"Voodoo Mambo" combines the story of an evil Voodoo priestess with a cursed snake mask. It's always a bit dicey when white people try to tell stories of other cultures and religions. Overall, they try to be respectful by showing the practitioners aa communing with spirits, gods, and nature in a reverential way. It's only Laotia who is evil and bent on returning from the grave using a snake mask from which an actual snake pops out to claim victims. I appreciate when the cursed object is tied to a personal history. Black and white scenes of actual (?) Voodoo ceremonies are spliced in, perhaps to create an eerie atmosphere...take that for what you will. Not one of the most compelling episode but entertaining in its own way.
Reviews
34 Reviews
The Return of Uncle Lewis
1 June 2024
Great Season 2 opener, upping the stakes with the return of Uncle Lewis threatenings to open a doorway between Hell and Earth through a cursed mirror. I love the suggestiveness of demonic presence with the deep growling, the foggy "Realm of Darkness" between Earth and Hell, Louis' possession of a naive criminal, threatenings Rashid helping Jack to rescue Micky and Ryan. Any episode with Louis and Rashid is going to be fun. Sets the tone for Season 2 as more somber and rife with Satanic plots. The effects may look corny now but that's part of the charm. I am still impressed how they conjure nightmarish imagery on a low budget.
Wolf Connection
8 November 2020
Eric finds himself hunted by a rancher with an Ahab-like vendetta against a regular wolf. I appreciate the depiction of a kinder, less bloodthirsty wolf befriending and protecting Eric. It doesn't add much to the overall story arc or do much new (it follows the general formula of the series); but it does show Eric bonding with a nonhuman animal, which ends up being more touching than most of his brief human relationships.
I'm Your New God
13 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Sam's wall breaks down, betrayals left and right, and Castiel going dark side. Quite a few intense elements coming together. Too bad about Balthazar biting the dust; he was one of my favorite characters this season, which has its ups and downs. It's been a weird, uneven season, but I like how it's wrapped up.
Enjoyable if Not Memorable
25 February 2019
Angela goes on a killing spree among a new group of bad campers. Wise cracks and inventive (if mostly bloodless) kills are really the only things going for this. I found it entertaining if not especially memorable. Worth a watch for a schlocky 80s slasher.
Lords of Chaos
(2018)
Tongue-in-Cheek Look at the Personalities Behind the Birth of Black Metal
23 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a huge metalhead, and though I enjoy all kinds of metal-traditional, death, doom, industrial, progressive, stoner, thrash, even a few glam and nu metal bands here and there, I've always struggled with black metal. The music often eschews melody for dissonance, structured around repeated chords that, depending on the speed, create an atmosphere of plodding doom or frenetic chaos. Production tends toward lo-fi, either intentionally or as the product of financial limitations. And then there's the earnestness in the lyrics and imagery, taken so seriously by musicians and fans alike, with an elitist mentality that at times veers into the murky waters of nationalism, fascism, white supremacy, and eugenics. Still, I've always been fascinated by the history of black metal.
While Lords of Chaos the film, unlike the book it is ostensibly based on, is not about the birth of black metal as a musical subgenre and aesthetic/philosophical movement (if you really want to call it that), it does provide a close look at the personalities behind that pained emergence. I can see this making the stories of the figures in Norway's "Black Circle" more accessible to a non-metal audience unfamiliar with black metal or the crimes committed by its founders. And while metalheads, especially black metal elitists--purveyors of the trve and kvelt--have complained that the film is inaccurate, doesn't focus enough on the music, or sensationalizes the events depicted, these criticisms do not hold. As for accuracy, this film is a dramatization, not a documentary, though as far as I know, in general it doesn't depict anything that contradicts what is known from news reports and interviews. Some of the details may be invented or exaggerated for effect, but that's to be expected. And as far as the conflict between Euronymous and Varg goes-the central crux of the film-there have been contradictory statements made by Varg and others involved in the early Norwegian black metal scene, so that it's impossible to know what "really" happened between them.
As for not focusing enough on the music, I will admit this was a bit of a disappointment for me, as the aesthetics of black metal are very important to understanding the actions of those early black metallers. There's enough to give those unfamiliar with black metal a taste of its sound-with inclusion of Mayhem's iconic "Freezing Moon," perhaps one of the greatest and well-known black metal songs of all-time. But they rarely talk about music. There's a hilarious conversation about the progenitors of black metal, British speed metal band Venom (in paraphrase): Varg scornfully sneers: "Despite all their Satanic lyrics, with Venom, they said it was all just part of their image. They didn't really believe in it." Euronymous answers: "Saying it's all part of their image is...just part of their image." Since the movie is more about the people behind the music than the music itself, I suppose going into further depth was unnecessary, so I don't think the film deserves to be taken to task for not doing something it never set out to do. Still, would I have appreciated a little more music? Sure.
As for sensationalizing events, the actions of the Black Circle included suicide, church burnings, and brutal murders. So they're already inherently pretty dramatic. Now, if these things were done by people not directly responsible for two of the most foundational black metal bands of the early 90s-Mayhem and Burzum (Varg's solo one-man project), or if it made these actions seem the product of truly evil, otherworldly villains who actually were trying to unleash Satan on Earth, then that would be sensationalizing the events. But the film takes a more humanizing and subtly satirical approach, showing Varg eating toast, Euronymous getting flowers from their parents, and-gasp-even showing shreds of feeling for people. Perhaps this is what bothers black metallers: rather than shown as incarnations of evil, Dead, Varg, Euronymous, Faust, and others are shown as rebellious, vain, insecure, spoiled, and sometimes naïve teenagers trying to provoke the most extreme reactions possible by claiming all the things seen as taboo as their own. In Norway, one of the most prosperous countries on the planet, with socialized health care and cushy prisons (just watch videos of Varg in prison; it looks much nicer than what a lot of people outside of prison have in the U.S.), they got bored and needed something to make them feel alive.
The actors all do fine jobs of conveying all that and what I would imagine the various figures to be like. Dead, Mayhem's original singer, as a quiet, morbid, tortured soul; Euronymous, Mayhem's guitarist, a pompous but savvy propagator of the black metal aesthetic, who maybe was in it more for the thrill than actual belief; and Varg, who transforms from a meek and shy admirer of Mayhem to band bassist and competitive sociopath desperate to prove his commitment to a mysteriously sinister "cause." The real Varg isn't happy with how he is portrayed as "power mad" in the film. You killed someone, dude, and I don't buy the whole self-defense shtick. For anyone who is curious, watch a few of his videos on YouTube or read a few pages of any of his weird pagan-neo-fascist screeds. Actually, just take my word for it: portraying him as a power-hungry sociopath is pretty much accurate.
