original theatrical run. My friend Dan had recommended it, I have no idea why he had seen it and I had not, but it was not until two years later, when it was becoming a cult phenomena, that I discovered the joys of "Rocky Horror". I have heard people say that the movie is terrible and stupid, it's my opinion that those descriptions apply to those critics rather than the film. This is a perfect satire of the culture, science fiction films, and musical theater, all wrapped up as a filmed entertainment.
I will get to the cult audiences in a little bit, I want to start with the film itself. Brad and Janet are like all young couples in horror movies like "The Blob" from the 50s, they get stranded in a rainstorm and end up asking for help at the nearest house. Hysterically, Brad says "Didn't we pass a castle a castle back down the road a few miles?" How can you not be in on the joke at this point? We have already had a corny song about their love, with a deadpan chorus of future characters in the background, and the narrator has pontificated in solemn tones with a melodramatic pause in just the right places. I was laughing at every second glance, cliché, and sly reference to sci/fi horror films.
The title sequence is famous for the close up of the red lips and mouth, this image was used on much of the promotional material as well. When you listen to the lyrics of the song, you should be doing an inventory of all those old movies from RKO, Universal and others that are being referenced so cleverly. The Dana Andrews line should make you plotz. This film version of the stage play was my chance to see the story that had been a popular live show in Los Angeles in 1973. I remember seeing a billboard sized ad on the Shrine Auditorium, for the show that was playing in Hollywood at the Roxy Theater. In the summer of 1973, I attended a workshop for a month at U.S.C. right across from that ad and I thought it was intriguing, but I was too young to be driving over to Hollywood on my own to see the play.
I have always been a fan of musicals, and having seen "Jesus Christ Superstar", I was especially entranced by the Rock musicals of the era. The year before this opened, I'd seen Brian DePalma's "Phantom of the Paradise", which has only a little bit of the tongue in cheek attitude of this film. When Riff Raff points out that Brad and Janet are wet, and she says "Yes, it's raining", the on the nose sarcasm is amusing as heck. And then "The Time Warp". Director Jim Sharman, who had done the play, took full advantage of the film formant to shoot this sequence in interesting Dutch angles, over head Busbee Berkley inspired shots and a cast of background dancers that is demented and dressed to suit that dementia. Having the Criminologist describe the dance and lead us through the steps in inserts during the song is additional icing on the humor of this movie.
When star Tim Curry is slowly revealed as descending in an elevator, the shots are nicely matched with the rhythm transition to his introductory song, and when he throws off his cloak, revealing his get up, if you are not all in at this point, you better just give up, and I pity you. This is a performance that is fully committed, exuberant and just plain old fun. Maybe these days it would not seem shocking, since there seem to be drag performers everywhere, but in 1975, it was audacious. The juxtaposition with the straight laced Barry Bostwick and Susan Sarandon in their square cloths is another way we are being let in on the outrageous joke that everyone is involved with here.
The creepy old house has the requisite living room for our dance sequence, but there is a delightful shot of the laboratory from the elevator perspective which focuses on a color change nearly as dramatic as when Dorothy arrived in Oz. The pink tile floors and walls assault our sense of what a "lab" should be, and the red instrumentation is flashing out at us as a production design made to draw attention to the color scheme. As Brad and Janet step into the scene in their charming underclothes, their sense of alienness is exacerbated. Curry's Colin Clive style delivery of his speech to the conventioneers and the guests, is another salute to the old style of the classic Hollywood horror films. Sarandon and Bostwick are terrific in their uptight, wooden mimicking of the innocent bystanders.
Almost every number is a showstopper, but it never feels like they are trying to outdo themselves from one song to the next. The progression of songs feels organic to the weird nature of the story. Meat Loaf shows up in a spotlight performance which is maybe the one segment that feels a little inorganic, but who cares "Hot Patootie – Bless My Soul" is a smoking solo number that gives us a motorcycle sequence, an axe murder and a chorus line dance, all in a short order and we get saxophone solos. The fifties sensibility with "Eddie" the greaser biker played by MeatLoaf reinforces the rock and roll roots of the musical and the time period of films that are being saluted here.
