Change Your Image
DarthVoorhees
Reviews
Alien: Romulus (2024)
An outstanding haunted house film filled with garbage cringey fan service...
'Alien Romulus' is a tough film to review because it is a few edits away from being masterful. What it gets right it gets really right but the flaws are indictive of the creative bankruptcy in films today and I cannot let them slide. This is a very frustrating film because Fede Alvarez is a master at this kind of fast paced horror sensation onslaught. He's done his homework because this is the spiritual grandchild of the Ridley Scott original in that it is a great haunted house in space movie. The characters also are all well developed and thus the story isn't about sacrificing lambs to the slaughter for horror movie gorehounds.
The problem I have is the problem a lot of people seem to be having with the film. 'Alien Romulus' is a good enough film on its own and it doesn't need the horrendously obnoxious fan service. I audibly groaned at the Easter eggs and the winks to the camera which play more like a bullhorn. Who did they think would enjoy this stuff? 'Alien' fans? It is like the Buscemi "How Do You Do Fellow Kids?" meme on the big screen. These moments kill the momentum that Alvarez is actually doing a great job building. There is an awkwardness when the film stops to acknowledge the fan service. The actors who are otherwise doing a great job conveying the dread you want in an 'Alien' film lose their organic feeling. It really feels like a commercial that is using 'Alien' motifs instead of a sequel. I hated every call back and poor Ian Holm is spinning in his grave.
In this regard 'Alien Romulus' is the worst legacy sequel ever made.
White Zombie (1932)
Creakier and slower than 'Dracula' but Lugosi's hypnotic charisma cannot be denied
I feel odd as a Lugosi fan when I say I admire 'White Zombie' but I don't particularly like it all that much. A common complaint thrown at 'Dracula' is that it is stagey and wooden. 'White Zombie' exasperates these problems. It is a film populated with a cast of wooden actors and it is a film that has no momentum to it's plot whatsoever. These flaws are not crippling but they do work against the film. The best we can hope from 'White Zombie' is that it utilizes Lugosi well and thank goodness it does. Despite the excruciating leisurely pacing I completely understand why people love and especially why Lugosi's Murder Legendare is considered an iconic character.
'White Zombie' has a half baked script that is padded to an unreasonable extent. For all of its bluster and exposition about zombies the film only really cooks when it plays like a silent German expressionist nightmare. The camera loves Lugosi's eyes. He was far more versatile than ever given credit for. Comparing the closeup shots in 'Dracula' and 'White Zombie' is remarkable. Dracula had eyes like fire and Murder Legendare has eyes like a rapist. The sugar mill scene is also unforgettable and unnerving. The soundtrack with its wobbly quality gets under your skin as well.
The problem is when Lugosi is off screen the film is awfully dull. There is too much exposition delivered by wooden actors. Robert W Frazer is a particular disappointment because he is not up to the challenge of sharing the screen with Lugosi. You need a real sense of dread with the Faustian bargain.ade here and Frazer just rings false.
Sometimes I like having an older film show it's age. The scratches and hiss add to the eerieness of 'White Zombie' half the time while the other half the dialogue and picture is fuzzy. It is the king of public domain films that need TLC but will never get it because they are so cheap to put out.
I want to love 'White Zombie' and maybe one day I will but all of its power comes from Lugosi. If he were removed the movie becomes a chore that isn't worth sitting through. I can't quite call 'White Zombie' a classic but there are enough nightmarish images sprinkled in. It has classic moments and Bela has a dignity and regality here he wouldn't have in the later half of his career.
Deadpool & Wolverine (2024)
Needs to borrow all of Hugh Jackman's credibility and charm
I liked the first two 'Deadpool' pictures quite a bit. They were fun and irreverent and they had a healthy self-deprecating view on comic book movies. I love Hugh Jackman as Logan. His performance and evolution with the role stands out as a major achievement in pulp entertainment. 'Deadpool and Wolverine' is a disappointment as a sequel and as a piece of world building. It is an MCU mess that exacerbates all the problems that have plagued the post-'Endgame' output. Deadpool is meta enough to remind us that the MCU is at a bit of a low point but that isn't the subtext. 'Deadpool and Wolverine' is an exercise in self-masturbation to the MCU and thus you took away the bite from the character.
Reynolds is fine in the title role. He doesn't do anything new or subversive here. The main comparison I would make to the other 'Deadpool' films is Deadpool stood out because he loudly clashed with cliches. This Deadpool embraces cliche villains and tropes about heroism and family that just feel stupid and thematically wrong for 'Deadpool'. He is giving us toothless MCUisms.
And he isn't really allowed to participate in the MCU at large. No major character makes a cameo and the story doesn't seem to have stakes that will play out in future entries so it's another case of marketing pointless Easter eggs. You could fit Owen Wilson from 'Loki,' and he'd be right at home
The film does contain the much talked about cameos. They're fine and I can see why people were glad to see these characters again. They are portrayed as hip and cool when all of these characters (save one) had unceremonious endings in mediocre movies. This movie treats them with a reverence worthy of 'Endgame'. People didn't love 'Elektra'. Channing Tatum sounds like a moron with his Cajun accent. They are screaming for a harsher roast than Deadpool provides.
Hugh Jackman is why this movie works in parts. He takes the material seriously and plays the utmost straight man to Reynolds. The movie also is very reverential to 'Logan' in the right way. This Wolverine variant works as his own tragic character and there are genuine moments of emotion from Jackman amidst the chaos. I'm glad he came back just because I enjoy him in this role.
This is a lesser 'Deadpool' movie but when it works I think fans will enjoy it. I don't think it has much crossover appeal to people who are lukewarm on the fading MCU although there are moments from Jackman that elevate it.
The Sudbury Devil (2023)
A truly well crafted horror film that transcends its micro budget.
'The Sudbury Devil' isn't perfect by any stretch but it delivers what I want from a horror film... It is genuinely frightening and engrossing. Andrew Rakich aka Atun-Shei is a great YouTube personality and an engrossing storyteller and historian. I was intrigued when I heard about his film debut but somewhat skeptical. I have been been burnt by YouTubers who get inflated egos from their subscription numbers and make unwatchable micro budget projects. Rakich doesn't fall into these traps. This is a story there is passion behind and Rakich lets his talented cast tell it.
The thing that most impressed me was the cast. There really isn't a weak link in the ensemble. The script takes these characters to extreme places and there are opportunities for hysterics. The cast approaches the material with an earnestness that makes everything all the more unsettling. Benton Guinness gives a fine performance as the tragic lead but the stand out is Linnea Gregg is Patience Gavett, Lucifer's avatar on Earth. The devil is a boring character frankly. He's evil for the sake of evil. Gregg brings an anger to the role. The best written and performed scene is a stellar monologue about violence being needed to create an antichrist just as the Crucifixion was needed for salvation. The righteous anger from Gregg is weirdly sort of appealing like an apple temptation should be.