I don't know if I've done a good job of describing the actual film. Let me try to sum up by saying it's partly tongue-in-cheek, partly raw and unflinching portrayal of a small group of Norwegians creating a new subgenre and anti-establishment aesthetic. Despite the touches of humor that show the Black Circle as pretty much similar to glam rockers (thriving on beer, sex, juvenile delinquency, and loud music), it takes the church burnings and deaths seriously. We see Varg and Euronymous setting a few churches ablaze in the northern sky, and you get a sense of both the communal loss their destruction engendered, as well as the perverse thrill of taking down such hefty religious and national symbols of pride.
Dead's suicide comes with a sense of sad banality-he was in one of the most influential metal bands of all-time, his parents seemed to love him, yet depression had such a grip on him that death appealed to him more than life.
Faust's murder of an older gay man is depicted as an impulsive, senseless, brutal act.
And the final confrontation between Varg and Euryonomous is realistic and painfully drawn out-after all, Vikernes stabbed Aarseth 23 times. If there's one distortion, it's probably in making Euronymous look more sympathetic than he actually was. The film even uses a voiceover from him throughout, as if the audience needed a heroic anchor to keep from being disgusted by everything and everyone involved. If you're interested in the "truth," there's plenty of resources out there, including the book Lords of Chaos, though that's been criticized for inaccuracies as well. Black metal isn't pretty, but it is fascinating, and this film has helped along my growing appreciation of it. Excuse me while I go listen to my Darkthrone records.
While Lords of Chaos the film, unlike the book it is ostensibly based on, is not about the birth of black metal as a musical subgenre and aesthetic/philosophical movement (if you really want to call it that), it does provide a close look at the personalities behind that pained emergence. I can see this making the stories of the figures in Norway's "Black Circle" more accessible to a non-metal audience unfamiliar with black metal or the crimes committed by its founders. And while metalheads, especially black metal elitists--purveyors of the trve and kvelt--have complained that the film is inaccurate, doesn't focus enough on the music, or sensationalizes the events depicted, these criticisms do not hold. As for accuracy, this film is a dramatization, not a documentary, though as far as I know, in general it doesn't depict anything that contradicts what is known from news reports and interviews. Some of the details may be invented or exaggerated for effect, but that's to be expected. And as far as the conflict between Euronymous and Varg goes-the central crux of the film-there have been contradictory statements made by Varg and others involved in the early Norwegian black metal scene, so that it's impossible to know what "really" happened between them.
As for not focusing enough on the music, I will admit this was a bit of a disappointment for me, as the aesthetics of black metal are very important to understanding the actions of those early black metallers. There's enough to give those unfamiliar with black metal a taste of its sound-with inclusion of Mayhem's iconic "Freezing Moon," perhaps one of the greatest and well-known black metal songs of all-time. But they rarely talk about music. There's a hilarious conversation about the progenitors of black metal, British speed metal band Venom (in paraphrase): Varg scornfully sneers: "Despite all their Satanic lyrics, with Venom, they said it was all just part of their image. They didn't really believe in it." Euronymous answers: "Saying it's all part of their image is...just part of their image." Since the movie is more about the people behind the music than the music itself, I suppose going into further depth was unnecessary, so I don't think the film deserves to be taken to task for not doing something it never set out to do. Still, would I have appreciated a little more music? Sure.
As for sensationalizing events, the actions of the Black Circle included suicide, church burnings, and brutal murders. So they're already inherently pretty dramatic. Now, if these things were done by people not directly responsible for two of the most foundational black metal bands of the early 90s-Mayhem and Burzum (Varg's solo one-man project), or if it made these actions seem the product of truly evil, otherworldly villains who actually were trying to unleash Satan on Earth, then that would be sensationalizing the events. But the film takes a more humanizing and subtly satirical approach, showing Varg eating toast, Euronymous getting flowers from their parents, and-gasp-even showing shreds of feeling for people. Perhaps this is what bothers black metallers: rather than shown as incarnations of evil, Dead, Varg, Euronymous, Faust, and others are shown as rebellious, vain, insecure, spoiled, and sometimes naïve teenagers trying to provoke the most extreme reactions possible by claiming all the things seen as taboo as their own. In Norway, one of the most prosperous countries on the planet, with socialized health care and cushy prisons (just watch videos of Varg in prison; it looks much nicer than what a lot of people outside of prison have in the U.S.), they got bored and needed something to make them feel alive.
The actors all do fine jobs of conveying all that and what I would imagine the various figures to be like. Dead, Mayhem's original singer, as a quiet, morbid, tortured soul; Euronymous, Mayhem's guitarist, a pompous but savvy propagator of the black metal aesthetic, who maybe was in it more for the thrill than actual belief; and Varg, who transforms from a meek and shy admirer of Mayhem to band bassist and competitive sociopath desperate to prove his commitment to a mysteriously sinister "cause." The real Varg isn't happy with how he is portrayed as "power mad" in the film. You killed someone, dude, and I don't buy the whole self-defense shtick. For anyone who is curious, watch a few of his videos on YouTube or read a few pages of any of his weird pagan-neo-fascist screeds. Actually, just take my word for it: portraying him as a power-hungry sociopath is pretty much accurate.
I don't know if I've done a good job of describing the actual film. Let me try to sum up by saying it's partly tongue-in-cheek, partly raw and unflinching portrayal of a small group of Norwegians creating a new subgenre and anti-establishment aesthetic. Despite the touches of humor that show the Black Circle as pretty much similar to glam rockers (thriving on beer, sex, juvenile delinquency, and loud music), it takes the church burnings and deaths seriously. We see Varg and Euronymous setting a few churches ablaze in the northern sky, and you get a sense of both the communal loss their destruction engendered, as well as the perverse thrill of taking down such hefty religious and national symbols of pride.
Dead's suicide comes with a sense of sad banality-he was in one of the most influential metal bands of all-time, his parents seemed to love him, yet depression had such a grip on him that death appealed to him more than life.