Several sequences feature musical instruments being used in unusual ways. There is an organ pumping out gothic tunes at first in the scene where Riff Raff is teasing Rocky. Then there is a drum machine and an electronic organ to follow up. The guitars and piano in so many of the songs are more reflective of older style rock songs. The guitar plucking during "Touch-a, Touch-a, Touch-a, Touch Me" reminded me of Elton John's Crocodile Rock. Rock and Roll Porn!
The Experience
When I finally caught up with the film, it was in the Midnight Screenings that happened at the Rialto Theater in South Pasadena on Saturday Nights. In the summer 1977, my then girlfriend and future wife, would drive down to Hollywood for "Star Wars" at the Chinese Theater, and then on Saturday Night, go up to the Rialto for Rocky Horror. The audience participation there was full of the call outs and props that were probably found in other venues around the country. The Janet Umbrella was accompanied by showers provided by squirt guns. Cards and Toast were tossed at the right moments, and the swaying matches during "Over at the Frankenstein Place" probably violated a hundred local codes, but we did not care. When we ventured to the Tiffany Theater in West Hollywood, we were surprised that there was cosplay and that the people dressing up acted out the movie in front of the screen. There was a guy who sold supplies to people in line. He would walk up and down the line with the refrain "Rocky Rice 25, Rocky Matches 10", and he had little bags with the logo filled with rice and matchbooks with the title on them. So for 35 cents you could participate too.
This was a soundtrack that we played in Dolores's dorm room and in the car on a cassette player. The first MeatLoaf album also came out that year and we paired those two together on a regular basis. Oh to be young and in love with the movies.
A ridiculous premise for a film about the consequences of our actions , transforms into an incoherent mess becoming more inconsequential as it goes along. "Infinity Pool" is a horror film with a science fiction conceit that gets completed wasted and turns the story into an examination of unpleasantness for no reason whatsoever. This could have been something interesting and important, and it gets less and less of each of those things the longer it goes on.
Alexander Skarsgård is failed novelist James Foster, on holiday at a resort, in a country trapped in poverty and full of the kinds of cultural improprieties that we are supposed to overlook to avoid ethnocentrism. The tribalism and cultural imperative of family honor requires immediate retribution for offenses committed in the nation. So go ahead and trust the people you just met, and venture outside of the resort enclave, meet people from the place you are visiting, and learn their quaint form of justice, except there is a get out of jail card. Maybe the wilder the idea, the more fun we can have with it, after all "Face Off" ,was a blast in spite of being completely bonkers. The problem here is that no one is having fun with the premise, instead there are pretentions of insight into human behavior. That might have also made for a good story, but writer/director Brandon Cronenberg leaves that on the table to wallow in excess revulsion.
The idea of buying your way out of the consequences of your actions is an interesting one. What does that process do to a persons sense of self. Does guilt linger or vanish? Will your morality disappear entirely? These are great questions that the film asks, but it's answers are muddled by a series of indulgent episodes that become increasingly boring and irritating. Mia Goth, who gave what I thought was a fantastic performance last year in "Pearl", at risk of being trapped in the same kind of roles in the future if she keeps getting parts like this. She is great here, but her character is just a slightly different twist on the sick mind that cropped up in that earlier film. Her character Gabi, at first is mysterious, but quickly becomes tritely cruel and less and less interesting.
A few examples of the pointless excess that Cronenberg has created here might help you understand why this movie is infuriating. Gabi gives James a reach around after a few hours of picnicking with James and his wife? We get to see his seed spilled on the ground. Why? The sense of unearned intimacy is probably what the writer is seeking here, but that is physical rather than emotional, and the emotional is where this movie needs to be working. The best character in the film when it comes to dealing with the questions being raised by the premise, is James's wife Em, played by Cleopatra Coleman. Unfortunately, she is removed from the film and the only characters that James has to measure his behavior against, are the ones who are indulging in the reckless excess that will turn off most of the viewers. There is an extended orgy sequence shot as if it is the "stars" sequence from "2001". It goes on interminably, the lights flash in different colors, and we see hazy images of people entangled in some sort of sexual behavior, but what it is will never become clear. Obtuse abstractness is supposed to be artistic in these moments, rather, it is pretentious diddling. One last thing to irritate you, there are grotesque masks worn by the characters during many of the scenes of violence and lasciviousness. They were introduced early on, without a clear explanation and the cultural symbolism is completely baffling. The art house sensibility can't be masked by the fact that this is a horror film, it simply makes the film less frightening and more vaguely symbolic. I call bullshit.
