The Nutcracker: The Untold Story.

Review #2473: The Nutcracker: The Untold Story.

Cast:

Elle Fanning (Mary), Nathan Lane (Uncle Albert), John Turturro (the Rat King), Charlie Rowe (Prince Nicholas Charles "N.C.", the Nutcracker; Shirley Henderson as the voice of the Nutcracker), Frances de la Tour (Frau Eva / The Rat Queen), Aaron Michael Drozin (Max), Richard E. Grant (Joseph), Yulia Vysotskaya (Louise / The Snow Fairy), with Jonny Coyne (Gnomad), and Peter Elliott and Daniel Peacock (Gielgud; Alan Cox as the voice of Gielgud) Directed by Andrei Konchalovsky (#1876 - Tango & Cash)

Review:

“Our goal was to create a world in which fantasy was intertwined with reality, the way children experience the world. Toys spark their imagination, and we, like children, with incredible technology at our disposal, decided to play with these toys and give our fantasy absolute freedom."

Once upon a time, in 1816, E. T. A. Hoffman wrote a literary fairy tale called "The Nutcracker and the Mouse King" that was published in Berlin. Alexandre Dumas later did a retelling of the work in 1844 (a loose translation) before 1892 saw the premiere of a two-act ballet with music by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Apparently, the first feature film of the Nutcracker was in 1967 in Poland. There have been versions in stop motion (Nutcracker Fantasy [1979]), a version with the Pacific Northwest Ballet (Nutcracker: The Motion Picture [1986]), a 1997 short in IMAX, you get the idea. Apparently, Andrei Konchalovsky (director of films such as Runaway Train) had an interest in doing a film version for forty years, but plans finally came together in 2007. You might wonder what is different, well, it is The Nutcracker music to go along with lyrics written by Tim Rice (known for various things, such as the lyrics for The Lion King) that has the songs based on the dances of the ballet (songs such as "It's All Relative" ended up never getting a soundtrack album release); the movie is cited as a UK-Russia-Hungary production, as one does when filming in English. Apparently, in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, the movie was known as "The Nutcracker in 3D" while Russia called it "The Nutcracker and the Mouse King". Budgeted at roughly $90 million, the movie made less than a quarter of that back at the box office. Konchalovsky actually argued that the movie just didn't have good enough marketing in America (where it made little money) because the critics "completely misunderstood it" as a dreary movie rather than a "fun fairy tale", and Europe just didn't go to see it besides Russia. No movie with a noted reputation of being a flop is complete without some weird funding: the movie was primarily financed by VEB.RF, a Russian corporation chaired by none other than Vladimir Putin, and they actually sued the producers for unpaid loans in 2020 (in fact they helped to pay for the 3D conversion). The next to try a Nutcracker movie was in 2018, when Disney did The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, which was almost as big of a failure. At least Andrei Konchalovsky kept on directing, doing so as recently as Dear Comrades! in 2020, when he was 83 years old.

  

Apparently, Konchalovsky had to figure out the movie was about loneliness, specifically children who are not heard at home. If Roger Corman watched this movie, he probably would've shook his head at the idea of a movie like this being made for $90 million...because where the hell did the money go? 1920s Vienna could've easily be curtailed for setting this movie in dreary Anytown with how the movie operates. This is supposed to be a fun fairy tale? The movie where the rats are made to look like Nazis? The movie where one character is implied to Albert Einstein for no apparent reason? The movie where barely anyone registers a performance worth mentioning? As a fairy tale, it is a plodding movie, managing to evoke the smallest of interest in the alleged Christmas spirit. As a family movie, the 110 minutes move along with a good deal of nothing actually happening to really latch on to, particularly since the songs don't really make an impact. If the ballet feels like a Christmas tree in its majesty and sense of wonder, this movie basically is the equivalent of a rotted synthetic tree, filled with a whole lot of nothing. Even making fun of the Nutcracker for looking like they mugged Pinocchio (specifically from Shrek) feels like it is stating the obvious, at least when compared to the clown and a person in a monkey-suit. It isn't so much that the cast is bad as is the fact that they feel like cardboard with little to actually latch on to. Lane basically looks like he is staring at one's soul with an expression of "the money, the money, the money", while Grant is bafflingly in a father figure role when he probably seems born to chew the scenery of a villain (hey, I liked Hudson Hawk, sue me). Turturro has the look of Phil Spector but strangely sounds like Bernie Kopell from Get Smart that manages to evoke eye rolls rather than heightened interest. You could say it is meant to be campy, but it isn't particularly funny, at least when compared to his plan of blocking out the sun by putting toys in furnaces to make black smoke. You know, for kids! One wonders if they had a loose inspiration from Life Is Beautiful (1997), which was set mostly in a concentration camp where a father uses his imagination to shield his son from the horrors of the camp. The Producers (1967*) had the idea that if you flung enough absurd things, people will view something as a satire as opposed to being offended by what they saw. Here you get mecha-rat dog things and weird double roles because, uh, reasons. The Nutcracker: The Untold Story proves that you could fling middling visuals (in 3D!) and Nazi-rats to people and they would reject it out of hand rather than accept what the filmmakers were peddling (or smoking). As a whole, this is just a sad little misfire by someone who clearly thought they knew better in making a movie fit for families. The only people who ended up watching the movie either strove to check out the ballet or read the book just to get the taste out of their mouth.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Next up: King Kong Lives.

*Did you know Nathan Lane was in the 2005 edition of The Producers, the one that was based on the musical? 

Half Past Dead.

Review #2473: Half Past Dead.

Cast: 

Steven Seagal (FBI Agent Sasha Petrosevitch), Morris Chestnut (Donny Johnson "49er One"), Ja Rule (Nick Frazier), Nia Peeples ("49er Six"), Tony Plana (Warden Juan Ruiz "El Fuego" Escarzaga), Kurupt (Bernard "Twitch"), Michael "Bear" Taliferro (Joe "Little Joe"), Claudia Christian (FBI Special Agent Ellen Williams), Linda Thorson (Judge Jane McPherson), Bruce Weitz (Lester McKenna), Michael McGrady (Guard Damon J. Kestner), Richard Bremmer (Sonny Eckvall), Hannes Jaenicke (FBI Agent Hartmann), with Mo'Nique (Twitch's Girl), and Stephen J. Cannell (Frank Hubbard) Written and Directed by Don Michael Paul.

 

Review: 

You might know that Steven Seagal was a star at one point in time. Above the Law (1988) utilized him to his strengths in, well, kicking the crap out of people, even if he already had ideas of being a filmmaker too. His fifth film as a star in Under Siege (1992) was probably his peak, mainly because he was surrounded by people who looked like they wanted to be there for what could've easily been just "Die Hard on a boat". He finally made his presence known as a director (a bad one) with On Deadly Ground (1994), a movie that was beyond absurd in its environmental message in the face of having so many bodies all around the place. He then did a sequel to Under Siege in 1995 before having one noted supporting role in a movie with Executive Decision (1996) before starting to get into doing direct-to-video work such as The Patriot (1998) or stuff that didn't even get a US theatrical release such as Ticker (2001). Exit Wounds (2001) paired him with DMX in what was thought to be a "comeback movie", although it was this last venture with Warner Bros. At the end of all of this is Half Past Dead (2002), the 11th and final theatrical movie with Seagal as the key star, and it is the only one that was rated PG-13. No, seriously. He has made one theatrical movie in America since* this film with Machete (2010). Half Past Dead was directed by a first-timer in Don Michael Paul. The actor-turned-director/writer wrote the script for the film, which was his first theatrical script since Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man (1991). He would go on to such vaunted works as Who's Your Caddy? (2007) to go along with a litany of movies for the video market (Jarhead 2, three Tremors sequels, Kindergarten Cop 2). Half Past Dead was not a hit with audiences even with just a budget of $25 million. Two years later, Seagal added music to his "forte" with an album of music that had "pop, world, country, and blues music" in it. The less said about his ties to other countries, the better.