Faust's murder of an older gay man is depicted as an impulsive, senseless, brutal act.
And the final confrontation between Varg and Euryonomous is realistic and painfully drawn out-after all, Vikernes stabbed Aarseth 23 times. If there's one distortion, it's probably in making Euronymous look more sympathetic than he actually was. The film even uses a voiceover from him throughout, as if the audience needed a heroic anchor to keep from being disgusted by everything and everyone involved. If you're interested in the "truth," there's plenty of resources out there, including the book Lords of Chaos, though that's been criticized for inaccuracies as well. Black metal isn't pretty, but it is fascinating, and this film has helped along my growing appreciation of it. Excuse me while I go listen to my Darkthrone records.
Godzilla
(2014)
Fun if Flawed Hollywood Take on the Japanese Icon
17 February 2019
Being a huge fan of Godzilla movies, I was highly anticipating the release of Gareth Edwards' 2014 American Legendary Films reimagining. I'd heard that Toho was involved more with the production, I thought Edwards' Monsters (2010) was an intriguing take on a giant monster movie, and Bryan Cranston of Breaking Bad fame was in it, promising strong performances and drama to support the monster action. Leaning back in my theater chair with a tub of popcorn, a big smile on my face, and surrounded by friends, I was so ready for this to be amazing. Unfortunately, I left the theater feeling a bit underwhelmed, and a friend's constant complaining about every possible nitpick tarnished my experience even further. Forward to 2019, when I finally decided I wanted to revisit it, feeling hyped again for the sequel, Godzilla: King of the Monsters, coming out in May this year. Got the Blu Ray to add to my growing Godzilla collection-I've got most of them, though there are so many! It's loaded with extras that I'll have to get to at some point before May.
My appreciation for it has slightly increased, and I think it's enjoyable as a "dumb action/sci-fi movie," which is what most of the Godzilla films are, aside from the 1954 original and a few later gems like Godzilla vs. Mothra (1964) and Godzilla, Mothra, King Ghidorah: Giant All-Out Monsters Attack (2001), which actually have good acting, human storylines, and capture some of the social heft of the original. So it's a bit unfair to judge this movie for what it isn't, though it's hard to judge the film on its own terms since it seemed like it was trying to meld suspenseful/fun creature rampage flick with a serious human survival/family action/melodrama story.
The strongest aspect is how the monsters are handled. Despite the short amount of screentime Godzilla gets, the restraint does build up anticipation for the reveals. And the MUTOs (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organisms) do get shown off a lot destroying stuff early on. The first half hour does a solid job of setting up the threat, so we understand how dangerous they are when they start wreaking havoc. Their appearance is sinister and unique; describing them as "insect-like" is probably the easiest comparison. Godzilla thankfully looks akin to the original Toho designs, a lumbering, spiky giant rather than the sleek giant iguana of the 1999 Tri-Star incarnation. There's great carnage action of city destruction and monster fights with the MUTOs, and the news footage of the monsters' conflict played casually on television sets adds a bit of campy levity to an otherwise too-serious tone. Finally, there's that one scene of Godzilla using his radioactive beam in an "oh yes!" moment that every decent Godzilla movie has.
As for the mix of monster and human stories, the problem is that these elements are uneven, the human drama pushed to the forefront, focusing on Cranston's character, Joe Brodie (an engineer at a nuclear power plant) and later his son, Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), an army bomb disposal expert. This isn't inherently bad, as I thought it was what made Monsters unique, leaving me with the impression of a giant monster movie "elevated" to dramatic heights. What's unfulfilling is that it lacks emotional weight, suspense, or originality. We spend so much time with Ford yet learn little about or see little emotion from him (it's hard to decide whether this is due to Taylor-Johnson's limitations or the writing or a combination). And a soldier, we are meant to see him as a kind of military hero, and also as a loving family man, searching for his wife (Elizabeth Olsen) and son (Carson Bolde). It's all a bit cliché.
The role of MONARCH, the secret government agency studying giant creatures, which also plays a role in Kong: Skull Island (2017) and will feature in the next installments in the Legendary "Monsterverse," adds a bit of intrigue, with Dr. Ishiro Serizawa (Ken Watanabe) a clear nod to director Ishiro Honda (who helmed the original as well as several sequels) and the tragic Dr. Serizawa from the first film, and Dr. Vivenne Graham (Sally Hawkins, now famous as the protagonist of The Shape of Water). While neither have much to do during the film, they are strong actors who bring a presence and a gravitas to the situation-understanding that all they can really do is study the monsters, because the military is not equipped to defeat them.
Definitely worth a watch for even a casual kaiju (giant monster) fan, as long as you have tempered expectations. Despite its flaws, it's entertaining enough as a set up the Monsterverse and to see Hollywood put forward a more respectful take on Godzilla than the 1999 movie. While the Tri-Star Godzilla, I would argue, is actually not a bad giant monster movie, it fails miserably as a Godzilla movie, with few similarities to the Japanese franchise and the military winning the day. Legendary's take resembles the original series in that humans are struggling for survival rather than triumphing over creatures who are clearly beyond human power to control. Kong: Skull Island was more fun than this film in terms of campiness and more monster action, and the trailers for Godzilla: King of the Monsters look amazing, so I am exciting for the future of this franchise.
My appreciation for it has slightly increased, and I think it's enjoyable as a "dumb action/sci-fi movie," which is what most of the Godzilla films are, aside from the 1954 original and a few later gems like Godzilla vs. Mothra (1964) and Godzilla, Mothra, King Ghidorah: Giant All-Out Monsters Attack (2001), which actually have good acting, human storylines, and capture some of the social heft of the original. So it's a bit unfair to judge this movie for what it isn't, though it's hard to judge the film on its own terms since it seemed like it was trying to meld suspenseful/fun creature rampage flick with a serious human survival/family action/melodrama story.
The strongest aspect is how the monsters are handled. Despite the short amount of screentime Godzilla gets, the restraint does build up anticipation for the reveals. And the MUTOs (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organisms) do get shown off a lot destroying stuff early on. The first half hour does a solid job of setting up the threat, so we understand how dangerous they are when they start wreaking havoc. Their appearance is sinister and unique; describing them as "insect-like" is probably the easiest comparison. Godzilla thankfully looks akin to the original Toho designs, a lumbering, spiky giant rather than the sleek giant iguana of the 1999 Tri-Star incarnation. There's great carnage action of city destruction and monster fights with the MUTOs, and the news footage of the monsters' conflict played casually on television sets adds a bit of campy levity to an otherwise too-serious tone. Finally, there's that one scene of Godzilla using his radioactive beam in an "oh yes!" moment that every decent Godzilla movie has.