The film kind of meanders at times. The script is built around a journey into the woods but there's not a sense of progression. Rakich pads the running time with long shots of his heroes walking through nature and occasionally the sexual violence feels gratuitous. By no means are these major complaints but they are noticeable at times.
Robert Eggers hangs over the film too. I like the finale especially Fletcher's dying monologue but conceptually it borrows a little too much from 'The VVitch'...in my humble opinion of course.
'The Sudbury Devil' is an achievement and you can tell Rakich is a filmmaker with promise. I hope he brings his ensemble back for another folk horror film. He deserves a larger canvas next time too.
Sinners in Paradise (1938)
The great James Whale has a few last surprises...
'Sinners in Paradise' is a far far cry from James Whale at his full powers. By now the great auteur has been relegated to a seemingly formulaic programmer. In a way 'Sinners' is a sad film but I don't think it's an unworthy film. This is a case where a genius director is able to insert enough of his personality and sense of humor into a film that would seem to be completely devoid of the opportunities to do so.
Whale was a comedic genius and the source of his comedy was upsetting cultural norms and tastes. Often he masterfully was able to do this under the suspicions of censors through innuendo. 'Bride of Frankenstein' is all about that context. In a surprising way 'Sinners in Paradise' sneaks in that humor too and it is almost as impressive as his auteur efforts because of the films' B-Movie budget.
The film's silly stranded on a deserted island plot is groan inducing but I like the class commentary here. Charlotte Wynters plays a stuffy wealthy heiress named Thelma Chase and Gene Lockart plays a pudgy Senator who get relegated to the messy Gilligan's Island jobs. I laughed. The material isn't quite there on the page but Whale's style and loudness elevates it.
John Boles of 'Frankenstein' fame is stiff and not very charismatic. I'd like to think Whale is being meta here but I doubt it. You get some unintentional smiles though.
Madame Web (2024)
'Madame Web' is really truly dreadful but it's futility is so scathing I think it merits Ed Wood caliber viewing.
I like a "goodx bad movie. I really do and I don't find them very often because they are in actuality a rarity. Sure there are bad movies with great moments but they're boring for most of the runtime. 'Madame Web' is a spectacular failure of a movie. It fails at everything it tries to accomplish, namely create sequels and be an empowering feminist comic book story. Marvel truly and undeservedly lands on their feet in weird ways. 'Madame Web' is so much more fun than a lot of the post-'Endgame' fare but the caveat is I am totally laughing at it.
I am not one of those cretins who scream about representation in comic book films. I mean if comic book films are the only thing being made with any money and production value then I want them to be as diverse as possible. 'Madame Web' thinks it is scratching a feminist itch. The young heroines are all very spunky and likeable but they're cartoon characters. They don't sound like regular kids. The script gives them back stories with an after school like special to them. And when they are cool and party it looks like what a forty year old thinks kids party like. And for a feminist superhero movie we don't see these girls become spider women. They are damsels in distress.
Dakota Johnson isn't a good actress but this film would chew up and spit out anybody in this role. I think it's the unevenness that is so jarring and kind of endearing. Johnson elevates the moments where the character is given any bit of relatablity. There's a small chunk where Cassandra Web operates as a working paramedic that is very endearing. When they go into spider myths Johnson has a completely understandable contempt for the material and it is noticeable in the delivery. By the end where she fully becomes 'Madame Web' and has a "Great Power Great Responsibility™" fade out Dakota sounds completely lethargic. It really is quite funny.
Tahar Rahim as Ezekiel Simms is conflict for the sake of conflict. He is a walking plot point. He has evil powers and an evil plan that is never explained but that must be done. The girls will come and stop him and sure...we're ripping off about every time travel movie ever made. Ezekiel Simms is such an easy role to do right because even a bad schlocky villain can be great if the actor is having fun. Rahim can't do anything here and every scene he is in are the most painful reminders of how formulaic this thing is.
If 'Madame Web' is to be admired at all it is through a very meta and ironic lens. Sony unleashing such a bland and formulaic movie is the cultural cynicism all the comic book naysayers have warned us about. This movie is the comic book phenomenon stripped down to its nuts and bolts and they're kind of funny when readily apparent...
The Mask of Fu Manchu (1932)
For what it is 'Mask of Fu Manchu' is a hoot but consigning it to the dustbin of history would be understandable and maybe appropriate
Warner Archives has done stellar work presenting their horror classics on Blu-ray for genre fans. The restorations all look absolutely fabulous and 'The Mask of Fu Manchu' is no exception. This recent release really showcases that 'Fu Manchu' as a film that is perversely wonderful to look at. Whatever appreciation one gets out of 'Fu Manchu' now is from it's wicked visuals and Karloff. The elephant in the room must be addressed. Warner put a very tasteful and honest trigger warning on the film about the harmful racial stereotypes in it. It almost isn't enough. 'The Mask of Fu Manchu' is probably the most racist film I've ever seen. I found myself being disgusted with it. Reviewing it is a challenge. I love Karloff, I love MGM and MGM Horror in particular. When dissected down to set pieces 'The Mask of Fu Manchu' is highly entertaining. When it stops to try to have any sort of plot it becomes silly even for the time and doubles down on xenophobia to try and titillate the audience and add stakes to the story.
The real star of the film is MGM and Cedric Gibbons. MGM had the resources to provide the best of the best and that is seen on the screen here. Gibbons sets are probably the best of the precode horror era. They are massive in size and scope. The temple and bell set piece could have never been done at Universal. There's a grime to the world too. The racism isn't the only thing making you feel dirty.
Karloff is not subtle here. The role doesn't play to his strengths either. Karloff is at his best when there is a quiet calm behind his fury. Fu Manchu is loud on page one and progresses into hysteria to cap off the mad finale. He is chewing the scenery to a degree that he never did ever again. I can't say that I think his performance is "good" because so much of the dialogue is about 'wiping out the white race'. Try as you might you can't remove the venom in these lines. Karloff shows he is an intelligent actor because he plays up the ridiculous writing. I think in the right frame of mind you can have fun because ultimately I think Karloff playing Fu Manchu as the cartoon character he so obviously is was the smart decision. Viewing it as Karloff's flamboyant opus is the only way to stomach the worst of it.
I don't think anyone can complain about Warner "cancelling" anything anymore. 'The Mask of Fu Manchu' is here for those niche collectors who want it. Horror films have always been fascinated about being "othered" and 'The Mask of Fu Manchu' used that concept irresponsibly. It's a testament to Karloff and MGM that this film hasn't gone away when frankly it probably should have.
Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024)
Cynically nostalgic but I can't say no to Slimer...