There is plenty of satisfaction to be had here. No, not as a good movie, I mean the satisfaction of seeing a bloated, lazy, arrogant Steven Seagal fall off the lowest bar possible when it comes to "action star", complete with barely even having a close-up of Seagal. This is delightfully pathetic, managing to evoke a sense of feeling like a ripoff of any action movie that just pops up in your head. To add on to this, apparently, some unused aerial shots from The Rock actually does show up in the movie. Being painfully generic is one thing, being painfully generic with a star having the charisma of a rotted potato is another. There is absolutely nothing to Seagal in this film to latch on for interest, unless you count him wearing a durag for, um, some reason. The near-death experience the character suffers at the opening doesn't really come into play, honestly, because Seagal just drifts through scenes with the same blank expression. It isn't a story of revenge or even a story of finding one's place after suffering trauma, nah, it is just a guy who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time that is totally not a regurgitation of Die Hard and The Rock (did I mention the movie is set with a restored Alcatraz? It goes right up with a plot about a guy wanting to get the secrets of a doomed man of where he buried valuable gold). His fight scenes seem more like the work of creative cutting with stunt doubles than an actual physical presence. Chuck Norris in his fifties probably had more fitness than Seagal, so where's that excuse? Chestnut seems mildly invested in getting to play a villain in it for the paycheck that probably isn't too different from an actor in it for the paycheck, which is a nice thing to say in a movie where Peeples and her getup of leather (someone watch The Matrix or certain magazines, hmm?) and eyeshadow probably serves as the one attraction worth watching for the whole movie in terms of curiosity. Ja Rule appeared in a handful of movies in the 2000s that probably were fun to do (Assault on Precinct 13 [2005], for example) alongside having a rap career. In that regard, being in this film to try and play buddy with Seagal (a'ight is said a handful of times to make that clear) is not nearly as embarrassing as being the future co-founder of the doomed Fyre Festival, to put it mildly. Stephen J. Cannell appeared in one film as an actor when not doing work on TV, and it was this one. Your guess is as good as mine. By the time the movie ends its pursuit of, uh, retribution and gold, you will have learned that a "generic" action movie can be a blessing when compared to bad action movies like this. As a whole, Seagal was reaching his fifties when doing stuff like this and it shows pretty clearly for a movie that is too bloated, too under-cooked and too tired out to be anything other than a piece of crap fit for laughter.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Bring on the sixth year of bad movies to celebrate Thanksgiving Week, hell yea. Next one up: The Nutcracker in 3D (2010).

*On a probably unrelated note, the following year after Half Past Dead, Segal had to take the stand because a bunch of mobsters from the Gambino crime family were brought in by one Julius R. Nasso to try and threaten Seagal after the dissolving of their partnership.

*For whatever reason, someone actually transcribed the dialogue of the film into text form here: Half Past Dead Script - transcript from the screenplay and/or Steven Seagal movie

Predator: Badlands.

Review #2472: Predator: Badlands.

Cast: 

Elle Fanning (Thia / Tessa), Dimitrius Schuster-Koloamatangi (Dek / voice of Njohrr / Apex Predator / Father), Reuben de Jong (Njohrr / Apex Predator / Father), Mike Homik (Kwei; Stefan Grube as voice), Rohinal Narayan (Bud), Cameron Brown (Smyth), and Alison Wright (voice of MU/TH/UR) Directed by Dan Trachtenberg (#784 - 10 Cloverfield Lane)

Review: 

Predator (1987) came onto the scene when its writers Jim and John Thomas wondered, "What would it be like to be hunted by a dilettante hunter from another planet the way we hunt big game in Africa?” It ended up being more than that of course, as one does when having John McTiernan as a director and the fact that yes, it was far more than just an "macho" action movie because most importantly: it was a movie that dealt with one creature setting out to find a worthy opponent (i.e. a thinker besides just shooting at what moves) that would actually engage with the environment and scenario given for a meaningful battle. The follow-ups that have followed in the wake of a movie that is now rightfully seen as an action/sci-fi/horror staple have been, well, distinct: Predator 2 (1990) was the last of the series with the Thomas brothers writing it and I really have to re-consider why I didn't care about it back when I saw it years ago. We do not speak of Alien vs. Predator or its equally dumb follow-up. Predators (2010) had a variety of actors to choose from for an interesting focus on a planet of killers being hunted down...and landed on Adrien Brody, the weakest possible choice (I will die on that hill). The Predator (2018) apparently nearly killed the franchise before the streaming circuit saw a variety of films from Dan Trachtenberg in Prey (2022) and Predator: Killer of Killers (2025); I didn't have time to see those two movies on Hulu, sue me.* But we are here for the movie bold enough to be in theaters with Badlands, which was written by Patrick Aison and Trachtenberg. Made on a budget of $105 million (the most expensive film of the franchise), the movie has so far made its budget back in its release to theaters this month. Nice to be in theaters, eh?

 

It may interest you to know the MPA considers violence of synthetic robots and alien creatures such as the Yautja (okay, I don't remember when they got that name, but obviously it wasn't going to be "Predators") to be worthy of a PG-13 rating, which amuses me when you consider the amount of things that get churned down to doom. This was a fun movie, if you could tell by my statement. It is a solid middle-tier effort in a series that really just benefits from just enjoying the hunt and the surroundings. The rule of the jungle is at hand here with a fairly likable group of people to see through it all, as opposed to going with merely the tried-and-true method of honorable warrior stuff and instead finds a fun adventure in creature-gazing. It helps to have Fanning there to deliver most of the audible lines (to us, anyway, since the Yautja communicate through subtitles, which I'm sure nobody would complain about) in a double role that lends her the chance to have some fun in showing the two sides of synths: ones who like playing with others and ones that, well, like to serve MU/TH/UR (which, maybe is a bit of a spoiler alert, goes better when one has legs to stand on, apparently). Will some have a point in not caring for some of the moments of, uh, humor? Maybe, but what is so damn bad about having a movie with a little bit of buddy humor for a series built on just doing whatever it wants? You want Predator (1987)? Then go watch Predator. Schuster-Koloamatangi proves worthy enough to provide the physicality required for a movie that invites you to consider a "runt" predator and be on its side in seeing Dek get back home. Amidst the spilling of non-human blood every now and then is a pretty nice locale to see the action take place, figuratively and literally (blade grass anyone?). I would venture to guess that another Predator movie with these filmmakers would be an enticing one. As a whole, Predator: Badlands is a solid movie fit for consideration among the usual suspects of adventures with its own type of blended pairing that happens to have a few visual interests to go along with a sense of charm and engagement for the spirit of what it means to really hunt.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*At least Trachtenberg did 10 Cloverfield Lane. Also, why the hell couldn't they just do another Cloverfield follow-up? I'm still not over The Cloverfield Paradox just being dumped.

NEXT TIME: Turkey Week Six looms this Sunday.

The Running Man (2025).

Review #2471: The Running Man (2025).

Cast: 

Glen Powell (Ben Richards), Josh Brolin (Dan Killian), Colman Domingo (Bobby "Bobby T" Thompson), Lee Pace (Evan McCone), Michael Cera (Elton Parrakis), Emilia Jones (Amelia Williams), William H. Macy (Molie Jernigan), Daniel Ezra (Bradley Throckmorton), Jayme Lawson (Sheila Richards), Alyssa and Sienna Benn (Cathy Richards), Katy O'Brian (Jenni Laughlin), Karl Glusman (Frank), Martin Herlihy (Tim Jansky), Sean Hayes (Gary Greenbacks), David Zayas (Richard Manuel), and Sandra Dickinson (Victoria Parrakis) Directed by Edgar Wright (#971 - Baby Driver, #1537 - Shaun of the Dead, #2408 - Scott Pilgrim vs. the World)

Review: 

“It’s clear, having done test screenings, that there are people who have neither read the book nor seen the 1987 film. But when it first came to me, I wasn’t interested in doing a remake of the film because there wasn’t any sort of reason to do that. I think the reason to remake a film is if there’s something else in the material. So it was never going to be a scene-for-scene literal remake. It was always, in our heads, a new adaptation of the source material.”