As for the mix of monster and human stories, the problem is that these elements are uneven, the human drama pushed to the forefront, focusing on Cranston's character, Joe Brodie (an engineer at a nuclear power plant) and later his son, Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), an army bomb disposal expert. This isn't inherently bad, as I thought it was what made Monsters unique, leaving me with the impression of a giant monster movie "elevated" to dramatic heights. What's unfulfilling is that it lacks emotional weight, suspense, or originality. We spend so much time with Ford yet learn little about or see little emotion from him (it's hard to decide whether this is due to Taylor-Johnson's limitations or the writing or a combination). And a soldier, we are meant to see him as a kind of military hero, and also as a loving family man, searching for his wife (Elizabeth Olsen) and son (Carson Bolde). It's all a bit cliché.
The role of MONARCH, the secret government agency studying giant creatures, which also plays a role in Kong: Skull Island (2017) and will feature in the next installments in the Legendary "Monsterverse," adds a bit of intrigue, with Dr. Ishiro Serizawa (Ken Watanabe) a clear nod to director Ishiro Honda (who helmed the original as well as several sequels) and the tragic Dr. Serizawa from the first film, and Dr. Vivenne Graham (Sally Hawkins, now famous as the protagonist of The Shape of Water). While neither have much to do during the film, they are strong actors who bring a presence and a gravitas to the situation-understanding that all they can really do is study the monsters, because the military is not equipped to defeat them.
Definitely worth a watch for even a casual kaiju (giant monster) fan, as long as you have tempered expectations. Despite its flaws, it's entertaining enough as a set up the Monsterverse and to see Hollywood put forward a more respectful take on Godzilla than the 1999 movie. While the Tri-Star Godzilla, I would argue, is actually not a bad giant monster movie, it fails miserably as a Godzilla movie, with few similarities to the Japanese franchise and the military winning the day. Legendary's take resembles the original series in that humans are struggling for survival rather than triumphing over creatures who are clearly beyond human power to control. Kong: Skull Island was more fun than this film in terms of campiness and more monster action, and the trailers for Godzilla: King of the Monsters look amazing, so I am exciting for the future of this franchise.
Mandy
(I) (2018)
Psychedelic Revenge
21 January 2019
Nicholas Cage takes revenge against a cult and mutant LSD-crazed bikers. Psychedelia, creepy religious happenings, crazed Cage shenanigans, and a megalomaniac if insecure leader. The music, sound design, and visuals create such a weird atmosphere. Voices are often distorted, and scenes pull off visual tricks like Jeremiah trying to inculcate Mandy, their faces dissolving into each other. Then there's little moments like the Cheddar Goblin commercial, instantly memorable and destined to be iconic. All performances are solid, but I'm not gonna lie - Nicholas Cage absolutely steals the show, starting out quite restrained, even gentle, which makes his freak out in the second half all the more powerful. You see him scream grief in his underwear, swigging copious amounts of alcohol, forge his own weapon, snort cocaine, and bring down some serious pain on his enemies. I guess some might be off put by the arthouse style, but I find it intensely enjoyable.
Bubba Ho-Tep
(2002)
Absurd Fun
20 January 2019
Elvis and JFK...or two lonely old men affected by dementia...team up against a mummy sucking souls out the buttholes of their fellow nursing home residents. It's an absurd premise, but director Don Coscarelli, Bruce Campbell, and Ossie Davis strike the right balance of vulgar humor and earnest pathos. More comedy than horror, but the mummy looks creepy and I appreciate showing older people in peril for once. A fun weird romp.
The Amityville Horror
(1979)
Messy and Bloated Despite Iconic Status
12 January 2019
The Amityville Horror
While considered a horror classic, I honestly don't get much enjoyment out of The Amityville Horror. It deserves props for being the most successful independent film until 1990's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and it's certainly been influential for a slew of movies that are part ghost story, part cursed place tale.
Based on a supposedly true story, the film aims to show us the terror and emotional turmoil of the Lutz family after they move into a spooky house where, a year earlier, Ronald DeFeo, Jr murdered his parents and four siblings. While there are trappings of a classic haunted house scenario (doors and windows banging shut, disembodied voices - including the iconic "Get out!" growled at Father Delaney, and Amy's invisible friend, Jody), there is no clear connection with actual spirits of the dead. The presence seems more demonic, and a lot of time is spent with Father Delaney and Catholicism. In fact, it seems as though there were two movies happening, one about the Lutzes and their disintegration due to the house's malevolent influence, one about Fr. Delaney's struggle with the continued effects of his visit to the house and his desperate but futile efforts to convince his colleagues of the presence of spiritual evil.
That's my biggest gripe: the film tries to do too much, without doing anything quite effectively. At nearly two hours, it's way too bloated. On top of being confused about whether it's ghosts or demons in the house, one random character also suggests the house was built on a place where Native Americans kept their insane, and that a Satanist lived in the house before the Lutzes. There's a pointless detective staking out the Lutzes after they report a disturbance one night.
The film feels more like a succession of random creepy moments and family drama than a coherent story. And that might be Ok if the scenes weren't either melodramatic or boring. Reactions are too forced, and too many ideas go nowhere. The cuts between scenes and sound mixing are too jarring, with a dramatic moment cutting off abruptly and weird intersplicing of quiet moments with loud bursts of horror. Not jump scares exactly, but the sound levels go between barely audible to bombastic noise, something that always grates on me. (And I watched the Blu Ray, so I assume it's well-mastered.)
Despite its cult status, I don't find much to recommend it other than a watch for its historical significance to the horror genre. I feel as though it might be a much better film had it focused more tightly on the family dynamic and developed the nature of the presence/house's evil more strongly.
