The Monkey.

Review #2347: The Monkey.

Cast: 

Theo James (Hal and Bill Shelburn; Christian Convery as young Hal and Bill), Tatiana Maslany (Lois Shelburn), Colin O'Brien (Petey), Rohan Campbell (Ricky), Sarah Levy (Ida), Adam Scott (Capt. Petey Shelburn), Elijah Wood (Ted Hammerman), Oz Perkins (Chip), and Danica Dreyer (Annie Wilkes) Directed by Oz Perkins (#2230 - Longlegs)

Review:

"The thing with this toy monkey is that the people around it all die in insane ways. So, I thought: Well, I'm an expert on that.' Both my parents died in insane, headline-making ways. I spent a lot of my life recovering from tragedy, feeling quite bad. It all seemed inherently unfair. You personalize the grief: 'Why is this happening to me?' But I'm older now and you realize this shit happens to everyone. Everyone dies. Sometimes in their sleep, sometimes in truly insane ways, like I experienced. But everyone dies. And I thought maybe the best way to approach that insane notion is with a smile."

Well, everybody dies. As I recall, 1000 Ways to Die put a bit of spooking in my mind when it came to strange deaths, exaggerated or not (well, as much as one can do when on a network named "Spike" that rolled with accidents such as exploding breast implants or death by sex); yes, some people die weird rather than, say, diabetes or murder. So anyway, The Monkey. The original story, as written by Stephen King, came out as a booklet in Gallery magazine in 1980. A lazy reading of a synopsis of the story (by me) reveals that it actually didn't have a twin brother in the first place, merely having flashbacks to an only child finding a monkey (which banged cymbals rather than drums) that clapped its cymbals before a calamity followed before he foolishly believes he can throw it in a well to stop it. Of course, that one had the curse strike animals (cats, and, uh, fish). It isn't often a director mentions their parents dying in "headline-making ways", but here we are. Perkins elected to eschew the proposal to make a serious adaptation of the story for his screenplay, listing various "patron saints" from Richard Donner to John Landis, to Chuck Jones and most specifically, Robert Zemeckis' Death Becomes Her (1992). 

Okay, work with me on this one. This film is basically Final Destination (2000) if it was actually competent. Death is an unseen force in both movies, if you think about it...except this film at least leans in with having a sop for a lead presence that you might expect from someone troubled with the specter of death that they get to see around them that you cannot really truly beat. Truthfully, the gore in violence is sometimes more amusing to see play out more than the actual attempts at humor, and this seems apparent here, which is still a compliment for a movie that manages to find new ways to turn the screw on looking at the strange qualities that come with death rather than try to chill it to the bone. In short: guilt all you want, sometimes it can be amusing to see weird stuff happen to people for no reason, such as say, cutting to a funeral after someone has used the drum that resulted in someone getting trampled to death. Spooky or not, it at least hits enough to strike for some queasy amusement to be had for 98 minutes to at least make for a suitable viewing alongside certain Stephen King adaptations. Even with its twin settings of 1999 and 2024, one does have this weird, warped feeling where it isn't exactly beholden to a specific time or place (for instance, a phone book page gets used at one point). It is interesting to see twins played by the same person in two different ages with James and Convery, to see those differences in what one does in the face of impulse at the expense of being alone with the pit of one's soul. Others are there for bits and pieces, such as a semi-amusing Maslany or O'Brien, who does fine with playing the one stuck in the middle of what you might call a family tradition in "choices" (the intro features Scott in a semi-amusing cameo after all). It sets up its misfortunes of death with stark execution that doesn't just splatter some red on the screen for the sake of it but instead makes its moments zing with cruel efficency, particulaly for its final cut. Admittedly, its hit-or-miss attitude can be a bit cloying enough to where I get where someone could just find it fine, because not everyone will find bemusement at two pathetic brothers that spend much time with a toy and playing the man of death. To each their own. As a whole, The Monkey is a worthwhile horror comedy in slick execution that has a few zingers within the terror in the randomness of death that will prove right up the alley of people who can chuckle with the best of them for gooey times.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Madame Web.

Review #2185: Madame Web.

Cast: 

Dakota Johnson (Cassandra "Cassie" Webb / Madame Web), Sydney Sweeney (Julia Cornwall), Isabela Merced (Anya Corazon), Celeste O'Connor (Mattie Franklin), Tahar Rahim (Ezekiel Sims), Mike Epps (O'Neil), Emma Roberts (Mary Parker), Adam Scott (Ben Parker), Kerry Bishé (Constance Webb), Zosia Mamet (Amaria), and José María Yazpik (Santiago) Directed by S. J. Clarkson.