There was another potential direction the film could have gone in, one that the director set up and then completely ignored. How do we know that the doppelganger is the one being executed? Maybe the accused has been replaced by the clone. If that is the case, is there in fact a redemption of guilt because the surviving "person" is in fact, blameless? That is an intriguing thought. Unfortunately, it is not the thought Cronenberg wanted to dwell on. Instead, we get violent and emotional cruelty. Trippy visual interludes don't make the film deep, they simply fill in the time between unpleasant characters doing more unpleasant things. None of it makes any sense, and the symbolism is too trite to be taken seriously, much less understood. Somewhere some cineaste will write about this and make it sound like an artistic breakthrough, I'm sorry, they will be as full of it as this movie was.
It is possible to spend several paragraphs explaining how this movie could have been something dramatically deep and thematically significant. Like "A.I." from 2001 or "Ex Machina" from 2015, this film deals with the question of human interaction with machines of intelligent design. This movie could have explored issues of attachment, grief, co-dependence, a whole variety of human conditions that might be effected by the development of artificial intelligence. Taking that path however, would have eliminated the primary function of the film, which is to scare us. This is a monster movie, like "Frankenstein", where our own creations turn on us and the audience can at times identify with the monster.
The trailer will give you the set up, but it comes down to this, an artificial person starts acting in ways that are not socially or morally acceptable. There is little doubt as to what is going to happen, this story has been around for a couple hundred years. The thing that makes it a little different is that the monster in in the form of a little girl doll and the person she has been created to assist is herself a little girl. Even though there was a possibility that the story line could turn to end of the world scenarios, it stays a little more grounded and the threats are immediate and localized.
Does it work? As a scare generator it is effective. We get a couple of jump scares but mostly there is a steady build up of tension and the creep factor which keeps us engaged. Dolls seem to be by definition a little disturbing, acting as substitutes for humans, typically in play situations. In this situation the doll is acting as playmate rather than plaything, and has the additional plot of replacing a human component with one that is generated through artificial intelligence. If that replacement of human contact had been followed, you would have a psychological horror film, but not a thriller. This movie goes the thriller route with mysterious deaths and ominous looks from the mechanical star.
Other than the doll itself, the two main characters are played by Allison Williams as Gemma, the aunt who takes in her orphaned niece, and who also happens to be a cutting edge toy designer, and Violet McGraw as Cady, the nine year old with a deep psychological scar from her parents death. The least realistic part of the film is the way these two manage to be around each other before the introduction of the doll. Aunt Gemma acts as if she has never encountered a child before, was detached from her dead sister, and only overcomes professional setbacks by using shortcuts that no legal department would ever really allow. Cady gets a little more leeway, after all she is a kid suffering a great loss, but her character is more truculent than sympathetic. Only a few times, planned to make the other parts of the plot work, does she let her emotional guard down. They are better written characters once the plot kicks in.
M3GAN, is the doll at the center of the story, and she is played by a combination of a young actress in costume and a variety of puppets,and some CGI. The actress/puppet element makes the movie so much more effective because the creepy doll looks like a child sized version of those adult rubber dolls that are sold as sex toys. The element of the story that is helpful in engaging us is how young Cady bonds with Megan and Megan seems to be providing comfort that the Aunt is incapable of. If you watch the demo scene played out where Megan comforts Cady while an audience of executives look on, you can see some to the places that this film could go. It doesn't go there however, it becomes a straight up horror picture,like "Child's Play" but without any supernatural element.
Ever since "2001" let loose an AI that we could not control, there have been a string of horror films that follow the same path. "Skynet" is not that far off my friends. The more we turn our lives over to "Siri", "Alexa" and Bixby", the more vulnerable we will be. Maybe we don't really need to worry about malevolent machines, but we should be worried about the unintended consequences of giving technology increasing control of our daily lives. That's not what this movie is about, but it could have been. This is a solid January horror film, but it will be forgotten when the next scary movie comes out.