Based on a supposedly true story, the film aims to show us the terror and emotional turmoil of the Lutz family after they move into a spooky house where, a year earlier, Ronald DeFeo, Jr murdered his parents and four siblings. While there are trappings of a classic haunted house scenario (doors and windows banging shut, disembodied voices - including the iconic "Get out!" growled at Father Delaney, and Amy's invisible friend, Jody), there is no clear connection with actual spirits of the dead. The presence seems more demonic, and a lot of time is spent with Father Delaney and Catholicism. In fact, it seems as though there were two movies happening, one about the Lutzes and their disintegration due to the house's malevolent influence, one about Fr. Delaney's struggle with the continued effects of his visit to the house and his desperate but futile efforts to convince his colleagues of the presence of spiritual evil.
That's my biggest gripe: the film tries to do too much, without doing anything quite effectively. At nearly two hours, it's way too bloated. On top of being confused about whether it's ghosts or demons in the house, one random character also suggests the house was built on a place where Native Americans kept their insane, and that a Satanist lived in the house before the Lutzes. There's a pointless detective staking out the Lutzes after they report a disturbance one night.
The film feels more like a succession of random creepy moments and family drama than a coherent story. And that might be Ok if the scenes weren't either melodramatic or boring. Reactions are too forced, and too many ideas go nowhere. The cuts between scenes and sound mixing are too jarring, with a dramatic moment cutting off abruptly and weird intersplicing of quiet moments with loud bursts of horror. Not jump scares exactly, but the sound levels go between barely audible to bombastic noise, something that always grates on me. (And I watched the Blu Ray, so I assume it's well-mastered.)
Despite its cult status, I don't find much to recommend it other than a watch for its historical significance to the horror genre. I feel as though it might be a much better film had it focused more tightly on the family dynamic and developed the nature of the presence/house's evil more strongly.
Sorry to Bother You
(2018)
Satire Gone Wild
5 January 2019
How does one begin to describe a movie like this? Funny, satirical, bizarre - a start, but inadequate. What starts out as a smart and outstandingly acted - if seemingly typical - poor man vs corporate exploitation, goes off the rails to become twisted feverdream of existential nightmare, without ever losing its acerbic wit. This tackles heavy social issues but manages to never take itself quite seriously. Perhaps a bit too on the nose sometimes, though it delivers in a totally unique and somewhat absurd way. What a blast.
Boarding School
(2018)
Odd and Enjoyable Tale about the Horror of Being an Outcast
22 December 2018
I didn't know what to expect going into this movie. Watched solely based on Dr. Shock's recommendation on Horror Movie Podcast. The premise was promising if a bit vague. Turns out the movie was great, and kinda weird. With the protagonist dressing in his recently deceased grandmother's clothes and the mysterious school he's sent to, with a small class of outcasts and only two odd characters running the place, it seemed like a set-up for a ghost or demon movie. Don't want to give anything away but it's actually something more sinister. Quite disturbing actually. And sad.
There's a lot going on, from Jacob's strange connection to his grandma, an apparently difficult woman he didn't know, a Holocaust survivor willing to do whatever it took to survive. There's the odd assortment of kids, some with extreme disabilities (disfigurement, Tourette's, intellectual disability), some who just don't seem to fit in. And while there's tensions between them, they develop a camaraderie that's touching. Though you see their darker sides too, especially as the sense of being trapped at the school grows and events spiral out of control.
Definitely recommend, especially before you make your top 10 of 2018 lists.
There's a lot going on, from Jacob's strange connection to his grandma, an apparently difficult woman he didn't know, a Holocaust survivor willing to do whatever it took to survive. There's the odd assortment of kids, some with extreme disabilities (disfigurement, Tourette's, intellectual disability), some who just don't seem to fit in. And while there's tensions between them, they develop a camaraderie that's touching. Though you see their darker sides too, especially as the sense of being trapped at the school grows and events spiral out of control.
Definitely recommend, especially before you make your top 10 of 2018 lists.
Planet of the Apes
(1968)
Classic Sci-fi/Action with Social Commentary Galore
1 December 2018
Watching this again after many years, it's just as fun as I remember. Hard to take seriously after all those spoofs (kept thinking of the Simpsons' one), but it's classic sci-fi/action with social commentary as subtle as a rifle-wielding gorilla. Roddy McDowall as Cornelius, Charlton Heston as Taylor, Dr. Zaius, Zira, Lucius, really all the cast and characters are great. Those iconic lines - "...you damn dirty ape," "It's a madhouse," "You blew it up!" etc. Very over-the-top. Costumes are hokey yet endearing, and if you can suspend disbelief, the apes look real enough. I'm looking forward to diving back into all the sequels, which I remember as not as good as the original, but still fun, warped, and creative in their own ways.
Billy Budd
(1962)
Grand Tragedy among Common Men
24 November 2018
Based on a novella by Herman Melville I know quite well (I'm writing about it for my dissertation), this Shakespearean tragedy meets sea yarn is superbly adapted and directed by Peter Ustinov, who also plays the conflicted Captain Vere. I was not sure how this would work on screen, since Melville's last piece of fiction is more philosophical meditation than harrowing drama. Ustinov adds just enough drama and fleshes out characters enough to translate the concerns of mutiny, impressment, military discipline, and the conflict between justice and law (drawn out largely by narratorial commentary in the novella) play out cinematically, without ruining the mysterious and meditative air of the original story.
Billy Budd, an amiable, good, and naive sailor with a stutter that troubles him during moments of distress makes fast friends when he's impressed from a merchant ship to a British warship during the Napoleonic Wars. Except the ship's master-at-arms, John Claggart, has it in for him. Despite Budd's innocence, Claggart drives him to an unspeakable (see what I did there) act.
Ryan captures the inscrutable malice of Claggart perfectly. We don't know quite why he goes after Budd, other than he seems to hate seeing others happy and loved, something he seems to feel denied himself. Stamp has the looks and charm of a simple innocent, who doesn't understand the tragedy unfolding around him. Douglas is believable as the Dansker, a mysterious, grizzled veteran who sees Claggart's schemes and tries to warn Budd. Ustinov shows the pain of being torn between duty and conscience. Really, everyone does a great job
There were a few flourishes of melodrama that didn't work as well, and the ending had something undefinable missing, but these are minor quibbles. I'm not sure if everyone can appreciate this kind of film (or story), but if you enjoy tragic stories in which grand themes play out among common men, this is for you.