You might remember that The Running Man was originally a novel before being churned into the moviemaking circuit. Stephen King, under the pseudonym Richard Bachman, originally wrote the novel in 1982 as a paperback original. It was set in the year 2025 in which a dystopian America has a government-operated TV station that has shows fit for public consumption in violence that included "The Running Man", where one has to survive 30 days from any opportunistic person and a group of killers to go along with having to send in messages every day. Apparently, the book featured the contestants getting $100 an hour to stay alive and $100 for every cop or hunter they kill. King apparently wrote the work in the span of a week (as opposed to his process of writing pages-to-pages in a few months). The 1987 movie came about as the result of people who saw the idea of George P. Cosmatos or Andrew Davis to direct Christopher Reeve and said, nope, you're getting Paul Michael Glaser (past star of Starsky & Hutch and future director of Kazaam) directing Arnold Schwarzenegger, as written by Steven E. de Souza. There are a few beats in the movie that was pretty fun beneath the slashing to the literary material...because all one had to do was go through four game quads in three hours. Yep, just three hours while dealing with dudes that had the following: a hockey-themed killer, a dude on a chainsaw, an opera singing electric shooter and a flamethrower to go along with Richard Dawson having probably the time of his life as Killian (in the book, Killian is merely just the producer, not the actual host). Funny enough, a lawsuit came out not too long after the release of the film that accused the film of plagiarizing a 1982 French film Le prix du danger, which had been an adaptation of Robert Sheckley's 1958 short story “The Prize of Peril" (that story had a normal man faced with escaping murderers with the help of alleged good Samaritans, incidentally). Incidentally, the 2025 movie, in following certain beats of the book while having its own type of ending, was endorsed by King. Oh, and it is a movie where you can see Arnold Schwarzenegger on the $100 bill.

There will be people who just compare it to the 1987 movie (one that could alternatively be cited as being a fun action movie but also one you really can't take seriously) and basically not give this movie the fair shake it deserves. And damn it, this feels like one of those movies that deserves to have a following because it just wants to aim for slick entertainment in seeing both a dystopia built on illusions that probably aren't too different from our world (a nation built on suffering, maybe?). This would probably make a good double feature with the other King adaptation of this year in The Long Walk, with both movies having an ordinary guy choosing to participate in a deadly game where one just has to keep moving to survive because of their desperate situation. I found it interesting to present the game as being played not by ordinary Joes but instead "lazy" people that is in turn built up by the production team in its own form of staged high-scale drama while also having some time spent with a few oddballs to meet up with our Everyman. Powell does pretty well with the desperation required in making a hero that you could believe would jump into the pool of sharks in charm, although I suppose others will take their time to buy him as one who stumbles into being a folk hero of some sort. I enjoyed the push-and-pull of despair and hope you can get as the movie goes further on in one man's quest to simply help the people around him in a mostly familiar place of dystopia (read: not too far from now, because where does the bar go in reality TV crap after having people play games for money?) and a few enjoyable action beats.

Admittedly, the film doesn't have as much of a ham in an adversary as, well Richard Dawson, since Domingo is merely a figurehead of bombast while Brolin shows up from time to time in smarmy conviction to go along with a mostly faceless Pace (faceless boots of authority? Wonder where that came from). But it is nice to see them there to represent the spectacle (i.e., the boot on the neck of the public). You see a few guests along the way to roll along with Powell that make for a few interesting moments, mostly from Cera because of the amount of time you see with him in barely-contained paranoia. Admittedly, the film does nearly stumble at the climax, as if somehow the runtime (133 minutes) actually needed a bit more time to really breathe to make everything sink in. But I think it is the kind of ending I can forgive in the spirit of "I've liked what I have seen, so let it pass." As a whole, The Running Man is a ball of a time for those who just want to see a King work get its due with a few visceral moments of charm and bite to make for a solid popcorn movie at least one time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Suitable Flesh.

Review #2470: Suitable Flesh.

Cast: 

Heather Graham (Dr. Elizabeth Derby), Judah Lewis (Asa Waite), Bruce Davison (Ephraim Waite), Johnathon Schaech (Edward Derby), Barbara Crampton (Dr. Daniella Upton), Graham Skipper (Pathologist), Brett Newton (Professor Fisk), Chris McKenna (Crawley), J. D. Evermore (Detective Ledger), and Ann Mahoney (Susan) Directed by Joe Lynch (#2469 - Mayhem)

Review:

"I think part of it stems from I grew up watching a lot of horror movies -- and again, this is just my kind of cinematic fetish -- I like to be affected by watching something. I don't like to just complacently let something wash over me, whether it's watching Airplane! or Top Secret where you can't help but laugh at the absurdity of everything that's happening on screen, to A Serbian Film, where you can't help but go [cringes] "Ohhhh, ugh, my god." There's something about the kind of films I grew up watching and still watch today that push the limits because I like to be provoked. I like to see where that line is as a viewer and go "Yeah, go ahead, push it over." I want to be challenged. I like cinema that challenges me."

You might remember that Dennis Paoli wrote a handful of films with Stuart Gordon to varying success. Paoli had been friends with Stuart Gordon since high school with a shared interest in films and reading. Naturally this became a fit for Gordon's Re-Animator (1985), which was based on the works of H.P. Lovecraft. Paoli served as a co-writer on From Beyond (1986), another loose adaptation of Lovecraft. Paoli worked on a handful of scripts for movies in the years that followed, such as The Pit and the Pendulum (1991), Body Snatchers (1993) and Dagon (2001). Gordon and Paoli had planned to work together on an adaptation of Lovecraft's The Thing on the Doorstep, but it never got all the way off the ground before Gordon died in 2020. The resulting remembrances of Gordon led to Paoli and Barbara Crampton reconnecting and talking about scripts, as she was now a producer. He brought it over to Crampton, who in turned showed it to Lynch. Lynch had an interesting idea that intrigued Paoli and others: gender-swapping the leads. The film had a limited release in 2023 before getting onto the video/streaming circuit.

Admittedly, I do sometimes check the rating of a film by other folks around the Internet to get a gauge on how people view something because, well, it never hurts to check. For whatever reason, this is apparently one of those "love it or hate it" type of flick, and I guess the viewpoint doesn't help matters, since Lynch wanted to make a movie where the lead character visualizes the movie as if it was a "late night 10 o'clock erotic thriller from the '80s or '90s". If you go in thinking the movie will just be a Gordon pastiche, well, you might not get all you want, particularly with the effects, but I don't really see a problem with that here. This is a body-swapping movie that wants to ask what all the fuss is about in feeling around new things that, proudly or not, would be fit for the "Skinemax" comparison...or an offbeat Freaky Friday with a few camera spins. Honestly, I dug the movie, mostly because there is something to have fun with in the mayhem of body politics with a demon that likes to jump around for the sake of trying new things (and also smoke) at the expense of people's lives. In that sense, Graham and Lewis have a bit of a challenge in making the swap game interesting beyond just doing the "how to prove one isn't who they are" thing. Each approach it in different ways, naturally (a tiny bit of nudity comes from seeing Graham and maybe a tiny bit of kinky nature). A good chunk of it could be considered a "midlife crisis" when it comes to Graham's character, as if writing books and having to hear people prattle on in therapy while being married just can't compare to maybe, just maybe, having a bit on the side. Graham makes this trouble work, I can believe that one could be tempted (and then, well, horrified) by a new presence among the doldrums of life. When it comes to the scenes of swapping, she makes it quite charming to actually see engage with the new self (yes, the demon craves flesh and doesn't really care who it is, which I guess makes it a greedy bastard more than just bisexual). In the torment of what is and what isn't quite there in the body, Lewis makes a worthy performer to display some of the charm and some of the strangeness in trying to adapt around, mainly because the chemistry between him and Graham is more the fact that he is just something new rather than because he's God's gift to talking to women. Admittedly, it is nice to see a few moments with Davison commit to the bit of playing a hungry demon needing a nibble for a time, and Crampton makes a capable presence of going with the growing absurdity of events without being swept away by it. Some might think it a bit hokey with its body swapping and maybe not nearly as gooey as it could be, but I had a fun time with the movie, mostly because I thought it was a pretty amusing movie in seeing the perils of basically a midlife crisis explode in your face. I liked its sleazy nature, right down to its ending and would say that even if it isn't for everybody, it is nice to have a movie as weird as this come around every now and then.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

And so ends the 7th rendition of Halloween: The Week After. Nine reviews over the course of those seven days went mostly without a hitch. The horror season will be a fun one in 2026 with all of the runner-ups we had in October/November. We'll see how the rest of the month goes and beyond. 