Part social satire, part morality tale and part horror film, "The Menu" mixes it's ingredients in the right proportions to set a satisfying movie meal before you. If you think too hard about what it all means, you are probably committing some of the same offenses as one of the lead characters in this film. Be careful, you could end up in the sequel called "The Screening". If you can just sit back and savor what is in front of you, you will enjoy it so much more. Then you can digest it for hours afterwards and come up with all the right adjectives to make your own dessert.
The trailer for the film seems to suggest that this is a variation of the Hunger Games with guests being hunted down by the staff. That scenario does occur for about three minutes of the film, but it is mostly misdirection. This is a story about a group of zealots, taking out their frustrations on what they see as deserving targets, before they themselves participate in their own version of the "Heaven's Gate" event from nearly twenty five years ago. This time, the cult leader "Do" is replaced with the star Chef played by Ralph Fiennes. Chef Slowik is a lot more charismatic than the befuddled Marshall Applewhite, but he is no less deadly and utterly fierce in his convictions. There is an incident in the story to demonstrate how he feels no compunction over what he is planning, because he is taking blame for his faults as well. This scene helps set up the twist at the end because we learn that in spite of the narcissism that he is guilt of, he wants to reject the label of being "special". A chink in the armor is revealed.
With flashes of brilliant absurdism, the conceit of an exclusive dining establishment, imposing a menu on the guests that reflect their vapidity works very well at providing opportunities for surprise. A gourmet take down of the guests with the denial of a standard part of the meal, provokes laughter at the haughty way it is imposed and the deconstructionist baloney that lets the guests accept it. This is followed by a true reveal of how insidious the evening is going to be with a shocking swipe at mere excellence, in a ugly joke perpetuated as a lost soul dies. The nature of the cultish thought process sinks in at this point and that is where the real horror begins.
Anya Taylor-Joy as the last minute replacement on the guest list, matches words with the Chef in an assertive manner that gets slapped down, at least until she discovers the way to a man's heart is through his choice of cuisine. Nicholas Hoult as a preening foodie who laps up all of the experience as a member of a very different cult, also provides a huge amount of amusement by his words and actions. It is the early relationship between Hoult and Taylor-Joy that makes the set up so intriguing and at first funny. In the end though, It is her manipulation of inside knowledge and her understanding of the Chef, that makes the story soar at the end.
"The Menu" has plenty of other characters but they are used for very brief bits of business. The three corporate stooges who feel entitled by their positions, each offer a moment of levity, but the story never takes any of them seriously. The same is true of the other guests. They have some chances to get a laugh out of us, or joust unsuccessfully with the staff, but in the long run they are background for the main relationship of the film. The devious menu is capped off with a dessert that mocks the gourmet spirit of the guests and celebrates the mendacity of the Chef and his crew. It will also provide you with an hysterical visual joke to finish your meal with. "Bon appetite!"
October has arrived, and with it, the start of the spooky season on-screen. We get a pretty good one to lead off in "Smile". Basically, this is a contagion story, like "The Ring" or "IT Follows". Some mysterious force is passing along a curse that is leading to the death of those who end up in it's path. For ninety percent of the film, it sticks to this concept and the horror is based on creeping psychological moments and disturbing deaths that follow those moments. It is only in the last few minutes that it turns into a creature feature and loses track of what was working so well up to then.
The cast is made up of familiar faces from television, and they all do a credible job selling their moments. Sosie Bacon comes across as a sincere therapist who has the job of trying to help a disturbed young woman who is having bizarre paranoid vision. Her early calm demeanor and sympathetic face make what happens in the course of the film more horrifying. We know that this is a good person who is having something terrible take over her life. The fact that what happens is largely depicted as her own psyche falling to pieces is what makes the story compelling. It is a trope in these kinds of movies, that the victims come across as disturbed, which is why their explanations of supernatural origin are dismissed. You would think that a psychology professional would be able to get around that and speak to others in a way that is more rational and convincing. When the patient is yourself, it is not so easy.