Billy Budd, an amiable, good, and naive sailor with a stutter that troubles him during moments of distress makes fast friends when he's impressed from a merchant ship to a British warship during the Napoleonic Wars. Except the ship's master-at-arms, John Claggart, has it in for him. Despite Budd's innocence, Claggart drives him to an unspeakable (see what I did there) act.
Ryan captures the inscrutable malice of Claggart perfectly. We don't know quite why he goes after Budd, other than he seems to hate seeing others happy and loved, something he seems to feel denied himself. Stamp has the looks and charm of a simple innocent, who doesn't understand the tragedy unfolding around him. Douglas is believable as the Dansker, a mysterious, grizzled veteran who sees Claggart's schemes and tries to warn Budd. Ustinov shows the pain of being torn between duty and conscience. Really, everyone does a great job
There were a few flourishes of melodrama that didn't work as well, and the ending had something undefinable missing, but these are minor quibbles. I'm not sure if everyone can appreciate this kind of film (or story), but if you enjoy tragic stories in which grand themes play out among common men, this is for you.
The Last Winter
(2006)
Climate Change-Themed Film of Dread
13 November 2018
An oil company drilling in the Alaskan wilderness unleashes a deadly force...or are they all just going crazy? A great atmospheric film of dread with themes of climate change and the power of nature by Larry Fessenden. Ron Perlman amusing to watch as an angry, global warming-denying curmudgeon.
The Stuff
(1985)
The Blob Meets Invasion of the Body Snatchers as Anti-Consumerism
12 November 2018
Mysterious dessert becomes commercial success while turning people into slavish consumers. Another fun Larry Cohen movie with Michael Moriarty punching people out and zinging one-liners. The Blob meets Invasion of the Body Snatchers with anti-capitalism twist. Absurdly entertaining.
Near Dark
(1987)
Unique Vampire Western
9 November 2018
There aren't too many vampire films from the 80s, a decade dominated by slashers and aliens in horror. Near Dark is much different than the other two notable 80s vamp flicks, Fright Night and The Lost Boys. It's a lot grittier and serious. It also combines elements of Westerns and horror, not a common combo. It also subverts conventions of both those genres.
Focused on a nomadic band of vampires and a new recruit who struggles against his nature, our perspective and sympathy largely center on the killers, not something you usually get from a Western. The vampires are not quite like other children of the night. They're not suave (like Chris Sarandon in Fright Night) or hip bad boys (like Kiefer Sutherland and his crew in The Lost Boys). They're erratic, grimy outlaws who use guns as often as fangs.
Kathryn Bigelow's direction creates an atmosphere combining both dread in the more intimate scenes and excitement in the action scenes, always a difficult balance for filmmakers who try to do both. The bar scene is an amazing brilliance of undead sadism, as the bloodsuckers toy with their victims before picking off the hapless cowboys and cowgals one at a time. Bill Paxton is both funny and scary as the most unpredictable and violent of the bunch. Lance Henriksen plays the clan's stern leader. Adrian Pasdar and Jenny Wright do a passable job as the more "humane" vampires who cling to their humanity, but it's really their contrast with the cruelty of Paxton, Henriksen, and the other vamps that makes me feel for their characters.
Not sure how I never saw this film until 2018 but I can say I will be revisiting it, and am curious to know how my appreciation for it will change with multiple viewings. I've always heard this touted as one of the major horror films directed by women (along with Pet Semetary by Mary Lambert and American Psycho by Mary Harron), but really it deserves to be praised one of the most unique and fun vampire films.
Focused on a nomadic band of vampires and a new recruit who struggles against his nature, our perspective and sympathy largely center on the killers, not something you usually get from a Western. The vampires are not quite like other children of the night. They're not suave (like Chris Sarandon in Fright Night) or hip bad boys (like Kiefer Sutherland and his crew in The Lost Boys). They're erratic, grimy outlaws who use guns as often as fangs.
Kathryn Bigelow's direction creates an atmosphere combining both dread in the more intimate scenes and excitement in the action scenes, always a difficult balance for filmmakers who try to do both. The bar scene is an amazing brilliance of undead sadism, as the bloodsuckers toy with their victims before picking off the hapless cowboys and cowgals one at a time. Bill Paxton is both funny and scary as the most unpredictable and violent of the bunch. Lance Henriksen plays the clan's stern leader. Adrian Pasdar and Jenny Wright do a passable job as the more "humane" vampires who cling to their humanity, but it's really their contrast with the cruelty of Paxton, Henriksen, and the other vamps that makes me feel for their characters.
Not sure how I never saw this film until 2018 but I can say I will be revisiting it, and am curious to know how my appreciation for it will change with multiple viewings. I've always heard this touted as one of the major horror films directed by women (along with Pet Semetary by Mary Lambert and American Psycho by Mary Harron), but really it deserves to be praised one of the most unique and fun vampire films.
The Haunting of Hill House
(2018)
A Unique Take on the Classic Gothic Novel
28 October 2018
This miniseries is loosely based on Shirley Jackson's 1959 novel, one of the finest--if not the finest--horror novels written. At least two straight adaptations exist, though there have been countless stories, books, and movies using its conceit of a group of researchers staying overnight in a haunted house, to discover terrors beyond what they bargained for. Robert Wise's 1963 The Haunting is probably the most faithful adaptation and is also one of the best gothic ghost films you could ask for. Jan de Bont's 1999 mess, also titled The Haunting, turns the subtle and psychologically powerful story into an action horror CGI fest.
Mike Flanagan, one of my favorite contemporary horror directors (Oculus, Hush, Gerald's Game), radically revises the actual plot of the book while fleshing out its themes more fully than any other adaptation. Instead of a group of strangers brought together by a paranormal researcher, Flanagan remakes the characters into siblings who move into Hill House, whose evil presence casts a pall over their childhood, and continues to haunt them even after they've moved out and grown up. It's a move that makes this a very character-driven and emotional approach, and it works brilliantly.
With ten episodes, we get to know the Crain family very well. Each of the first five episodes focuses on one of the five siblings, while the remaining parts show them struggling to deal with tragedy and the continued evil of Hill House as it draws them back to its clutches. They also have to face their conflicts with each other and their troubled father, who most of them have broken contact with since they were younger. And they must confront their inner demons, as all are flawed in different ways--greed, arrogance, emotional detachment, addiction.