'Ghostbusters' had a long road to be resurrected. The 2016 film was a broad comedy and the negative aftermath I think led the creative forces at Sony to overthink themselves and remove almost all comedy from the future installments. 'Afterlife' is a movie I think works but I don't know if it has a single laugh in it. Instead Jason Reitman wanted to use as much Spielbergian whimsy and wonder and that never was the appeal to 'Ghostbusters'. I think it worked in the end for a self contained story about the family but nothing can be self contained anymore. That of course was never going to be in the cards. 'Frozen Empire' is a sequel and tries to outdo the other entries in terms of scale. It's bigger, has more fan service, and ostensibly a larger threat looming over the Ghostbusters. It becomes sensory and story overload especially when the film tries to exhibit some of the humor it was supposed to have.
The strongest thing about 'Afterlife' was the family dynamic. As I mentioned earlier it tried to invoke a 'Close Encounters' Spielberg vibe. It doesn't work for a comedy but I was engaged with it for that film. The best performance in the film comes from Carrie Coon. The character as written could have been a shrew but Coon had a vulnerability and warmth where I really could see a developed character. The biggest difference between 'Afterlife' and 'Frozen Empire' is that Coon and Rudd play their roles for ditsy comic relief. Rudd has a line where he flirts with Coon about 'busting making him feel good'. I don't think I've heard a more cringe inducing line in a tent pole film in a good decade.
The humor isn't funny because the movie thinks all its jokes are derived from winking at Ghostbusters iconography as if liking Ghostbusters is an inside joke. This is a problem that a lot of nostalgic reboots have but 'Frozen Empire' might be the most irritating if you are not a 'Ghostbusters' fanatic. I mean in what world does William Atherton's Walter Peck become Mayor other than a sequel attempting a cheap attempt at nostalgic titillation?
Yes, we get the original Ghostbuster cast and it's a treat to see them. I love Ernie Hudson who is always charismatic and actually gets a chance to be the leader of the remaining crew. Bill Murray can barely conceal his contempt for the material but it is good to see him.
This is a crowded film however with too many characters and too many plot threads. The idea of Kumail Nanjiani and his character being an ancient warrior is a good one and Nanjiani is very funny but it doesn't quite work . Logan Kim's Podcast and. Celeste O'Connor's Lucky are brought back inexplicably and have nothing to do. The only new idea that sort of works is Emily Alyn Linds' melody but even then the execution is very heavy handed.
I like 'Ghostbusters' too much to hate an entry. This is disappointing and the worst one but even so the set pieces are fun. I need to build up my defenses a little bit more . Slimer is my guy though and he is always going to make me smile.
A Day at the Races (1937)
The last of the really great Marx Brothers films.
The conventional wisdom that MGM took the edge off the brothers is true. 'A Day at the Races' is the last of the really great Marx Brothers films. It does not have the manic energy or menace of the Paramount films. The Brothers have to work even harder to get their presence across. And so it is good even then it doesn't hold a candle to 'Duck Soup' or 'Horse Feathers'. The lore is that Irving Thalberg softened them when they came to MGM and all put got rid of the anarchic surrealism. 'A Night at the Opera' is still a masterpiece but 'A Day at the Races' shows how the flaws of this formula paralyze the Brothers. My problem is that they think infantile characterization makes the brothers likeable. In 'A Night at the Opera' the boys are still rebels while in this one Groucho spends an awful lot of time worried about being exposed as a fraud because it will let the young heroine down.
Chico delivers this mopey line "You don't have to pay me but you can't fire me"
It is disappointing but the humor divorced from some of the story is still very funny. And MGM had the capability to do huge comedic set pieces that are exciting to watch.
Thanksgiving (2023)
Disappointingly self-important.
I was in the audience for 'Grindhouse' all those years ago. It was a great crowd who was totally into the film and the reactions were loud and joyous. Eli Roth's 'Thanksgiving' trailer was the biggest hit. It captured the era perfectly. The trailer was a relentless and careful recreation of exploitation. I didn't know if the concept had a movie in it but for the schtick in 'Grindhouse' Roth had a thematic home run.
And now Roth returns to the material almost twenty years after the fact and he has forgotten what made that initial idea work. 'Thanksgiving' seems like one of those remakes from the 00's in that it is sleek looking to the point where it has no personality.
I think my overwhelming problem with the film is that 'Thanksgiving' is still such a bonkers concept and Roth actively rebels against having even a dash of self- deprecating genre humor. This is the perfect sleazy slasher film concept so revel in the muck. The film spends a lot of time with the drama surrounding Nell Veralaque's Jessica Wright. Roth's screenwriting with his female leads in films like this is horrendous. It reads like the worst cliches. Why not highlight the set pieces? They are the only thing Roth is good at.
'Thanksgiving' ends up being more like 'Saw' or 'Scream' as a whodunnit and so when we find out who our mad pilgrim John Carver is it really isn't all that thrilling. It's meant as a shock but the star has contempt for the material and a ridiculous Boston accent that makes you laugh.
I don't know. I just haven't been a Roth guy. He's like Rob Zombie in the fact that I appreciate him more as a pop culture historian and Horror fan than as a filmmaker. Maybe 'Werewolf Women of the S. S' will finally get made and be a masterpiece but 'Thanksgiving' is unfortunately not meant to be served as a full course meal.
Frankenhooker (1990)
A movie that totally owns its sleaze...
'Frankenhooker' is just a great poster and title. To hear the name you instantly are intrigued by the promises of camp and sleaze. When the movie goes for peak outlandishness it doesn't disappoint. The problem is that 'Frankenhooker' is a padded film with about two duds for every joke or horror scene that works. I have a taste test for these trashy films. I love trash but the entire experience has to be sustainable for a feature length motion picture. 'Frankenhooker' doesn't pass this test. The problem with it is that the film is only really entertaining with the titular monster who doesn't come to life until the final act. When we see the monster brought to life amidst the set pieces 'Frankenhooker' is weird and funny in the right way.
I guess my biggest problem with the film is that James Lorinz as Jeffrey never really finds that right balance between the extremes they want the character to go. He wants to be a jersey Colin Clive but also tragic while still being an 'Animal House' type frat boy. It never really works because he just doesn't have that range. I like it best when they indulge in the fact that he's sleazy but then you can't really develop any sympathy for him. There's a scene with the character's Mother talking about loss that just halts the momentum of the film. I think they needed some of that to fully commit to the 'Frankenstein' motif and it just doesn't quite work. I mean maybe I'm asking for a lot from a film called 'Frankenhooker' but otherwise it becomes boring spending time with him to stretch out the runtime between the admittedly spectacular special effects sequences.