There are a few death scenes that account for part of the horror in the film. The initial suicide is plenty disturbing, although the medical professional's call for help should have been responded to quicker, the slow execution of the moment makes it visually compelling. Other deaths are mostly suggested and displayed in brief forms. The truth is that this film gets most of it's horror impulse from jump scares, scattered throughout the movie. The jump scare is a cheap tactic but when it works, the impact on the audience can be quite chilling. There were two that worked on me, and one of them gave me the kind of shiver deep down that we really want from a horror film.
An important component of the plot is that the witness to the death must be traumatized by it for the contagion to take hold. We know from early on that Dr. Cotter, the character played by Bacon, witnessed her own Mother's suicide after having been neglected as a child. She is in essence suffering from a survivor's form of PTSD. The interactions with her sister and fiance are good opportunities for us to have insight into how the long term suffering is masking the current crisis. We know also, that she has had a failed relationship in the past because of these issues. The best parts of the movie deal with the tender way she is trying to hold it together in the current situation, and how she is failing at doing so.
Because it is a movie and not just a play, we are going to get some visual representations of those inner thoughts, and that is a tip off from early on that we cannot trust the things that we are seeing. Sometimes they are presented as nightmares, or daydreams, but there are a couple of extended points that are fake outs and undermine the audience's ability to identify with the character. In the climax, we get a visualization of the traumatic id that turns the end of the movie into a monster story rather than a psychological thriller. It's a pretty good visualization but it feels unnecessary and I thought it detracted from the ultimate finishing moment.
In spite of a few missteps, the movie largely succeeds at being frightening, thoughtful and entertaining. There were some nice scary moments and the film takes the time to let the pressure build. I'd say it is a reasonably good start to the Halloween onslaught of horror. Enjoy your goosebumps this month.
I was a big fan of "Get Out", Jordan Peele's feature directorial debut. His second film "Us", however, was maybe the most laughably bad movie I saw in 2019. So I was worried about which way this film was going to go. The original trailer was intriguing, but not convincing on it's own. The subsequent trailers were less inspiring and I started having big doubts about how this would all work out. I am relieved to say that the film is solid, with a good deal of suspense, a couple of good scares and some humor. The action based last act seems to come out of nowhere and it feels like a slightly different movie at that point, but not a bad different movie, just not one that feels closely tied to what came before.
Regular visitors know that I do not regurgitate the plot of the film in these reviews and I avoid as much as possible spoiler material. I am going to share something with you however that may be interpreted as a spoiler by some, so be aware...this movie is filled with red herrings and when it is done, you may very well wonder why they were all there. This is especially true with the flashback sequences to a different horror story that is told in the movie. There is no logical reason for it's presence except as a story telling piece of legerdemain, designed to distract us at times from things that are goin on in the main plot. It is a well told story with it's own elements of suspense and horror, but it has no relationship to the events that happen here, except both stories take place in the entertainment industry.
Daniel Kaluuya and Keke Palmer play siblings who are part of a show business group that provide horses and wrangle them on Hollywood productions. After the mysterious death of their father (an underused Keith David), they are struggling to keep their ranch together and selling off horses that are part of the family legacy. Kaluuya plays OJ, a man who has a hard time making himself heard on set and off. Keke Palmer is his sister Emerald, who has trouble in the opposite direction, she can't turn it off most of the time. When they discover something unusual taking place in the gulch where their ranch is located, they try to find a way to use that discovery to save them from financial ruin. Down the dirt road is Ricky "Jupe" Park, played by Steven Yuen, a former child star with his foot in a different branch of the entertainment industry, and he too has plans to use the discovery to his advantage. It is the convergence of these two stories that is the only thread which brings the horror elements we are shown together.
Because OJ is so quiet, his character starts off without much relatability. I did feel that his character grew as a presence in the story and by the end, he had earned a heroic plotline. In one of those red herring sequences in the film, he gets to play against the hard type that he is shown as, and it works as a moment of humor. Another character, Angel, Brandon Perra, is added to the mix and he also jukes the story humor up a bit while still keeping the suspense going. The slow build first act of the film sets us up really well for the edge of our seats fear and terror of the second act. There are some big unexpected moments, and the twist of the horror/sci-fi concept is revealed and sort of interesting. Michael Wincott joins the group as a mysterious cinematographer, and I don't quite get what his actions at the end are supposed to mean, but he does tend to add a little gravitas to the last section of the film.