The performances are outstanding. The nonlinear storytelling, weaving in past and present, at times in literal ways (Hill House seems to be able to contort space and time), makes this a truly unique ghost story. It's more than just a ghost story though--there are ghosts, but Hill House is an entity unto itself, a kind of demonic vampire that feeds off pain and suffering. You can see this premise in many other horror stories, especially Stephen King (the Overlook in The Shining being the prime example), whose effusive praise for Jackson's novel in Danse Macabre shows how influential The Haunting of Hill House has been for the horror maestro.
Despite being such a departure from the novel, it also incorporates much from it, including actual lines of narration, dialogue, and scenes. There are also grotesque and horrific moments--it's not all just psychological dread--such as the "bent neck lady," terrible enough on her own, even more disturbing once you learn her origin.
I simply can't say enough to praise this miniseries. 10+ hours of content, and worth every minute. Available on Netflix.
Mike Flanagan, one of my favorite contemporary horror directors (Oculus, Hush, Gerald's Game), radically revises the actual plot of the book while fleshing out its themes more fully than any other adaptation. Instead of a group of strangers brought together by a paranormal researcher, Flanagan remakes the characters into siblings who move into Hill House, whose evil presence casts a pall over their childhood, and continues to haunt them even after they've moved out and grown up. It's a move that makes this a very character-driven and emotional approach, and it works brilliantly.
With ten episodes, we get to know the Crain family very well. Each of the first five episodes focuses on one of the five siblings, while the remaining parts show them struggling to deal with tragedy and the continued evil of Hill House as it draws them back to its clutches. They also have to face their conflicts with each other and their troubled father, who most of them have broken contact with since they were younger. And they must confront their inner demons, as all are flawed in different ways--greed, arrogance, emotional detachment, addiction.
The performances are outstanding. The nonlinear storytelling, weaving in past and present, at times in literal ways (Hill House seems to be able to contort space and time), makes this a truly unique ghost story. It's more than just a ghost story though--there are ghosts, but Hill House is an entity unto itself, a kind of demonic vampire that feeds off pain and suffering. You can see this premise in many other horror stories, especially Stephen King (the Overlook in The Shining being the prime example), whose effusive praise for Jackson's novel in Danse Macabre shows how influential The Haunting of Hill House has been for the horror maestro.
Despite being such a departure from the novel, it also incorporates much from it, including actual lines of narration, dialogue, and scenes. There are also grotesque and horrific moments--it's not all just psychological dread--such as the "bent neck lady," terrible enough on her own, even more disturbing once you learn her origin.
I simply can't say enough to praise this miniseries. 10+ hours of content, and worth every minute. Available on Netflix.
A Return to Salem's Lot
(1987)
Weird and Quirky Spoof (Rather than Sequel) of Original
22 October 2018
Man, I love Larry Cohen movies! Mad that I didn't discover him til a year or two ago. Dialogue, effects, story all absurd & darkly humorous, but not in that silly trying-too-hard way. Michael Moriarty, his foul-mouthed son, & a Jewish Nazi hunter team up to fight vampires! It's not scary but I like it better than the original mini-series by Tobe Hooper. Only a loose sequel to that film - apparently, Cohen's script was rejected for that original adaptation, so this is more like a spoof of that film than a sequel. Recommended if you want something weird and quirky.
The Grudge
(2004)
Creepy & Unique "Ghost" Story Makes This Stand Out among Japanese Horror
18 October 2018
Rewatched this after not having seen it in a long time. Injects real creepiness into a basic ghost story. And this ghost can get you anywhere--not tied to a single house. Actually, not sure "ghost" is the right word, as it seems less like the spirit of a single person and more the curse of traumatic violence haunting characters. Great story and performances.
Godzilla vs. SpaceGodzilla
(1994)
Good Concept, Poor Execution
18 October 2018
The big G fights a doppleganger created by a black hole (not even kidding). Kinda like the concept but done poorly; SpaceG is not that compelling, and overall film fails to create any excitement. Only for Godzilla completists.
Amityville Horror: The Evil Escapes
(1989 TV Movie)
Mildly Entertaining
5 October 2018
A fairly decent sequel without much connection to the original (tone or story-wise). Full of haunted house cliches despite it seeming unique somehow...perhaps thanks to the strength of the mostly female cast. It's middle of the road...not offensive, only mildly entertaining.
Godzilla 1985
(1985)
Godzilla Is a Horror Film Again
2 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Saw this movie (Japanese version of Godzilla 1985) once I was older, though I had the American VHS as a kid and watched it repeatedly. Has a horror look and feel, with serious political themes, for the first time since the original Godzilla. Love many of the shots of the big G, as his first appearance out of fog, showing a POV from G on high, then from a man who suddenly sees G's foot, and slowly pans up his body to the roaring head. The Tokyo scenes look great too, especially the reflection of Godzilla in one of the buildings.
I don't mind the fact that G doesn't fight another monster. It's a nice change of pace in fact, being one of four such Godzilla (along with the original, Shin Godzilla, and Godzilla: Planet of Monsters). The Super X is a bit underwhelming, but the fact it can actually do damage to G and stand up to his atomic breath is kinda cool.
It's not without its flaws, of course. G's look changes dramatically between shots, depending on whether it's the suit or the animatronic head. This discontinuity has always been a part of Godzilla films, but I feel it's more noticeable than usual.
The human parts drag the film at times, even though I do enjoy the professor's attempts to understand Godzilla, and the political wrangling between Japan, Russia, and the US. It's not a problem with story or action, mainly pacing.
The fiery ending of Godzilla being lured into a volcano, screaming a heart-piercing wail while melancholic music swells and the protagonists look on with solemn wonder, is one of the most moving scene in any Godzilla film.
I typically get annoyed by elitists who praise foreign-language originals and hold those in contempt who don't want to read subtitles. I usually prefer American dubs because of my eyesight and difficulty reading subtitles. But the Japanese Godzilla 1984/Return of Godzilla is different enough from the American Godzilla 1985, and in some ways superior, to be worth separate consideration and the effort of reading subs, even for someone who is legally blind. The Japanese version is more somber and straightforward, while the American adds some groan-worthy humor and makes edits to the Russians' role to make them more villainous. (Still, I find that one fun, having grown up with it. And I enjoy the addition of Raymond Burr, reprising his role of Steve Martin from the American Godzilla: King of the Monsters.)