When Patty Mullen comes to life it is a madcap macabre Looney Tune cartoon. No notes or complaints whatsoever. 'Frankenhooker' is really one of the underrated character designs and performances. I love the way she moves and contorts her face. It may not be Karloff but it definitely is an original take that Mullen is totally committed to. This is a 'Frankenstein' story that you need to skip to the 'It's Alive' moment. Not only is she funny but she delivers the only pathos the movie has. I like that we get to see her before the accident and briefly have her regain her humanity at the end of the film. She isn't Meryl Streep but there is a sweetness to her. Her final scene with Jeffrey is so satisfying. She delivers more than a little bit of the 'Frankenstein' arguments about bodily autonomy and playing God that aren't quite there on the page otherwise.
'Frankenhooker' gets a mild recommendation from me. I don't think it's a good movie but I like where it's twisted heart is. As a poster and a pitch it is a masterpiece.
The Verdict (1982)
A quintessential "Great American Movie" if such a title is worth anything.
'The Verdict' lingers with you. I've always greatly admired it every time I've watched it but it's a slower burn. 'The Verdict' is not a movie that wears its self on its sleeve, repeat viewings are going to increase your opinion. Paul Newman's brilliant performance as Frank Galvin is readily apparent and rightfully heralded as a triumph. But 'The Verdict' is not just Newman. In fact it has grown tremendously in my estimation as a take on the American fable. Frank Galvin is a hero in the mold of so many. 'The Verdict' is Frank Capra with an edge. It confronts the country and its myths with rightfully placed cynicism that makes you cheer all the more when justice ultimately prevails.
Paul Newman is giving one of the great screen performances of all time. There is no question of that in my estimation. The caveat is 'The Verdict' feels like a summation of the Newman type. Frank Galvin feels like we are revisiting an old broken down Hud or Luke. The fire has been extinguished. You don't see a performer like Newman not only go against his type but subvert it so well. Frank Galvin is like a cynical middle aged Hud grown up and nursing away his regrets of his bad boy rebellions in drink. And he can be despicable throughout the film. Galvin is not an ethical man but Newman never condemns him. He always subtly conveys that there is good beneath the surface. It truly is a performance to be studied.
'The Verdict' is every bit a fairy tale. The plot doesn't really hold up to scrutiny in areas. It doesn't take a law degree to know Galvin would be disbarred several times over for his legal strategies. 'The Verdict' wins you over though because it is such an earnest human drama. The David vs. Goliath story has no merit unless you see the people David champions. And Paul Newman's flawed hero delivers that slice of life portrait quite well but credit also must be given to the brilliant Sidney Lumet. Lumet made the blue collar urban scapes a character in his films and 'The Verdict' is arguably the best example of this. We see the contrast between the dive bar and ratty office.
It doesn't hurt that Galvin is going against the Catholic Church. All the values the Church and the Courts supposedly champion ring hollow until Galvin challenges them.
And in the end the movie doesn't end happily. Galvin isn't riding off into the sunset. The system still stands aside from his brief interruption to the gears in the machine. It makes the triumph over adversity all the more satisfying.
The Marvels (2023)
May have earned Marvel a brief stay of execution from Martin Scorsese
No one was more prepared to hate 'The Marvels' than I was. I have vehemently agreed with every complaint and critique leveled at the MCU for years. Individually I've liked and even loved some entries but as a cohesive whole the MCU has brought moviegoing to cynical cashgprabbing and story telling lows. Post-'Endgame' has been a real chore and with the MCU on the ropes and having hated the last four or five films I was sure there would be nothing to like in 'The Marvels' when I was brought with to see it.
Well, I ate some humble pie. 'The Marvels' is an interesting film to dissect because in truth it doesn't do much right. Those MCU problems are all still there...(in fact this might be the absolute worst in being a commercial for half realized properties) and it has a horribly dull villain who is evil for the sake of evil. The drama is all contrived as well.
And despite that you cannot deny that 'The Marvels' has a distinct personality of its own. The worlds visited are all very unique and don't mimic the grey Russo Brothers look of 'Captain America Winter Solider' that nine out of ten Marvel films have in the past decade. The idea of the singing planet is very funny and shockingly irreverent for a Marvel film. The sequence with the Flerkens is equal parts gross and cute which is a great combination. So in a movie with a mercifully short runtime I ended up smiling a lot between some moments of groaning.
But let's be honest what elevates 'The Marvels' is the performance from Iman Vellani as Kamala Khan/Ms. Marvel. She is charming and funny and steals every scene she is in(and Brie Larson and Teyonah Parris are no slouches either). I know the bar is low but Vellani injects a sense of fun and wonder into Khan that is infectious especially compared to someone like MCU veteran Samuel L Jackson who has stretches where he seems like he is sleepwalking through the material. The true testament to how much I liked Vellani's performance is that she is given a cringe sequel set-up that she is able to make genuinely hilarious despite the fact I hate sequel set ups.
The Titanic that is the MCU is still sinking but 'The Marvels' is a banger rendition of 'Nearer My God to Thee.'
Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI (1986)
Jason, we hardly knew ye
I find as I get older that of all the horror franchises old Jason and 'Friday the 13th' has aged the roughest. And it's kind of a shame too because I was raised on Jason during my formative middle school years. I remember 'Jason Lives' being the best of the bunch and I probably still agree that it is but the bunch isn't all that good anymore. 'Lives' stands out but it has to work overtime to do so and it's meta script isn't quite as biting as advertised. 'Jason Lives' offers the DNA for better films that have followed it.
Horror films have tropes. All media and stories do. I do not want to punish 'Friday the 13th' for having tropes because it is an exercise in snobbery and elitism. That being said you have to do something with your tropes. 'Friday' was really only about Jason massacring bland characters. As a horror fan I like the weird twisted entries like 'Jason Goes To Hell' or 'A New Beginning' because they upset the established order and shake up the apathy. 'Jason Lives' is the only film that points out that these films are formulaic but that is the extent of the commentary. We still get bland stock characters and so Tom McLoughlin's script isn't much of an improvement over standard fare. The acting though is better than usual. Thom Matthews and Jennifer Cooke are likable and have charisma. The film is populated with interesting side characters too who give these sacrificial lambs a bit of irony before Jason offs them. I particularly love David Kagen as Sheriff Garris,Vincent Gustafaro as the sleazy deputy, and Bob Larkin's brief but memorable bit as Martin the Caretaker.
The film also has some of the best set pieces of this era of slasher films. The rest of the movie starts to blend together because the opening sequence where Tommy disinters Jason is so fantastic and creepy.
I mildly recommend this one as a mediocre movie. It's better than being "good bad". It is "goodish".
Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990)
A disappointing end for Perkins and his iconic character...