Review: 

"Was it what I expected? Yes and no. There were elements of it that were incredible, and you were like, 'Wow, I'm on this big movie set and get to do all these amazing visual effects.' Then, in some ways, it's just like another day on set. I think that's a really healthy balance because it can be so intimidating, like a steamroller coming at you, and you've just got to get on and try to wrestle it. You can't stop it, and you change direction at your own peril."  - S. J. Clarkson

Is it wrong to go to a movie because of curiosity for how bad it could be? I had wondered just what movie directed by a woman had the worst rating prior to seeing this, and strangely enough, it was a film directed by Cheryl Hines in Serious Moonlight (2009). The next three in "least worst" were: Twilight (2008 - probably not that bad, but dire), Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991), and Hot Pursuit (2015). Now now, you might be saying highlighting terrible movies made by women is a bit ridiculous, but isn't equality all about highlighting terrible movies of both genders? March is National Women's History Month, so why not highlight a first-time effort? Actually, S. J. Clarkson has been a director since the early 2000s, all of which being in television, whether that was Doctors or Jessica Jones. Clarkson was tapped to direct by 2020, and she would be one of the handful of numerous writers behind this adaptation of the comic book character (as created by Denny O'Neil and John Romita Jr for The Amazing Spider-Man comic in 1980, and apparently Web has never been featured in their own comic). The screenplay was done by Matt Sazama, Burk Sharpless, Claire Parker, and Clarkson, while the story was done by Kerem Sanga, Matt Sazama, and Burk Sharpless. Apparently, the work done by Sazama and Sharpless on films such as Morbius (2022) was worthy enough for Sony to want to see them return for another film in their so-called Sony's Spider-Man Universe. Honestly, even for someone as weird about movies involving action like me, I forgot that Sony has tried to their own set of films based on Spider-Man characters (such as the two Venom films and Morbius but not the Spider-Verse films, I guess). One might wonder if it seems like beating a dead horse to talk negatively about a movie rather than highlight something else. The easy answer to that is: what plane of reality do you live in? One can see all the movies they want that they say is "good", but a significant amount of stuff is still bad. In fact, some of it is really bad, so why try to act one is above it? The funny thing is I don't even care that much about talking about the divide of comic book movies and, well, movies, since I've been playing pick and choose for the last few years anyway (unless it seemed good like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, as opposed to stuff that I figured, well...). With that being said, I went into this film expecting a silly movie for 116 minutes, and the best thing to say is that I got to see it all by myself in a theater (this film has been out for almost a month, so...).

This was delightfully terrible to watch. Apparently, instead of being set in the 1990s, the timeline was changed to 2003 during reshoots (as told by posters of Beyonce, namedropping Idol, red Mountain Dew and a retro clock I had like 10 years ago). One wonders how much energy was present before the reshoots...because there sure is little of it here. Not one actor seems to be invested in a film that has a character that spends most of their time saying "look out!" when it comes to the action sequences. Okay, so I knew a very little bit of what "Madame Web" was in the comics and figured two things: one, that she was vaguely related to Spider-Man and 2. the name sounds like one would use for a brothel owner. The resulting film did not help matters, because really her powers here just seem like cheating more than anything. "Web" can see...somewhat into a future. Sure, she can't foresee when she'll get blinded and crippled (so she can avoid it), but she can conjure up plot exposition (for when she has mommy issues that come to the forefront for like, one scene) and tell people when to duck when being confronted by Generic Bad Guy or open a window so a pigeon won't bonk into it. The movie seems to think it is envisioned like a suspense thriller, but little of that comes through for a movie that makes really wonder why Web wasn't thought of as an adversarial character or one that has...to learn something about the nature of their power. What the film really involves is "film made by committee", such as the idea of three teens (played by adults) that are teased as future Spider-People with suits...just for visions. I can't tell what was funnier: the main character leaving the three teens she basically kidnapped on accident in the woods so she can go to her apartment to study (exposition) notes or her leaving them with her friend (with a pregnant sister-in-law) so she can go to Peru and find exposition with a secret tribe of spider-people. The answer is Option C: a Pepsi sign being a big part of a climax where absolutely nothing of scale is shown for interesting detail. If you told someone this was reported as being made for $80 million, they probably would say "what, did the accountants hide it?"  