Some of the movies we missed in the 38 days of horror: 

The Girl Who Knew Too Much (1963), Frankenstein Unbound, Nightmares, Inn of the Damned, The Legacy (1978), The Guardian, Daughters of Darkness, The Uncanny, Torture Garden, The Company of Wolves, A Taste of Blood, Scream Blacula Scream, Monkey Shines, Basket Case, Full Circle (1977), Nightbreed, Innocent Blood, What Lies Beneath, He Knows You're Alone, Schlock (1973), Asylum (1972), The Monster Squad, People Toys, The Brood, The Descent Part 2, Messiah of Evil, The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (1964)

Quartermass 2, Lust for a Vampire (1971), Captain Kronos – Vampire Hunter, Paranormal Activity, Ring 0, The Funhouse, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, The Evil Dead (2013), Child's Play 3, Critters, Ginger Snaps, Possession (1981), Repulsion, The Omen II, One Missed Call, Van Helsing, Toxic Avenger II, The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Insidious II, Scream 2, Phantasm II, Hellraiser II, Ravenous, and Drag Me to Hell.

Be ready for Halloween: The Week After - Crazy Eights in 2026.

Mayhem.

Review #2469: Mayhem.

Cast: 

Steven Yeun (Derek Cho), Samara Weaving (Melanie Cross), Steven Brand (John "The Boss" Towers), Caroline Chikezie (Kara "The Siren" Powell), Kerry Fox (Irene Smythe), Dallas Roberts (Lester "The Reaper" McGill), Mark Frost (Ewan Niles), Claire Dellamar (Meg), André Eriksen (Colton "The Bull" Snyder), Nikola Kent (Oswald), Lucy Chappell (Jenny), and Olja Hrustic (CDC Official) Directed by Joe Lynch.

Review: 

"That’s what Mayhem is all about, it’s a battle against passive aggression. Everybody wants to discuss when they should just say no and just say that they don’t like this! Why do we have to side-bar everything? Why do we have to have another meeting? Because people’s voices might get raised? Someone’s feelings might get hurt? No one wants to get anyone’s feelings hurt anymore because someone will sue. That’s the problem with the corporate world. It’s this serpent eating its tail, because no one can be honest and everyone will sue. It’s such a deadening situation where no one can be their true selves. And part of directing is being able to be yourself, it’s your vision, it’s your voice!"

It only seems right to close things out with a fresh face. Joe Lynch initially started out as a child actor on Long Island but found himself interested in making films by the time he was studying at Syracuse University in the late 1990s. With a visual style described as being influenced by films such as "Evil Dead II, Goodfellas, and Raising Arizona way too many times as a kid", he graduated with a bachelor's degree in visual and performing arts and had a few student short films make the festival circuit. Lynch directed music videos for a variety of groups before becoming a feature director with Wrong Turn 2: Dead End (2007), which had a brief horror festival run before being released on DVD. Further efforts for films include Chillerama [2011] (directing a segment), Knights of Badassdom [2013] (a movie he disowned), and Everly [2014]. The script was written by Matias Caruso. Lynch had plenty of experience with corporate irritation, noting his experience trying to do anthology project to do videos that ran into plenty of hassles. The movie was shot in Serbia due to the country giving the filmmakers the proper amount of days they needed to shoot (25, which compared well to the 15 offered by Pittsburgh and 18 by Vancouver). The film was released in a few theaters and on "VOD and digital HD", and, well, I found it on a DVD pack that seemed promising, so why not?*

Sure, there have been a few action horror movies involving boatloads of crazed lunacy in a building. A cursory glance shows a few movies involving a fight to survive, whether that was Mean Guns [1997] (fight to the death for cash between killers), The Tournament [2009] (rich people watching others kill for sport), or The Belko Experiment [2016] (workers locked in a building told to start killing each other). Here you get one involving a virus that gets in your head and turns your impulses into a thing that may be a worthy killing machine, albeit one that makes sure to say the attacker isn't liable for their actions. I imagine there has also been at least one movie about fighting to the top of a building. But there is something infectious about the way the movie maneuvers through 86 minutes of a few thrills within moments of delirious execution at the office. The horrors of being in a crappy job that degrades one soul probably does go hand in hand with the horrors of people wanting to act their impulses to kick the crap out of you, to put it mildly. In that sense, it is a crowd pleaser for a handful of moments in terms of quick cuts to the action and a few fun lines, even if it likes the voice over perhaps a bit too many times. Yeun (best known at the time for his work on The Walking Dead*) does make for a solid lead to hold it together in wavering action status, one trying to balance the impulses that come with office politics and wanting to find a way out of being a drone off the old block. Weaving makes for a worthy pairing with Yuen in energy that bounce off each other in mutually assured destruction (of others), charming but convincing in being ready to handle whatever happens in the movie with nail guns and fists. Brand and others get their moments of making corporate stooges a bit more unnerving when poised to actually use violence beyond the usual corporate twist-and-turning, which works out for a few chuckles (mostly highlighted by Chikezie). At least the ending has a few chuckles in the idea of a business-mandated push to try and cure the virus (hey, this was made in 2017), although it probably is a bit routine in the actual endpoint (and a bit inevitable). In general, Mayhem has a few entertaining moments seeing the horrors of the corporate world go upside down for a few punches that might make for a worthwhile recommendation.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Unusually, you can thank The Last Drive-in with Joe Bob Briggs for this double-header coming to fruition, as I eyed a "double feature DVD" that had a disc of this film and Suitable Flesh. So one spends a little over two hours each watching a movie that happens to have little segments of Briggs making commentary on the film. Honestly, I don't actually watch the Drive-in because I'm not much of a streaming service (as available on...Shudder) person or a live show guy, but it does sound like something cool to see around.

*What's that show?

Black Sunday (1960).

Review #2468: Black Sunday.