'Psycho' in the end actually ended up being a respectable series of horror films. Of course the original was an untouchable masterpiece but 'II' and 'III' are standout horror films from this era in large part thanks to Anthony Perkins and the humor and gravitas he continued to bring to the Norman Bates role. Out of all the 'Psycho' films 'IV' is the only one to seem gratuitous and soulless. It plays with some interesting ideas but in boring ways that strive to be sensational but end up being melodramatic and hokey. Not even the great Anthony Perkins has the ability to lift the poor choices to make them appear fresh and compelling.
'Psycho IV' has a problem. The whole prequel foundation is a loser and thus 'IV' is the followup that suffers the most because the original is such an icon. This lame TV film is trying to reveal the secrets behind the master Hitchcock film. We never met Norma Bates, not in the flesh, and frankly she should have stayed dead. The Norma the audience and Norman conjure up is better than whatever will be done here. You show this story and Anthony Perkins Norman Bates loses his mystery and tragedy. Part of Norman's appeal is that he is an unreliable narrator and if we see the whole story he really isn't scary anymore. 'IV' also chooses the wrong way to do a prequel. We don't spend any real time in the immediate aftermath of what Norman did to his Mother which is the most interesting area to explore. The brief bit where we see Norman steal his Mother's corpse is really the only frightening scene in the film.
The rest plays like a bad soap opera. Norma Bates is played very broadly by Olivia Hussey. Her performance is loud enough to be annoying but not in the fun campy way. And poor Henry Thomas is just awfully wooden as the younger Norman. He clearly didn't study young Perkins who found that perfect balance between creepy and likable. Thomas just looks sullen and doesn't give any level to the character. Frankly, it is almost unbelievable that this Norman has women to bring home to meet "Mother".
Perkins' heart just isn't in this. He's given the least to do as his Norman is basically a glorified narrator but even on those terms his delivery seems lethargic. It seems like all that is being asked of him is to appear spooky on a surface level. Every shot of him looks like it's meant to be in a trailer or a poster. This Norman is a caricature and not a character. Even so I think CCH Pounder and Perkins have a chemistry at times and are the only saving graces here.
The production values for the TV movie are nonexistent. 'Psycho IV' looks and feels cheap. It has no flair or interesting visual appeal. Director Mick Garris is a great Horror aficionado and historian but I haven't seen a film he's made that has a distinct flavor or personality.
The only thing that really saves the film is the final act. Norman discovers that he is going to become a father and has to exorcise his demons once and for all. It isn't done with care or subtlety but the final sequence where Norman faces the ghosts in the burning Bates house is a great idea. Call me a sick sentimental sap but I can buy a the finality of the ending where Norman's better half gets a happy ending.
Psycho III (1986)
Another surprisingly excellent horror sequel to the iconic classic.
'Psycho' is such an iconic film and so legendary that it really can't surprise new viewers. No one who seeks it out for the first time is coming in fresh. And so it all comes down to Anthony Perkins and Norman Bates and how he deals with that complex character and there was more to mine. I'm sure everyone thought the idea of 'Psycho II' was asinine when it was originally announced. I mean just the idea of it is offensive to the cinema snobs and Hitchcock's status as a saint of cinema. Well, when you actually sit down to watch 'Psycho II' you find that it is really one of the best horror films of the 80's. I know some are hesitant to name 'Psycho' as Hitchcock's best film because part of the gimmick of the film was Hitchcock engaging in exploitative schlock. Norman is a shocker plot twist in the original and these sequels enrich the original by fleshing him out as a character. The whole arc of the picture was that Norman was cured and he desperately wanted to stay sane and keep Mother dead and buried. It ends with Norman relapsing into his old ways and it's a downer ending because Perkins made us root for Norman's better half. 'Psycho III' picks up there and it goes darker.
You think you know Norman Bates with the telling and retelling but these 'Psycho' sequels deliberately try to subvert your expectations in clever ways. 'III' really works well because Mother isn't a secret. There are several sequences where Perkins plays off of Mother's corpse. You'd think seeing that blatantly on screen might lessen the impact but the opposite is true. Norman becomes downright pathetic and fascinating. The best scene in the film is when Norman gets a note to visit his Mother in Cabin 12. Norman walking to the cabin feels like a scene Hitchcock would have composed....
I guess if I had a complaint about the film it's that you can tell it was released in the era of 'Friday the 13th' and 'A Nightmare on Elm Street'. There are some crude gory kills that don't really feel necessary because the psychological part of the story is so strong. There isn't any suspense because we know Norman is the killer again here and so these scenes just feel kind of redundant especially when they have to introduce such superfluous party goers as a plot device to up the body count.
Also, I must say the retcon is appreciated. 'Psycho II's abrupt ending with Norman meeting his supposedly real biological Mother just doesn't feel earned. I think that partially because it messes too much with the lore we love so much but also because they just don't foreshadow it at all. I forgave it because 'II' is more about Norman's mind and his better half than it is about the actual killer. 'III' realizes that ending was stupid and retcons it with a deeper exploration into the lore and it uses the revelations as a way to drive Norman's motivations. I commend the writing because doing all of that is pretty hard to do.
If you want 'Psycho' the way to go is the Hitchcock original but because 'Psycho' is so good you often turn it off feeling exhilarated and its sequels are very satisfying. Credit goes to Anthony Perkins who embraced this role with love and intelligence. These sequels arguably shouldn't be good but I have to say in terms of 80's pulp horror I think they're classics in their own right.
Skidoo (1968)
It really is hard to find that diamond in the rough bad movie...
'Skidoo' is infamous and has coasted on an infamy it almost doesn't earn. On paper it seems like it could be unforgettable cult movie. It isn't. The thing about 'Skidoo' is all the entertainment value you get from it is through the word of mouth backstory and the credits. It is an awkward movie but not in the good way I know I hoped it would be. The problems with 'Skidoo' aren't complicated. It commits the sins the bad movies always do, it's padded and boring and has characters I don't care about.
I suppose the main draw to 'Skidoo' is the attempt by Otto Preminger to dissect the hippie and drug culture. If you don't go in without some appreciation of film culture and a knowledge of Otto Preminger as a personality you already are at a loss to whatever camp value might be gained from the film.
And of course Preminger's take on the hippies is out of touch and stupid but so what? It isn't any more funny than other bad takes on the hippie movement. To be fair I don't think there have been many great cinematic takes on the free love hippies. Hollywood has always sort of scoffed at it and so 'Skidoo' kind of gets a little bit of credit in not doing that. The infamous drug moments are kind of weird in that the juxtaposition of Jackie Gleason to them sort of is amusing but the movie isn't really a "drug" movie. Preminger probably knew whatever fake controversy would get people in the seats. The LSD thing is a small episode in a flamboyant mob comedy and with a subtle rewrite it could easily be excised.