So not everything in the story comes together, and the resolution feels like it came out of left field, but it was fun anyway. I think the movie does mostly what you want a horror film to do. It creates a creepy atmosphere, it tells us enough about the characters to make us care and enjoy being in their company, and it ultimately produces some thrills that are fear based and suspenseful. It's nice when a movie offers you things that you were not expecting, it just odd when those things are disconnected from the plot. Enjoy going down a few dead ends, but you will get a fine amount of entertainment from everything else.
This is a movie that I enjoyed but wanted to like more than I did. The premise is the main selling point and it is a great one. This is a mashup of body switch comedies like "Freaky Friday" with a traditional slasher film like "Friday the 13th". Doesn't that sound fun for horror fans? Then as an added twist the victim body is of the opposite gender, but not a cheerleader, rather it is a girl who is underappreciated and struggling with self esteem issues and grief. There is a pattern here if you look closely at the film's pedigree.
The writer/director of this film is Christopher Landon, who previously brought us "Happy Deathday" both 1 and 2. I was not a big fan of the first movie and never saw the second. The one thing that made "Happy Deathday" unique was the redemption arc of the lead character. "Freaky" tries to replicate that formula by making this a story of empowerment in two contradictory ways. First, the nebish girl gets a makeover when her body is occupied by the serial killer. Now I know that this is a fantasy comedy and we have to suspend a lot of disbelief in the first place, but the conundrum here is one of the writers own making. By taking shortcuts in the storytelling to hook us in, he sacrifices opportunities for humor and internal logic. The killer, known as the Blissfield Butcher, has been written as a mindless hulking transient with severe hygiene issues and maybe a drug problem. So how does it make sense that he would have a stronger fashion eye and makeup skills than the teen girl whose body he is occupying? If the killer were more Hannibal Lector than Jason Voorhees, this could work. The writer just wants us to go with it. The teen girl Millie, does get a little more sensible transition, marveling in being able to urinate standing up and turning her nose up at the smell emminating from her new body. The second way the story plays up the female empowerment is by letting her revel in her newly aquired strength.
Serial killer in the girls body, ends up taking revenge on the girls tormentors, with just the slightest amount of reason to limit it to those figures. If the story let it play out more this would be ok, as it is, it feels a bit rushed and coincidental. Meanwhile, the parallel story of our hero trapped in the hulking body of the maniac does work itself out a little better with trying to connect with her friends at school to get some help. Finding yourself romantically and in your relationship with you mother is a little harder to believe. This is the personal growth story which is supposed to add some weight to the story. I think it clutters up the horror and only occasionally adds to the humor.
Vince Vaughn is the star of the film rightly so, because he has to personify a character. Unfortunately, Kathryn Newton doesn't get as much to do after the switch. She is believable in the pre switch section, but merely stares aggressively in the main part of the story, because the serial killer, while having a fashion sense, has no personality or character traits.
OK, enough with the thoughtful insights, the movie does have two or three pretty gruesome murders to keep us engaged as horror fans. The Opening section that sets up the supernatural twist, has some graphic violence but also a touch of humor. The cocked head of the killer after pinning a victim to the wall is right out of "Halloween" and was subsequently used in some of the Friday the 13th films. Two effective murders are basically spoiled by the trailer, but the buzzsaw sequence still shocks because of It’s graphic depiction.
There is a coda section that is meant to drive the female empowerment theme home at the end. It makes sense only because we know that the killer always has an extra scene in the conclusions of these sorts of films. It would mean more if the killer had motivations or some background character, but all he has is the conventions of the genre.
So my reaction is similar to the feelings I had about the earlier film, but where that story made the redemption work a little, it simply feels shoehorned into this film. The movie has enough going for it to make a trip to a theater, but it will quickly fade as other better executed horror/comedy mashups come along.