Cast: 

Barbara Steele (Asa Vajda/Katia Vajda), John Richardson (Dr. Andrej Gorobec), Andrea Checchi (Dr. Choma Kruvajan), Ivo Garrani (Prince Vajda), Arturo Dominici (Igor Javutich), Enrico Olivieri (Constantine Vajda), Tino Bianchi (Ivan, the Vajdas' Manservant), Antonio Pierfederici (Priest), Clara Bindi (Innkeeper), Mario Passante (Nikita, the Coachman), Renato Terra (Boris, the Vajdas' Stableman), and Germana Dominici (Sonya, the Innkeeper's Daughter) Directed by Mario Bava (#792 - Black Sabbath)

Review: 

I have to admit that I haven't covered as much Italian horror (in its native language, preferably) as I possibly could. Mario Bava actually wanted to be a painter in his youth, but he found that following in his father Eugenio's footsteps of cameraman was his best option, serving as an assistant working on special effects in the late 1930s. Bava was approached by his friend Riccardo Freda about the idea of developing a horror film one day, which led to I Vampiri (1957), a movie Bava was to shoot and provide special effects for. However, he was thrust into the director's chair for the final two days of production when Freda left production, which had Bava come up with a new ending and include stock footage. There were other movies where Bava did work you could consider directorial work, such as The Day the Sky Exploded (1958), where actor accounts said he directed it more than the credited directed Paulo Heusch. There was also Jacques Tourneur's The Giant of Marathon (1959), a film Bava shot but had to do reshoots for exterior scenes because apparently there were moments where you could see extras smoking on camera. And then of course there was Caltiki – The Immortal Monster (1959), a sci-fi horror movie with dubious accounts over who really directed it between Bava and Freda, the latter of whom left in the middle of production. But Black Sunday [La maschera del demonio] was his formal debut as a director. Galatea, fresh off peddling movies such as the sword-and-sandal Hercules films, wanted to get another movie for the markets abroad and went with Bava, who wanted to make a horror film because of the recent success of Terence Fisher's Dracula (1957). He chose to base it on the novella "Viy", as written by Nikolai Gogol in 1835. Bava would do a variety of films in the horror genre to varying success, such as The Girl Who Knew Too Much [1963] & Blood and Black Lace [1964] (each considered among the early ones in the giallo genre), Planet of the Vampires [1965] (which some have compared to Alien [1979]), the action/crime comic movie Danger: Diabolik [1968], A Bay of Blood [1971] (likely his most violent movie). Bava's last completed film was with Shock [1977]; he died of a sudden heart attack in 1980 at the age of 65. 

American International bought the movie for the States release and did a re-dub with a few changes to the character names. Known as "La maschera del demonio" in its native country, AIP went with "Black Sunday" for the American title. There is an eerie sense of intrigue that comes with this film from the get-go of its 87-minute runtime. The opening in particular manages to intrigue the viewer closely with its imagery and sheer audacity (masks with spikes on the inside to hammer inside the evil beings). Steele has the double act that you sometimes get with costume dramas: the evil being filled with ambition and yet trapped to a specific place and the unfortunate reincarnation lookalike who can't quite catch a break. Steele became a star in various Italian movies because of the film, which she said "was probably the best of that genre of film I've made...but anybody could have been playing that girl." I think she sold herself a bit short here, there is just something to the way she moves and says her lines that manages an otherworldly feel of odd elegance. One has an unsettled feeling when watching the film at times when it comes what does get shown (sure, the other actors are mildly fine, but that's how it does sometimes). As a whole, Black Sunday has managed to attract so much interest over the years because of the sheer power you can feel in its bones of atmosphere that crisscross with elements of effective gore (such as the parts involving blood). There is something about how the movie feels and acts that you just didn't see back then that just manages to stay as unsettling and dazzling as it did back in 1960. You'll have an interesting treat on your hands with this film or other Bava movies, that's for sure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

On tap to close out 7 Days of the Week After Halloween, as per tradition, a doubleheader: 

Mayhem / Suitable Flesh

Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist.

Review #2467: Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist.

Cast: 

Stellan Skarsgård (Father Lankester Merrin), Gabriel Mann (Father Francis), Clara Bellar (Rachel Lesno), Billy Crawford (Cheche), Ralph Brown (Sergeant Major), Israel Aduramo (Jomo), Andrew French (Chuma), Antonie Kamerling (Kessel), Julian Wadham (Major Granville), Eddie Osei (Emekwi), with Rick Warden (Corporal Williams), and Mary Beth Hurt (Pazuzu) Directed by Paul Schrader (#2290 - Cat People [1982])

Review: 

"I’m happy with the film. I realize its limitations. I realize that I made a film with a problematic commercial premise. Now, it may be a quality film, but there was no way this film was gonna go out and break box office records. Not gonna happen. Now the truth is, if they had tarted up my movie, cut it with some gore, done a misleading ad campaign, not shown it to critics, did a huge television [campaign], which is what they did for Renny’s film, they probably could have made somewhere in the same vicinity of money...But, I’m much happier having the film that I made exist in the form that I made it in rather than some tarted-up version I’d have to disown."

Exorcist: The Beginning was such a flop that Paul Schrader actually saw the film on opening weekend with William Peter Blatty and stated, "This is really bad. If it stays this bad, I bet there's a chance I can get mine resurrected." While Warner Bros. planned to give Schrader's film a direct-to-video release, Morgan Creek "generously" let Schrader do a limited theatrical release of his version, specifically a small amount of time and money to refine things (examples include that most of the music is recycled from the Harlin film and a lack of time to do ADR and color timing work). Tim Silano was approached to edit the movie but he insisted that Schrader be around to oversee it. Schrader, in seeing the nature of the Harlin film, went for "a little more leisurely" edit rather than the staccato cut he had done prior (the final movie was 116 minutes, which happened to be two minutes longer than The Beginning). Caleb Carr (who once called Schrader's original cut "one of the most inept, amateur, utterly flat excuses for a film that has ever been concocted") and William Wisher Jr were the only writers given credit for the screenplay. With a limited release in a few theaters (the same weekend as Revenge of the Sith) the movie was at least seen by people the way it should have been: not on the direct-to-video bargain bin; Schrader later called the experience as one he shouldn't have done, complete with saying he "got suckered". The Exorcist was not done being pillaged for new material, as a television series came and went in the 2010s before a new film came out with David Gordon Green's The Exorcist: Believer (2023), a movie that, you guessed it, paled in comparison to the original. 

It may interest you to know that Schrader once called The Exorcist "the greatest metaphor in cinema - God and the Devil in the same room arguing over the body of a little girl." The two Exorcist prequels basically run from the same start and end points with diverging ways to get there: a priest with a crisis of faith (1947/1949) encounters something in the midst of his time in Derati (British Kenya) that challenges who he is before he regains his faith. You could say that Blatty had a point in calling this film a "handsome, classy, elegant piece of work" while also noting that it can only go so far in trying to live up to its namesake. Both movies show Merrin have his faith shaken after being terrorized by a Nazi that has him choose people to die rather than see a whole group get taken out but this one starts with it rather than show it in parts as before. But here he is now an archaeologist that happens to find a buried church in Kenya, complete with having the exorcism target be a youth who goes from crippled to far more walkable by the time the effects (not quite finished, but hey) show up for a movie that at least tried to take evil seriously (before the loin cloth, anyway, that is when I start to chuckle). It is curious to see Skarsgård again hold up an Exorcist movie with the best performance, mainly because there is something to ponder in seeing one try to pick up the pieces of their faith with conviction that does at least make you believe he would be ready for what could happen next in say, The Exorcist. I guess you could say Mann provides the one supporting presence in either of these movies that is worth a glance, even if his role is mostly a whimpering one in the eyes of guilt (both movies end the same way for him anyway).You could say that the depiction of the military intruding upon the natives imitating what Merrin saw in the war is a curious one, but even then, it feels a bit polite when one is talking about evil (Merrin isn't exactly much better, at one point he wants people to work really really hard to dig out that church). I really wanted to like the movie, but there is a hollow feeling I get when watching the movie, it just doesn't feel nearly as tense or as interesting as it wishes to be in "angst". Schrader just seemed more interested in personal angst with Cat People and it also just seemed like a more well-rounded film. As a whole, Dominion holds up better as an overall movie than The Beginning, but neither movie really moves the needle on belonging as an actual prequel to The Exorcist. In their travels from finding faith through an exorcism, Dominion is mild in execution and altogether not as curious as it really feels like it should be, but it at least is entertainment when compared to the slop of Beginning. Pick your poison, I suppose.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Exorcist: The Beginning.

Review #2466: Exorcist: The Beginning.