I guess the choice about 'Skidoo' that really stands out is that it is a movie about the current youth culture populated with middle aged and geriatric performers. I think this is the only thing that registers anything more than apathy from the audience. The problem is the script is terrible and heavy on plot. And so Gleason has to deliver a lot of exposition in between his comedic bits. And comedy is a foreign concept to Preminger. His "jokes" seem to consist of nothing more than mugging the camera.
No one should have to suffer 'Skidoo's full runtime. Youtube is a God send tool to distill the hefty bad movies into more palatable compilations.
Here's what you need if you must experience 'Skidoo'...
Jackie Gleason's trip, Carol Channing's screeching musical finale, and all of 'God'.
The rest is awful but I suppose even my 2/10 is generous but I can't help myself. I did quite enjoy old Groucho and his cue card reading and utter contempt for the material...
"Pumpkin...
Oppenheimer (2023)
Arguably Nolan's Masterpiece
I feel as though I've grown up with Christopher Nolan as a fan of the movies. 'Inception' and 'The Dark Knight' left me exhilarated upon leaving the theatre and I haven't missed a Nolan film since. He raises passions to a boiling point though and sometimes I just don't feel like using the energy trying to engage with his films. That being said 'Oppenheimer' is a return to form and a film I want to praise loudly. I think it is a distillation of what people have liked about Nolan in the past for while offering his most mature dissection of character to date. I don't think 'Oppenheimer' will convert people but it is filled with surprises we don't expect.
'Oppenheimer' is entirely built around the buildup to that fateful test and it plays you like a fiddle. The final countdown towards Trinity is one of the most harrowing half hours of film I've experienced with an audience. And it is a slower burn than you'd expect because in the long run 'Oppenheimer' isn't large in scope or scale aside from the moment with the bomb. It's really a costume drama. Who deserves the credit here? Honestly, the marriage of Cillian Murphy and the script is 'Oppenheimer's greatest achievement aside from the visuals. You'd expect Oppenheimer to rhapsodize endlessly but the script is intelligent enough to wait to explore that. Murphy plays Oppenheimer as intelligent but unaware of the implications of looking at the consequences of his actions. There's a motif that keeps repeating about theory vs practice and all along our characters convince themselves that the terrible things they are going to do are necessary until it is too late. The denouement isn't as dramatically compelling but it is essential to the story. This is where the film asks the most of Murphy who loses his intellectual bearing and charisma. Murphy is going to be the odds on favorite at the upcoming Academy Awards and with good reason.
A common point of debate I've seen about Nolan is whether or not his films cross into fantasies about right wing strongmen. Frankly, I don't see it even in 'The Dark Knight' where you could most logically make that argument. 'Oppenheimer' puts that complaint to bed for me. The only emotion I felt it invoked was fear. This plays like a taut psychological horror film in areas. America isn't shown to be a good to an evil and Oppenheimer being forced to reconcile with that is one of the films strongest dramatic beats. The ending is probably the vaguest Nolan has ever offered. Oppenheimer achieves a vindication of sorts through the course of the film but it doesn't add up to much in the face of what he has unleashed. Who cares if his intentions were pure? My one complaint about the film and I feel it must be said is that I think there needed to be shown the effects of the bomb on the body and with real photos from Japan in 1945. There is a moment where Oppenheimer is watching a slide show and we see the reaction on his face. The audience needed to be confronted directly.
'Oppenheimer' is Nolan at his best. I don't know what will come next but I won't take for granted that we get big spectacles with this caliber of maturity and complexity.
Beau Is Afraid (2023)
Imitation Lynch and not the Ari Aster of 'Midsommar' and 'Hereditary' but still pretty impressive
'Beau is Afraid' is an achievement but I couldn't help myself when I left feeling empty and a tad disappointed. Don't get me wrong I think I have to recommend it but as a huge fan of 'Hereditary' and 'Midsommar' it must be acknowledged that the film is dramatically a different beast. Of course it isn't really fair to hold one film in the shadows of two modern classics. The comparisons are inevitable and point out why 'Beau' isn't quite as engaging.
Aster is a brilliant screenwriter and so it's disappointing to see him abandon that approach here. David Lynch's influence is heavily felt and while Aster's imagery is as shocking and frightening as ever 'Beau' doesn't have the same dramatic weight as Aster's earlier efforts where the writing and characters were grounded and had motivation. 'Beau' is a neo-expressionistic nightmare. Broad to the point of being inaccessible. I can admire Aster for using his clout to expand the canvas because the film is bigger in scope and the cast is collectively his best but it can't make up for mood over meaning.
And despite my reservations I cannot deny that Aster makes bold choices with his imagery and 'Beau' hits it's thematic targets. There are several moments in the film that are genuinely shocking but 'Beau's shocks are like a brick to the face. 'Midsommar' and 'Hereditary' are slower burns that stay with you a lot longer and demand being rewatched. I prefer to have my horror get under my skin and we know Aster can do that.
'Beau' is a frustrating film because it seems like I dislike it but it's just because I am such an Aster fan. I just hope that he's gotten his experimental avant garde film out of his system.
Rocky V (1990)
'Rocky V' is bad but it is a fascinating and entertaining bad...
As Sylvester Stallone enters his twilight years it is becoming really hard to assess him as a performer and cultural icon. He peaked with the original 'Rocky' and through out his career he's tried to repackage and reclaim that glory. I think there have been times when he's been able to do this. Say what you will about 'Rocky' but it is a franchise that continues to endure with both the good and bad entries. 'V' is the worst one and it makes some ridiculous choices that elicit laughs but upon this recent rewatch I felt the rationale behind the ridiculous choices is often understandable.
I think it is a common opinion among 'Rocky' fans that in the series proper the most beloved film after the original is 'IV'. 'IV' is the most thematically ambitious film while also really being the simplest and cartoonish in regards to character development. I mean 'IV' has a brisk runtime that is already padded with montages. Rocky Balboa graduates to superhero in it and all but ends the Cold War in the ring...
How do you follow that? Stallone made the understandable choice to try and go back to basics. And it should have worked. Stallone as at his best when he plays vulnerable characters hiding behind the machismo image. 'Rocky V' takes everything away from Rocky in one fell swoop. He becomes the character from the original again...
I understand the why but the how is stupid. My biggest problem might be the whole plot about Paulie squandering his money away because of fraud. It is ludicrous and the movie never really recovers from it. Too much of it is played for laughs especially with the supporting characters and nowhere is this more apparent than Burt Young. I mean I'm laughing at times but not for the right reasons. Drunken Paulie as Santa Claus really is cringeworthy.
The heart of the 'Rocky' films is Rocky and Adrian and Talia Shire as Adrian is thanklessly cast aside and is more shrewish than ever as she protests against Rocky almost for the sake of doing so.