Hallelujah, the drought is broken, at least for a bit. It has been 87 days since I saw a movie in a theater, and it was driving me a little mad. I know others have sacrificed so much more than I in this pandemic, but I can only speak to my pain, and not going to the movies was incredibly painful to me. Sure, it's not like a disease, but ask anyone who gives up those things they love, it means something to them. Fortunately my addiction is relatively innocuous so there was no physical danger, just mental anguish. How did this dam finally burst, especially since movie theaters are still not open? It's simple, there is an nearly outdated concept called a "Drive-In". It'e been twenty years since I went to a "Drive-In" theater, and that was for a special event for a local radio program at Halloween. It was twelve years prior to that when I last saw a regular feature at a drive-in. Yesterday, I saw a post while I happened to be on Facebook, and when I clicked the link, there was a trailer and information about where the movie was playing locally. That is if you think of 20 miles away as being local. I will get to the review in just a minute but a few more words about the Drive-In first.
The show was scheduled to start at 8:30 pm, so I left the house at 7:30, and arrived at the destination pretty much ten before 8. The line of cars was four lanes wide, and backed up a block. It took twenty-five minutes to pay and get into the screening area. This complex had four screens, every screen had a full lot under the social distancing rules of one empty space on each side. So they could only be at 1/3 of their capacity. The line for the bathroom was slow and longer than most lines at Disneyland. The concession stand was also a long line, so I skipped both. I missed having popcorn more than trying to relieve myself, fortunately I was not in need as many others were.
Okay, enough about the experience, let's talk about the movie. "Becky" is perfect Drive-In fare. It reminded me of some of the grindhouse style films that I did see in those venues when I was young and went to Drive-Ins regularly. It is a nasty piece of survival/revenge porn, that finds the most awful ideas, shows them to you, slathers on some blood, and then serves it up with enough inventiveness to make you cheer when the bad guys get their comeuppance. The premise is simple, a thirteen year old girl has to fight back against neo-Nazi escaped convicts. It is exploitation material, but it was not as lurid as many things you may have seen.
The cast features comedic actor Joel McHale, best known for the TV series "Community" , in a straight dramatic part as the father of 13 year old Becky. The two of them have been struggling since the death of her Mother, and he is trying to move on to a new relationship but Becky is having none of it. They cross paths with the ruthless Dominick, an Aryan Brotherhood type who has lead a band of four escaped prisoners to the cabin of Becky and her dad, They are seeking a key, which turns out to be a McGuffin, simply used to bring the victims into the sights of the predators. Dominick is played by another comedic actor form TV, Kevin James. The two sitcom actors acquit themselves fairly well in the dramatic roles, though James gets the meatier part and has a chance to ham it up a little bit.
The star of the film is Lulu Wilson, who I did not know but I have seen in "The Haunting of Hill House" net series. The character of Becky is traumatized from the death of her Mom, she is in rage at the choices her father is making about her life and his own, and finally, she has reached puberty and at the age of 13 has all the resentment and anger that that stage in life often brings. When you couple that with the traumas she witnesses on this weekend visit to the family cabin, you can begin to believe she is capable of doing some of the things that the story has her executing. Imagine Kevin McCallister, only without the comedy and you will get the idea. A poke in the eye in this film does not result in three stooges guffaws, but rather dangling eyeballs that will have to be operated on with blunt instruments in the kitchen. Motorboating will not be a sex game played between a woman's breasts. Plowing the field is also not going to feel the same after witnessing this. Maybe the Joker can make a pencil disappear without all the blood, but Becky can get a lot of blood from pencils and especially a ruler.
Sure there are a few things that don't make much sense. For instance, the movie starts like so many films do these days, at the epilogue instead of the beginning of the narration. We never know why the key is supposed to be in the house, or how Becky came to have it. It is also hard to believe that the little girl is strong enough to overcome at least some of the men in this film. The one sympathetic bad guy, played by wrestler turned actor Robert Maillet. Frankly, if I saw that guy coming for me, I'd lose it instantly, he is a monster. Surprisingly, he is a somewhat sympathetic character in the film. Ultimately, no one gets out of the scenario unscarred, and I guess that is the point. Well not really, the point is to take pleasure in the horrible things that happen to the horrible people. Some of the films playing on the other screens were comedies or Academy quality dramas. I was happy to be enjoying an exploitation film in its natural habitat. I almost felt like I was back in mine. Hopefully soon, but till then, all hail the drive in.