Cast: 

Stellan Skarsgård (Father Lankester Merrin), Izabella Scorupco (Sarah), James D'Arcy (Father Francis), Remy Sweeney (Joseph), Julian Wadham (Major Granville), Andrew French (Chuma), Ralph Brown (Sergeant Major), Ben Cross (Semelier), David Bradley (Father Gionetti), Alan Ford (Jefferies), Antonie Kamerling (Lieutenant Kessel), with Eddie Osei (Emekwi), and Rupert Degas (Pazuzu) Directed by Renny Harlin (#016 - Die Hard 2, #670 - Cliffhanger, #745 - A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, #2163 - The Adventures of Ford Fairlane, #2240 - Cutthroat Island)

Review:

"What I tried to do is set up a lot of those unanswered questions that we see in the original. There are a lot of open plotlines that are never explained, so I tried to make it so that if you watch this film and then watch the original 'Exorcist,' the original will seem like the sequel."

Hey, remember when people thought The Exorcist could be a franchise? Morgan Creek Productions, not content with their excessive tinkering of William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist III (1990), had started plans to make a prequel to, well, The Exorcist (1973) in the late 1990s. William Wisher Jr (co-writer of Terminator 2: Judgement Day) did a first draft, and there were already people hired to try and helm the project by 1999 with Tom McLoughlin, but he left because of issues with the script. Apparently, the 2000 re-release (and subsequent money made from it) of the Exorcist film helped to put The Beginning on the fast track. Caleb Carr (novelist of books such as The Alienist) revised the screenplay and there were plans to have John Frankenheimer direct with Liam Neeson as the star in the summer of 2002...but neither came to pass, as Frankenheimer fell ill; he died in July 2002. Instead, Paul Schrader (director of Cat People (1983) and writer of films such as Taxi Driver) was hired to direct, with "Exorcist: The Beginning" beginning filming in late 2002. Schrader did his rewrite of the script to trim certain things, and the film was first screened to studio executives in May of 2003...and they didn't even bother to give him notes, as he was dumped because they apparently wanted to "re-edit the movie to make it scarier". They tried to re-cut the movie with Schrader involved and then Morgan Creek said to hell with things and instead searched for a new director for the film. They landed on Renny Harlin, who went with re-writes (Skip Woods, Alexi Hawley, and even Harlin himself, although only Hawley was credited), a few new actors (all but Skarsgård, French, Kamerling, and Wadham left) and, well, "action". The new Beginning film was shot in late 2003 but apparently had a hell of a time actually finishing production (Schrader had his film ripped out from under him, Harlin got hit by a car during production and was on crutches). In total, a movie that wa meant to be done for $35 million ballooned to $90 million and wasn't even screened for critics. At least Schrader seemed positive about seeing his version come to the masses, albeit as a "there's a buck to be made" while Blatty (in seeing The Beginning with Schrader in a theater) called The Beginning "surely the most humiliating professional experience of my life, particularly the finale."

It is so funny that Morgan Creek wanted to make a "scarier" film and wasted so much money on a venture that was just going to be skewered no matter what because of the history that comes with trying to play off the "Exorcist" name. III was the only good follow-up, and that was the one where the studio forced an exorcism for the climax. Harlin's movie suffers from just feeling so routine in its execution to the point of exhaustion, mainly because it is a corny experience to actually see play out, at least when you consider buried churches, goofy climaxes with voices, and butterflies. Apparently, Skarsgård (cast as a young version originally played by Max Vox Sydow, who also happened to be from Sweden) had differing approaches for his performance in each movie, once being quoted as saying that he was "much darker" in the Schrader version and even changed his makeup for this version. Undeniably, he does at least manage to be the shining light in either version you watch, mainly because you buy him as Merrin without it seeming like someone just playing dress-up. It at least matters a tiny bit to see his progression beyond just moving away from religion and to step into the shoes that we know, suffice to say. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast does not fare as well, mainly because the movie is so confused about what it really wants to do besides cheap moments (one guy slashing himself, another guy confronting butterflies and shooting himself) that you don't get a feel for any of them. One guy has a bunch of boils on his face and that's about all you can really say as a character. I guess there's one neat line in talking about the spot where Lucifer fell when it comes to the spooky buried church. The movie tries to fake you out in the idea that the focus of the possessed is actually a kid when really it is a woman and honestly, I couldn't help but chuckle because it meant that you at least see a spider-walk from an adult (complete with a demon voice talking about mounting because get it, they did it in the first one) rather than having to see the image of a kid doing it. One doesn't care about the conflict of the people besides Merrin, this could've almost been set anywhere if you think about it, complete with a lack of mystery. In general, the movie is just kind of boring, not really doing anything that makes you think about the first film in a different light while being a general waste of everyone's time. As someone who does give slack on occasion to compromised movies and things*, this was just one of those movies that goes out one ear and through the other. Morgan Creek spent oodles of money but couldn't find anything for audiences to give a damn about, that's probably the scariest thing in the whole movie.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

*Exorcist III was probably better with the exorcism in it, change my mind. Or Rise of Skywalker. Or The Stupids. Or any other strange film that I at least have given credit to over the years.

Tales from the Hood.

Review #2465: Tales from the Hood.

Cast:

Welcome to My Mortuary (framing segments): Clarence Williams III (Mr. Simms), Joe Torry ("Stack"), Samuel Monroe Jr. ("Bulldog"), and De'Aundre Bonds ("Ball")

"Rogue Cop Revelation" segment: Tom Wright (Martin Ezekiel Moorehouse), Anthony Griffith (Officer Clarence Smith), Wings Hauser (Officer Strom Richmond), Michael Massee (Officer Newton Hauser), and Duane Whitaker (Officer Billy Crumfield)

"Boys Do Get Bruised" segment: Brandon Hammond (Walter Johnson), Rusty Cundieff (Richard Garvey), Paula Jai Parker (Sissy Johnson), and David Alan Grier (Carl)

"KKK Comeuppance" segment: Corbin Bernsen (Duke Metger), Roger Guenveur Smith (Rhodie Willis), Art Evans (Eli), Tim Hutchinson (Councilman Rogers), Christina Cundieff (Miss Cobbs), John A. Cundieff (Funeral Priest), and Erika Hansen (Anchorwoman)

"Hard-Core Convert" segment: Lamont Bentley (Jerome "Crazy K" Johns), Rosalind Cash (Dr. Cushing), Ricky Harris ("Lil' Deke"), and Rick Dean (Racist Inmate)

Directed by Rusty Cundieff.

Review: 

"The title, Tales From the Hood, seemed to be the automatic way to put across the idea that it was an anthology, and also related to the black experience, whatever that was at the time. I wanted to make sure that the there was something socially relevant within each piece, and also create a situation where the horror and supernatural forces were things that you were rooting for as opposed to against. We didn’t have young co-eds who you wanted to stay alive. All the humans in Tales from the Hood do bad things and the supernatural is their comeuppance."

The movie's anniversary did slip past by me, but there's always time to redeem oneself. Rusty Cundieff was born and raised in Pittsburgh with an interest in the entertainment business from a young age, with horror being a genre he liked from his days watching Chiller Theatre on late Saturday nights going hand in hand with him participating in plays as a youth that had him liking comedy, and he started doing stand-up in his junior year of high school. He attended Loyola University for his freshman year at college before transferring to USC with an interest in their film and television department, although its lack of great features meant that he took filmmaking courses on the side; he graduated with degrees in philosophy of religion, journalism, and drama. He did a bit of acting and found the experience in working on School Daze (1988) to make him want to direct and write. In 1993, Cundieff wrote and directed his first film with the rap mockumentary Fear of a Black Hat. The basis for his second film came from a one-act play he performed called The Black Horror Show: Blackanthropy. Cundieff and Darin Scott co-wrote the film, which was made with Lee's 40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks. The movie had a mild impact with audiences but for whatever reason, it had a prolonged release on home media in the 21st century, where a DVD release occurred in 1998 that subsequently went out of print before a Blu-Ray release finally came out in 2017. Cundieff has directed for a variety of television shows (most notably Chappelle's Show) and a few films over the prevailing decades and was behind two sequels to Tales from the Hood in 2018 and 2020.