The central conflict of the film is Rocky and his son. It is clumsily handled. The movie just isn't subtle enough about it. Rocky's punchy attitude which is usually charming is kind of grating with the melodramatics of seeing little Rocky Jr pout about being tossed aside. The late Sage Stallone tries his hardest but the script does him no favors and the resolution of the subplot doesn't feel earned even though it is punctuated with an almost after school special quality.
Tommy Morrison's character Tommy Gunn being a violent protege is an interesting idea that I think could have laid the seeds for a better film. 'Rocky' romanticizes boxing so much and the thing I like about 'Rocky V' is that it showcases some harsh realities about the sport. It wrecks the body and attracts sociopaths with a bloodthirsty outlook. Richard Gant as the Don King knockoff is a good idea even if his campy performance is highly entertaining in the wrong way.
The entire thing sort of falls apart with the street fight. Rocky has too much character to do that. And the cheering from the neighborhood and Adrian just makes it all the more otherworldly. Rocky needs to fight Gunn to end the film but put it in the old ratty Philly club and the movie is so much more credible.
'V' is the dress rehearsal for 'Rocky Balboa' which is the best sequel to the original. I won't skip it in a marathon of the series though. Stallone goes for bold choices and sometimes they work and sometimes they don't.
Evil Dead Rise (2023)
Masterful in many ways but it's too polished and thus lacks a soul to swallow...
'Evil Dead Rise' is going to be a tough one to review because it really comes close to being just about perfect in so many areas. I almost think the 'Evil Dead' franchise connection does the film a disservice because it is the trappings of the 'Evil Dead' mythology that kind of harm the film. With 'Evil Dead Rise' you are getting the ultimate 'Evil Dead' film in terms of size, scope, and ambition. If this movie couldn't get the NC-17 for carnage alone I don't think any film can. On face value you'd think this would be a rave and the basic ideas and performances are incredible.
Try as you might though 'Evil Dead Rise' is in the shadow of the Raimi/Bruce Campbell films. And... a little Raimi snark could have gone a long way to make this more palatable. 'Evil Dead Rise' has no sense of humor whatsoever not even a macabre one. I wasn't expecting 'Evil Dead 2' but some levity is a part of the appeal of these films. Even the low budget first 'Evil Dead' had a little Curley Howard in its DNA.
That isn't necessarily a complaint. I guess you could say it's a matter of preference. The movie rests on the shoulders of it's lead actress. The fact is Alyssa Sutherland is sensational as the doomed Ellie and as what she becomes to the point where I almost like her more before she becomes possessed. Sutherland gives Ellie a sense of sweetness and vulnerability that really makes us feel for this character. I suppose this is a high compliment for an 'Evil Dead' film because I didn't want to see Ellie chopped to bits. I dreaded it. And you know what dread is something a great horror film should build. In a lot of ways this feels like 'Hereditary' on LSD but even so I compliment the film because it is the most grounded 'Evil Dead' picture. 'Evil Dead Rise' is about it's characters and that is what makes the film special because the rest of the cast are all excellent too. Lily Sullivan's Beth is destined for horror scream queen legend.
But that's not what we came here for...
Yes, 'Evil Dead Rise' is a bloodbath. But it is a bloodbath created in 2023 with computers. The set pieces and scares are all intricately choreographed and designed but they ring hollow. I can't think of another recent horror movie where the artifice of the whole experience was as much as a downer. I would have loved to have seen this thing done in the 80's and believe me I know that is such a cop out criticism but the people in this movie are too movie star pretty even caked in CGI blood.
'Evil Dead' will return. I think they've discovered a way to keep the series going in a way that will be fresh and fun. I wouldn't mind seeing the prequel set up by this film. Look to Raimi though. I don't want an 'Army of Darkness' but surely someone must be clever enough to put their own spin on 'Evil Dead 2's gallows humor.
Renfield (2023)
If you only came for Cage as Dracula you'll be satisfied. Everything else is unwatchable...
Renfield is a true disappointment. It is another example of how Universal really has no idea on how to revisit its horror heritage. As far as I'm concerned Renfield fails at it's main goals. It is a comedy that is not funny and it doesn't offer any new insights on the Dracula myth. I appreciate the Nicolas Cage renaissance and so for those who want to see 'Renfield' for the poster line "Nicolas Cage is DRACULA!" well I say to them...that is all the movie has going for it at all. And even then Cage camp cannot elevate a loser to being watchable as a good movie.
I suppose it is fair to warn you that I came into this looking forward to it as a Dracula movie and a Universal Monster flick. In those regards 'Renfield' is kind of a disappointment. Why call your film 'Renfield' at all? It's a reference that will scare away the casual fan. You call the movie 'Renfield' and I expect a little dash of Dwight Frye and the classic iconography which is gone aside from the bits you see in the trailer. This isn't the movies major problem mind you but it was unfortunate.
I mean the Dracula tale has been told so many times that any new attempt has to really work hard to stand out. I honestly think taking a moment to make a slower more methodical Dracula film is what the genre needs. 'Renfield' thinks the opposite. It is LOUD for the sake of being loud. I love Evil Dead gore as much as the next guy but...the whole story of Renfield reclaiming his life from the toxic Dracula and feeling sorry for him doesn't demand your investment. The movie is too much of a cartoon to work with us identifying with this character and his plight. It also doesn't help that Nicolas Hoult doesn't quite know how to play this. The performance is wildly inconsistent and is actually the worst when the movie plays it straight between the set pieces.
The problem is that 'Renfield' has the fingerprints of the MCU all over it. There is no reason why this should be an action story. We've all seen the quirky MCU origin story before where our hero becomes a superhero with so much fake ironic reactions to the supernatural and 'Renfield' is the absolute worst version of this.
I wonder also if 'Renfield' is deliberately trying to rip off 'What We Do in the Shadows' or if it was just subconscious. You won't be able to get the show out of your mind. Hoult dresses up in the same sweaters like Harvey Guillen at one point...
Okay, Cage...yes. It as as wonderful as it sounds. But it isn't because the material is good. This is Nicolas Cage chewing the scenery to compensate for an awful script. It is an example of Nicolas Cage doing this to an insane degree and yes it is entertaining. But remember you aren't watching Nicolas Cage's Dracula. You are watching 'Renfield' and Dracula is a supporting character. The problem is that the movie has the right amount of Dracula in it. If Cage appeared anymore I think it would lose some of it's luster. Cage can't prop up Hoult.
The most exciting moment was when the movie briefly recreated moments from Browning's Dracula. I don't know what they did but it looked like Cage was CGI imposed on Lugosi and it worked. Do more of that next time...
Scream VI (2023)
Despite some set pieces that rank among the best of the series 'Scream VI' is conceptually a disappointment.