I don't mind the fact that G doesn't fight another monster. It's a nice change of pace in fact, being one of four such Godzilla (along with the original, Shin Godzilla, and Godzilla: Planet of Monsters). The Super X is a bit underwhelming, but the fact it can actually do damage to G and stand up to his atomic breath is kinda cool.
It's not without its flaws, of course. G's look changes dramatically between shots, depending on whether it's the suit or the animatronic head. This discontinuity has always been a part of Godzilla films, but I feel it's more noticeable than usual.
The human parts drag the film at times, even though I do enjoy the professor's attempts to understand Godzilla, and the political wrangling between Japan, Russia, and the US. It's not a problem with story or action, mainly pacing.
The fiery ending of Godzilla being lured into a volcano, screaming a heart-piercing wail while melancholic music swells and the protagonists look on with solemn wonder, is one of the most moving scene in any Godzilla film.
I typically get annoyed by elitists who praise foreign-language originals and hold those in contempt who don't want to read subtitles. I usually prefer American dubs because of my eyesight and difficulty reading subtitles. But the Japanese Godzilla 1984/Return of Godzilla is different enough from the American Godzilla 1985, and in some ways superior, to be worth separate consideration and the effort of reading subs, even for someone who is legally blind. The Japanese version is more somber and straightforward, while the American adds some groan-worthy humor and makes edits to the Russians' role to make them more villainous. (Still, I find that one fun, having grown up with it. And I enjoy the addition of Raymond Burr, reprising his role of Steve Martin from the American Godzilla: King of the Monsters.)
Fun Dino Romp w/More Serious Tone than Jurassic World
22 June 2018
Glad I saw Jurassic World at the theater before this - got me more psyched to see dinosaurs eating people which, let's face it, is why anyone watches these movies. I am a huge fan of the JP series, so I am biased, but this was another fun romp, and though there were some comedic moments, it doesn't have the cheesiness of the first Jurassic World. It has a more serious tone, and the characters and dialogue are better-written. I wasn't crazy about Owen (Chris Pratt) and Claire (Bryce Dallas-Howard) but they return, and they're more enjoyable.
The dino action is great as always, with creatures old and new. I felt a lot of emotion for the dinosaurs, as they are again facing extinction. The Indoraptor is a great, scary follow-up to Indominus rex. Don't want to say much more. Just that if you have the slightest interest, go see it!
The dino action is great as always, with creatures old and new. I felt a lot of emotion for the dinosaurs, as they are again facing extinction. The Indoraptor is a great, scary follow-up to Indominus rex. Don't want to say much more. Just that if you have the slightest interest, go see it!
Land Shark
(2017)
Possibly a Misleadingly Nuanced Experiment in Terror
18 June 2018
Now, it could be that everyone who sees this movie is completely misunderstanding it. What is seen as terrible, wooden acting, is actually carefully worked-out performance meant to keep the viewer off-kilter. The papier-mâché creature, a shark injected with human DNA that can come on land, rather than being more laughable than a middle school kid's attempt at special fx, challenges our desire for spectacle and for demonizing nature. The generic synth music and stock musical cues, claimed by critics to be less emotionally inspiring than the sound of lint falling out a bellybutton, reimagines terror as a deconstruction of melody and music's immersive illusion.
There are a lot characters without names (with less characterization and screen time than the time it takes to roll your eyes) who die graphic, bloody deaths. This means POV shot with a distortion plugin, actor falls, screaming, shot of fake-looking shark jaws, then shot of ketschup being sprayed on a wall as if it were a hotdog. We see a hot date with dumb young adults literally talking about meeting on Tinder, which I'm sure is a commentary on how ephemeral and unreliable technology has rendered our relationships.
The rest of the movie follows two scientists, Foster and Lucinda, tracking down the Land Sharks and having several epic, nearly mortal battles with them. They work for an evil corporation (made up of one middle-aged woman on Skype) trying to weaponize sharks to fight on land and sea. Yes, it's only a slightly more absurd premise than Vincent D'Onofrio's attempt to weaponize raptors in Jurassic World.
Thankfully, our leads have turns of philosophical rivalry and sexual tension. They get profound dialogue such as this:
Foster: Well, we can't do anymore tonight, so, we'll have to get a motel.
Lucinda: Oh, separate rooms.
Foster: Trust me, I wouldn't have it any other way.
Lucinda: At least we agree on something.
The movie ends with a confrontation between good and evil, man and nature, beauty and beast. We're left hungry for the chum suggestive of a continued saga in Land Shark 2: Land of the Sharks, dumped into the opaque waters of the conclusion.
I don't believe I watched this movie. I could only do it by writing this review most of the time, and looking up occasionally to see what was happening on screen. 2/10. Available on. Amazon Prime for your viewing pleasure.
There are a lot characters without names (with less characterization and screen time than the time it takes to roll your eyes) who die graphic, bloody deaths. This means POV shot with a distortion plugin, actor falls, screaming, shot of fake-looking shark jaws, then shot of ketschup being sprayed on a wall as if it were a hotdog. We see a hot date with dumb young adults literally talking about meeting on Tinder, which I'm sure is a commentary on how ephemeral and unreliable technology has rendered our relationships.
The rest of the movie follows two scientists, Foster and Lucinda, tracking down the Land Sharks and having several epic, nearly mortal battles with them. They work for an evil corporation (made up of one middle-aged woman on Skype) trying to weaponize sharks to fight on land and sea. Yes, it's only a slightly more absurd premise than Vincent D'Onofrio's attempt to weaponize raptors in Jurassic World.
Thankfully, our leads have turns of philosophical rivalry and sexual tension. They get profound dialogue such as this:
Foster: Well, we can't do anymore tonight, so, we'll have to get a motel.
Lucinda: Oh, separate rooms.
Foster: Trust me, I wouldn't have it any other way.
Lucinda: At least we agree on something.
The movie ends with a confrontation between good and evil, man and nature, beauty and beast. We're left hungry for the chum suggestive of a continued saga in Land Shark 2: Land of the Sharks, dumped into the opaque waters of the conclusion.
I don't believe I watched this movie. I could only do it by writing this review most of the time, and looking up occasionally to see what was happening on screen. 2/10. Available on. Amazon Prime for your viewing pleasure.
Tell Your Friends