Within a 98-minute runtime features an eight-minute opening to set the stage of what is to come that might remind you of Tales from the Crypt (1972) or The House of the Dead (1978) in coffins and mislaid belief colliding together with a stranger (in this case a group trying to score some drugs); each of the four stories have its own length, with "KKK Comeuppance" running the shortest at roughly 18 minutes while the longest story is the last one at "Hard-Core Convert", which goes 27 minutes. It is clear pretty early that Cundieff wanted to make a movie that actually touched upon issues one could find in their community without being done for cheap scares or jokes that basically meant that the scariest things that could happen to someone if the human things that happen every day. Williams makes for a solid person to set up each of the stories in his daffy energy that is quite infectious and altogether entertaining. You get four pretty solid segments, all things considered. "Rogue Cop Revelation" deals with the fallout that arises when a Civil Rights activist is brutally murdered by a group of cops. It proves to be an interesting one for the eventual comeuppance for its key adversaries that are probably just as likely to exist in the real world as one thinks. Wright is a solid enough crusader from the grave (the best one is when he turns someone into a mural), and the overall endgame that comes from reckoning with action vs inaction is at least a curious one to end on. "Boys Do Get Bruised" deals with a young boy dealing with a monster in his closet that leads the teacher to learn what it really means to draw upon experiences at home. It probably fits the best in being a short segment when you consider that it is actually a segment about the perils of domestic violence, and Grier makes the most of a brief but terrifying enough role. Apparently, the movie was going to get an X rating until a chunk of the domestic violence scene near the end was trimmed. At any rate, it has a neat little ending. "KKK Comeuppance" (as "absolutely informed" by 1975's TV movie Trilogy of Terror) deals with an aspiring politician (and white supremacist) that deals with a few historical dolls. Coincidence or not, when actual racist-turned-politician David Duke ran for Governor of Louisiana in 1992, someone did an anti-Duke voodoo doll on display in New Orleans and a photo was taken of it. Bernsen makes for a delightfully hammy performance in extolling just the type of person that could have confidence in themselves to say what they say and not expect it to boomerang back to them. Sure, you know what is going to happen pretty early on, but it is still fun. Apparently, the last sequence, as done by the Chiodo Brothers in stop-motion animation, was only done because test audiences were not satisfied at the original ending. Clearly, they made the right decision. "Hard-Core Convert" deals with a murderer being given a chance to cure himself by seeing the consequences of his actions literally thrown at him. Amid the gang violence of the time that was depicted in movies such as Boyz n the Hood (1992) is a look upon a violent person seeing both a racist that wants to bond with him because of their apparent shared hatred of black people and then a montage of actual public lynchings and beatings. It probably is the standout segment of the four for how Bentley handles the scenario thrust upon him in all of its bravado and vulnerability as a murderer. In total, what we have is four pretty interesting segments that all want to look upon actual things that happen in people's lives (black or not), whether that involves domestic violence or a lust for violence and make it compelling to see it intersect with the supernatural for macabre effectiveness. In that regard, it is a nice little film that may be right up your alley.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: the match made for the Devil itself: Exorcist: The Beginning vs. Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist

Pumpkinhead.

Review #2464: Pumpkinhead.

Cast: 

Lance Henriksen (Ed Harley), John D'Aquino (Joel), Jeff East (Chris), Kerry Remsen (Maggie), Kimberly Ross (Kim), Joel Hoffman (Steve "Scratch"), Cynthia Bain (Tracey), Florence Schauffler (Haggis), Matthew Hurley (Billy Harley), Buck Flower (Mr. Wallace), Brian Bremer (Bunt Wallace), Mayim Bialik (Christine Wallace), Lee DeBroux (Tom Harley), Peggy Walton-Walker (Ellie Harley), Madeleine Taylor Holmes (Old Hill Woman), and Tom Woodruff Jr. (Pumpkinhead) Directed by Stan Winston.

Review: 

“It was a small picture, something I thought I could handle as a director; and I felt there was a lot that I could bring to the story. So I told the producers, ‘Yeah, I’ll do the creature — but only if I can direct the movie.’”

Apparently, Pumpkinhead started out as a poem, written by Ed Justin. It was merely a poem about avoiding Pumpkinhead unless one was tired of living or was one of his dead enemies, complete with stating that nothing, not even a guard dog prowling in the yard, would protect from it. Four different people were given writing credits: Mark Patrick Carducci and Gary Gerani wrote the screenplay, while Carducci, Richard C. Weinman and Stan Winston were given credit for the story. Winston expressed interest in directing the movie when asked by the De Laurentiis Entertainment Group about doing the special effects. Winston originally started in Hollywood as an aspiring actor before deciding to aim for makeup work, rising from an apprentice at Walt Disney Studios to having his own company by the 1970s. He won a handful of Emmy Awards in the decade before becoming a perennial Academy Award-nominated name, which started with Heartbeeps (1982) and peaked with Aliens (1986). Winston directed just two films: Pumpkinhead and A Gnome Named Gnorm (1990) but continued to work in effects for films that saw him win four Academy Awards before he died in 2008 at the age of 62. The movie inspired three follow-up films: two for television and one direct-to-video that saw Henriksen reprise his role twice. A remake has been teased for a few years now but nothing has happened as of yet (honestly, it wouldn't be a bad idea to try and give new life to the material - what, you want remakes of great horror movies again?). 

Admittedly, it is a bit above average. It has one worthwhile performance in Henriksen to go along with a solid looking monster to hold up a movie that is sometimes satisfying in what comes from one having to actually hear about what revenge really means when dealing with a creature that comes from an old pumpkin patch in a graveyard. Inspired or not, it reminds one of Forbidden Planet (1956), which had "monsters from the id" as a key focus, although it is placed in a movie that has a body count of a few teens that is more about having them be victims of impulse and anger rather than just straight up being people to dispose of like other slashers. It's a movie that has one interested most of the time in its rural atmosphere and occasional nice shots to see for a movie that has an interesting looking monster. It only gets shown in the dark, but it manages to come off so well with what you actually see of it and its movements, managing to come off a creature of vengeance and fear right from the jump, particularly since it doesn't have one of those silly weaknesses that could corral other being of anger but instead inward. Henriksen manages to achieve most of the goals probably set out in a performance meant to built on pain, mostly because he is likable enough to make you understand why someone might inquire about the sacrifices one might take when their pride and joy is put in danger. He makes for a quality doomed figure, one who we want to understand in the vulnerability that comes in looking upon what anger takes a person, which carries a movie where the teens are mostly just fine. The guilt is palpable even with the inevitability that comes with, well, a slasher, although it is curiously one with multiple final people. I like the ending in its swift nature of showing just where vigilante justice can take a person and what it may lead to again for those down the road, whether it involves one or a group to target. As a whole, Pumpkinhead has its peaks and valleys when it comes to entertainment value that you either like for what it is in spectacle or wash away in the sea of slashers. You might find some enjoyment here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Tales from the Hood.

I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997).

Review #2463: I Know What You Did Last Summer.

Cast: 

Jennifer Love Hewitt (Julie James), Sarah Michelle Gellar (Helen Shivers), Ryan Phillippe (Barry Cox), Freddie Prinze Jr (Ray Bronson), Johnny Galecki (Max Neurick), Bridgette Wilson (Elsa Shivers), Anne Heche (Melissa "Missy" Egan), Muse Watson (Benjamin "Ben" Willis / the Fisherman), and Stuart Greer (Officer) Directed by Jim Gillespie.

Review: 

"The joy of this film for me as a filmmaker was in taking [the] elements that we've seen before, and saying to the audience: 'Here's something you've seen before'—knowing that they're saying 'We've seen this before'—and still getting them to jump."