'Scream VI' is a hard film to really review because in a lot of ways I think it delivers what you want from a slasher film but not necessarily a
'Scream' film. When it is divorced from its grand story and distilled to moments of suspense then 'Scream VI' deserves credit as an expertly crafted thriller. The problem is 'Scream' has always been given credit for its universe building and meta commentary. 'Scream VI' delivers none of that. It is totally uninterested in saying anything about horror films anymore. Okay. I could see this happening and in someways it is an overcorrection to last year's film which veered close to being too meta. So you have to ask yourselves what you want.
I feel as if I have to get my complaints out of the way. I still think that despite everything a sequel hasn't come close to capturing the Kevin Williamson lightning in a bottle that the first classic film did. I think part of the problem has been the 'Stab' universe in the film where the lines between fiction and reality always blur. 'Scream VI' begins with Ghostface proclaiming "Who gives a **** about movies ?!" This is the starkest divorce from a Kevin Williamson mold yet and so it kind of does matter who this killer is by the end of the picture. The movie comes to a crossroads several times when it has a chance to make a subversive choice or a lame safe one and every time it chooses the safe choice. The resolution is the lamest the series has ever had despite it playing with hinting at an ending that would have ranked among the series best. Every 'Scream' film advertises that no one is safe and that this 'Ghostface' is more brutal than ever before... this time I can definitively say that it is fluff to get you in the seats.
And despite that, despite everything 'Scream VI' is frightening in places. The scene in the bodega, the subway, the ladder between the apartments all had the audiences on the edge of their seats and played them like a fiddle. This is a movie that was heightened by the fact that I saw it opening night with a packed crowd.
The torch has been firmly passed to a new generation or the "core four". And I like them but the weakest link is Melissa. Barrera's Sam Carpenter, our lead. Neve Campbell's shadow hangs over this film and Melissa Barrera is just a little too wooden for the places they want to take this character. It doesn't help that seeing fifty some year old Skeet Ulrich's ghost give her spiritual advice is really really stupid.
But yeah I love Jenna Ortega, Mason Gooding, and especially. Jasmin Savoy Brown who steals the picture. They all have warmth and humor and are well written for this kind of film.
I think 'Scream' should be put to bed for a while. 'VI' is good enough on its own but it is unsteady foundations for future installments. Wait for the next big milestone anniversary or for some new trend in horror to comment on. 'VI' is a better picture than last years 'Scream' but I liked last years 'Scream' better as a 'Scream' film because although it's commentary could be a little ham-fisted it had something to say. I found myself thinking that I wouldn't necessarily mind 'Scream' going the David Gordon Green 'Halloween' route and make a 'Scream' that ignored all the others save the first. I think the commentary and horror would be fresher. The last thing this series needs is to stay in Richie Kirsch's shadow.
Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975)
It lives up to all reputations...
I was intrigued to see 'Jeanne Dielman' after the new Sight & Sound list was released. It had not really been on my radar other than vaguely knowing of it's existence. In many ways I can see why 'Jeanne' has become a film of the moment. It's brutal attack on gender roles is unfortunately as relevant today as it was when the film was released. I went in doing a little bit of reading and yes the movie lives up to its reputation...good and bad...
'Jeanne Dielman' is a superbly crafted and acted film that stretches how narrative cinema works....
'Jeanne Dielman' is also a very hard film to sit through. It's run time is an excruciating endurance test and I doubt anyone can get through it in one sitting. To be frank yes it is a boring movie and it is not enjoyable in the traditional sense of the word....
but...and I know this sounds like a cop-out it seems to be all by design. Everything done here by Chantal Ackerman is deliberate to the point where it seems almost pointless. The whole film is designed to play on our emotions and even that runtime kind of works for the goal of exhausting us. It is a meta-movie that is as much about filmmaking as it is telling a story. Pretentious? Yes but admirable too. The film unquestionably benefits from its lead Delphine Seyrig who succeeds in being dynamic with the utmost minimal character.
But in the end 'Jeanne Dielman' isn't an accessible film. I admire what it sets out to do more than I do the final execution of it. It isn't for everyone and if you can't engage with it it isn't because you aren't a brilliant patron of the cinema. Ackerman asks an awful lot of the audience.
But for a one time viewing I'm glad to have broadened my horizons. I still think 'Kane' is probably a sounder choice to top that list but history isn't written in stone. 'Jeanne Dielman' certainly is an interesting thematic piece and the discussions raised by the film about filmmaking and gender are very much worth having.
Terrifier 2 (2022)
'Terrifier 2' is a masterclass in the horror hype machine building up a listless product
We are living in a pretty good era for the Horror genre. There's a variety and respectability to the genre that has never seemed to exist in all my years as a fan. But as much as I love a good A24 thematic dissection I get the desire for a good old fashion sleaze fest. 'Terrifier 2' fought its way to be on your radar through good old fashioned word of mouth and embellishment. It did the trick I went and sought it out despite the fact that I really didn't know if I wanted to...
It's good to remember that none of the claims surrounding 'Terrifier 2' are unique. People supposedly puked when they saw 'Night of the Living Dead' in the 60's. I'll say what I said about the infamous 'Human Centipede' movies...'Terrifer 2' needs to be seen with a like minded audience in a theatre. It needs to feed on the adrenaline of a Horror fan crowd because otherwise 'Terrifier' is a very boring film. The gore and sleaze which might titillate a crowd at a midnight screening just becomes redundant and gross especially with the bloated run time. My opinion of the movie is colored by the fact that I saw it on Blu-Ray alone. There's something that separates the Wes Craven's from the Damien Leone's and the 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' from 'Terrifier 2'. The heights of this genre that stand above their exploitive value are reached because a creep hacking up people is only as interesting as the ambiance and story surrounding it. 'Terrifer 2' is entirely a face value blood fest...
And those scenes are technically impressive. I mean I guess I can appreciate the effort and craftsmanship needed to create Art the Clown's handiwork. There's no CGI here and that is praiseworthy. But there's something to be said about leaving them wanting more. By over exploiting the gore you see the artifice of it. I found myself thinking about Monty Python's gory bits a lot because 'Terrifier 2' plays like a feature length Black Knight bit.
In the end 'Terrifier 2' is kind of review proof. It knows its audience and it has found it. Any trashing the movie gets Art the Clown will wear with reverence honor. The whole thing seems like the answer to Siskel and Ebert's infamous 'Women in Peril' take down of slasher films and okay If the movie was designed to make Roger Ebert roll over in his grave it is a masterpiece of epic proportions. It already seems to be heralded as a classic and the horror conventions are lining up to market Art the Clown as Freddy's heir. I'm sure with the overwhelming success 'Terrifier 3' is inevitable but I won't be rushing to see it. I guess I've become the old man shaking his fist at the kids...
But who knows? The hype train might lure me back. I'll say this though I kept my lunch in.