You may or may not know that this came from the writer of Scream (1996). Yes, Kevin Williamson had written a script loosely based on the 1973 novel of the same name, which had been written by Lois Duncan...but that script was done before Scream was even a thought in his mind, with the success of the 1996 movie getting people onto the idea of maybe doing studio slashers, which is where the old script came into play. This was the feature film debut of Jim Gillespie, who previously had done work on television and music videos. Duncan went on record as stating she was appalled by the movie being based on her book (stating specifically that she had a problem with sensationalized violence made to "seem thrilling rather than terrible", particularly since she was the mother of a murdered child); incidentally, Gillespie aimed to film with as little on-screen blood as possible to try and not be gratuitous with the violence. The book was a suspense novel featured a group of teens getting into a car accident (in the book's case, a young boy on a bike) that leads to death for the kid and oddly enough, nobody else. The movie was relatively successful with audiences, at least enough to inspire a sequel called I Still Know What You Did Last Summer in 1998 to go along with a direct-to-video feature (nobody cares), a modern take of the first film for an Amazon show in 2021 (what?), and a legacy sequel in 2025 that was called...I Know What You Did Last Summer (ironically following Scream doing the same thing years earlier*). 

Sure, you remember the movie about a hook-wielding killer terrorizing four teenagers. And you probably had one question on your mind: What the hell? What the hell to any of this? This was Williamson's "straightforward" horror script? To be clear, I will say that I may or may not be a bit generous with horror movies when it comes to assessing them because, well, there are some that are just entertaining even in mediocrity. But not this one. It isn't even the barebones body count (four), and it isn't even just the fact that the characters might as well have been constructed out of a wood board. No, what annoys me the most is that this supposed modern take on the slasher movie is just the same type of hack stuff you could find in Friday the 13th. And that movie was meant to be taken seriously, but with this movie, I thought it was supposed to be a joke, right down to the scene where Hewitt twirls around before screaming into the air what is the killer waiting for. Some might be subservient to any kind of slasher movie when it comes to spectacle, but not me, not for this one. The funny thing is that the killer is pretty terrible at how he targets people, since half the people he kills had nothing to do with the thing that happened a year prior and some of the time he just sneaks up on the people just to...terrorize them (seriously, he breaks into one girl's house to cut her hair down). But it comes in such a tedious little movie, one that aims to say something, anything about what it means to make the wrong choice and have to live with it...and then the ending coughs that up anyway! 

Some folks might consider Gellar to be the highlight of the film when it comes to...acting, but in general, everyone seems to be on the autopilot you could find in any generic slasher, even with the proverbial dark cloud over their heads. They just seem more like they are waiting for the boat show rather than being spooked by what is occurring around them, suffice to say. At least Phillippe is amusing in that veneer of arrogance and privilege for a time, probably far more than you think he will go given the amount of people to be terrorized or otherwise (such as Galecki, who might as well have been a paperweight). By the time the movie has ended its reign of error, complete with the characters seemingly learning about telling the cops about what the hell is going on, you will have gotten the feeling the movie was the equivalent of a toothache. This isn't one of those times where I get mad a slasher for being a slasher, this is just one of those frustratingly mediocre movies to get mad at because there were ideas worth looking into. Why not make a mystery worth watching about people who can't cope with who they are in making the wrong choice? But nah, there was a hook story mentioned in the early parts of the movie so we can have the killer go with hooks because, uh, reasons. As a whole, I Know What You Did Last Summer has a few tiny moments of relief - the chase of Gellar near the end is probably the highlight, at least when not considering the humor at the movie's expense for sheer ludicrous things. But the real moment where you believe things will be good comes here: when you look at the fact the 101 minutes are over, and you can watch a different, more interesting slasher movie. Or just a non-slasher movie. Or, well, whatever. Anything other than middle of the road junk.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Pumpkinhead.

*Totally not the point, but I don't give a shit about the reasoning for Scream 5 (2022) being called Scream. It was stupid when Halloween (2018) did it, so if I ever get to the Scream movies beyond the first, you best believe I'm calling the 2022 one Scream 5. Then again, the weird people talking about Scream in recent days about 7 on both sides make me roll my eyes. 

Les Diaboliques.

Review #2462: Les Diaboliques.

Cast: 

Simone Signoret (Nicole Horner), Véra Clouzot (Christina Delassalle), Paul Meurisse (Michel Delassalle), Charles Vanel (Alfred Fichet), Jean Brochard (Plantiveau), Thérèse Dorny (Madame Herboux), Michel Serrault (Monsier Raymond), Georges Chamarat (Dr. Loisy) Directed by Henri-Georges Clouzot (#2337 - The Wages of Fear)

Review: 

Sure, let's go for another movie with plenty of horror and thriller in it. The movie takes its inspiration from the novel She Who Was No More [Celle qui n'était plus], as originally written by the writing team of Pierre Boileau and Pierre Ayraud in 1952. Apparently, Clouzot was informed about the potential of making a movie of the book by his wife Vera, who read it and told him immediately to read it, sleep be damned. Supposedly, Clouzot purchased the rights to the book just before Hitchcock could do so (just as well, Clouzot took over a year to actually get down to filming). Clouzout and his brother Jean (who for whatever reason went by Jérôme Géronimi for credit) are credited with the screenplay while René Masson and Frédéric Grendel were given a "with the collaboration of" in the credits. There were a few changes, mainly because it dealt with a travelling salesman teaming up with his mistress to murder the spouse (with one big thing in the climax being particularly different). Narcejac once stated that while the film does not resemble the book, the combination of the suspense, pacing and unfolding action were effectively in line with what they wanted, while Boileau noted that the film had an "immersion of the character in a collective universe was the best equivalent to the solitude we described in writing." At any rate, Hitchcock got his chance to adapt a Boileau-Narcejac novel later in the decade with Vertigo (1958). The movie was quite the hit at the time and even had an American release (which apparently trimmed the runtime of 114 minutes to 107), which is where it was known as "Diabolique". Robert Bloch, who wrote the novel Psycho that became its own film by Hitchcock (with its own warning about spoiling the movie), said that Clouzot's film was his favorite horror film of all time.

Apparently, Clouzot was tense during production, even once stating to Signoret that he shouldn't have let her read the end of the script. The tension is palpable for the movie, which practically boils it down to a science with a worthwhile group to lead it. It is the kind of movie that allows you to participate in a game of watching a trap spring all the way to its logical conclusion with the dread of knowing that it is all so believable in motive and the horror of wondering just what is going to happen next in the clear-cut way things are shot. The atmosphere by Clouzot with a boarding school is particularly spooky to consider because of the fact that it probably could be considered as an off-kilter fairy tale (in fact Clouzot aimed to do both a sinister atmosphere and "a somewhat fairytale universe"). The Clouzots married in 1950, the same year Vera worked as a continuity assistant on the film Miquette. This was the second of three movies she appeared in as an actress, which started with The Wages of Fear (1953) and ended with Les Espions (1957); she died in 1960 at the age of 46. Her performance of seemingly aiming for a martyr is fine in her defeated outlook towards it all, even when she gets into the eventual scheme involving a body in the bathtub. Her drawn out nightmare is our drawn-out nightmare, for which Signoret (a future Academy Award winner) excels in drawing the knowing fear that comes with people that know who they are and what they have done in diabolical nature and like it. Of course, it helps that Meurisse makes for a worthwhile lout to set all of this up in unsavory timing. The questions we ask about the movie aren't because we are grousing but because we want to know how the trap will spring.

Now, as for the ending: 

Don't be DIABOLICAL!

Do not destroy the interest that your friends may have in this movie.

Do not tell them what you have seen.

Thank you, on their behalf

Yes, it may be a movie that is seven decades old, but you just have to see it to believe it, really. There is just something so swiftly diabolical in its rug-pull that could only come from someone expressly interested in making everything snap into place. Do I love the ending? Well, it is fine in that final snap of the real trap, but I will say that the part right after it is a bit, well, convenient (which also is changed from the novel). You can only do so much with authority figures that show up now and then, I guess. As a whole, it is the kind of suspense horror movie you just have to watch just as it is. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Yes, it's time for the seventh rendition of having horror movies from November 1 to November 7 with 7 Days of the Week After Halloween