Honestly, Johnson is the "best" part of the film, if only because among all the drained performances trying to get through a film of bluescreen, the ounces of amusement to be had here come because of her. Maybe there was an interesting script somewhere in the original drafts that had something to do with the perils of knowing the future. Instead, one is left adrift in a sea of awkward characterization that probably nobody would've made work with the way this film was sludged in and out. At least she tried. Less successful is Rahim, seemingly playing a villain in the art of "ADR" that isn't even defined at the bare minimum of "how did they get here?" (how does one go from stealing a spider in Peru to being rich - use your imagination, I guess). The adversary he plays is "slightly strong with poison, totally legit guys", can't shoot webs, and has visions that three spider-women will kill him. Honestly, making a movie where a nut is on the loose that believes he has to hunt some people down to save himself could made an idea for a thriller (particularly since he has hands on tech that means he can look at public cameras like it was the Patriot Act), but, well, he has no sense of menace present. Hell, I know he has some sort of poison with touch, but, like, one couldn't have gone for the overkill route and carried a weapon too? Sure, he would probably go Bond Villain route and talk rather than shoot when presented the chance, but, well, it would at least present the chance of a trait to think about. The random guy next to you when in line for something (fast food, shopping, paying bills) probably will spook you more than Rahim in this film, but again, sounding like one is being ADR'd helps no one. The trio of Sweeney-Merced-O'Connor have about as much energy as one has when trying to make excuses for why they aren't going to the local theater on their day off, with the scene of each explaining why they can't go to the cops when in their predicament is unintentionally amusing for the execution of those lines in juxtaposition with being unintentionally kidnapped (since each is ridiculously stuck in a bad spot like rich parents or, um, their dad was deported). The web of how they are tangled with Johnson (junk mail! awkward encounters! flipping a paramedic!) makes me laugh just as much, because it has the charisma of someone trying to find reasons to have a reason to keep talking to you in line when high school ended 15 years ago. Scott is the only other person in the film for more than a scene (unless you count Mamet going "I'm scanning the data" as being there longer), and it probably should mean something to be playing "Uncle Ben" other than, oh, right, this could have been any name, which kind of goes for Roberts (daughter of the cool Roberts in the family - Eric) for a movie with the level of stakes that are lower than how much kibble one should give their pet for dinner. If one really thinks about it, the most befuddling line is one at the end that seems like a joke, when Johnson's character says "that's what he thinks" about a guy seemingly about to enjoy becoming a uncle with none of the responsibility. I feel like Madame Web being around as a pal to a guy kind of means...one would be troubled by knowing they are going to be doing more than being an uncle to a child. But I'm sure the "greater good" precludes that in the same way that the Future Spider-Girls (trademark) must stay on the path to do Totally Heroic Stuff (while Web gets to say bless you five seconds in advance for cheap party tricks and maybe wear a suit because why?). Making a "gritty" attempt at a comic film probably had some idea of meat on it before it was hacked by some sort of studio notes, or God forbid, it actually was worse (someone should put a false rumor of having the original script just for the idea of a troll campaign to Release The Less Crappy Madame Web Cut). On the whole, folks probably already know the movie stinks, but it seemed ripe to make fun of a movie aptly appropriate for the era of bloated studio filmmaking that tries to make franchises and streaming the thing to try and suck all the life out of what should be the simplest thing: fun. The only fun worth having with Madame Web is to make fun of it, and it will likely rank as one of the most amusing features to namedrop for fun in the coming future.

On that note, Happy International Women's Day. Go see better movies! 

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Krampus.

Review #1309: Krampus.

Cast.
Emjay Anthony (Max Engel), Adam Scott (Tom Engel), Toni Collette (Sarah Engel), David Koechner (Howard), Allison Tolman (Linda), Krista Stadler (Omi Engel), Conchata Ferrell (Aunt Dorothy), Stefania LaVie Owen (Beth Engel), Lolo Owen (Stevie), Queenie Samuel (Jordan), Maverick Flack (Howie Jr.), and Mark Atkin (Ketkrókur) Directed by Michael Dougherty (#1227 - Godzilla: King of the Monsters)

Review: 
I suppose the best way to enjoy the holiday season would be to have at least one good scare to go along with the usual festivities, at least one holiday horror film to differentiate from the usual Christmas fare (or at least something that isn't a shameless remake of a classic without any new ideas). In that regard, this is inspired by Central European folklore with its title character, a half goat/demon that punishes children that have been bad for the year. Of course, the key thing to remember here is that this is trying to be a Christmas horror comedy, filling its cast with a mix of notable names and others alongside demented holiday creatures and an occasional sprinkling of Krampus, which proves to be an okay if unwieldy mix. It definitely does alright with tongue-in-cheek humor, mixing its familiar yet dependable character types with fairly decent special effects, that much is for sure. Anthony proves a worthy child lead to follow with, where a unwieldy family visit isn't always the most terrifying possibility to have for the holidays, and he does well with reacting to his surroundings when needed. One needs levelheaded people with a little sense of humor before the storm, and Scott and Collette do a fair job in that regard, who play off with Koechner and Tolman to pretty good effect when it comes to small consistent moments or when faced with the cold reaches of disagreements or killer gingerbread men. Stadler stands out just as much as the others without having to say as much as the others, a warm presence that lends the film's most interesting moment, a description of her first encounter with Krampus (told through stop motion). Ferrell delivers a good portion of the laughs throughout the film as well, and the other castmates prove fair with rounding out the remainders of a family dealing with a lack of holiday spirit. Honestly, while I did find myself chuckling at times with the film, I do wish that it had gone for a more serious turn with its main focus, where the stakes could be a little higher than where it eventually finds itself before its 98 minutes are up. Does this film even have a body count? Sort of. The creature is certainly a terror to think about, where he doesn't just lumber down on a family as much as he sends in smaller terrors to wear them down, but it seems to make one wonder for a little bit more. The ending is at least fine for what is needed (something to think about), accompanied by a cheesy jump scare. For the parts that seem reminiscent of Gremlins, it only just seems to remind me that some horror comedies handle their balances better than others. It is technically scary, in that one would probably go nuts wrapped with the idea of not having any power before a bunch of weirdo holiday creatures try to take you down in a blizzard. I ultimately found more to like than dislike when it reached its endpoint, so I can say I liked the movie okay. It isn't so much disappointing as it is just an okay film for the holidays, whether for a scare for the relatives or for a take on a different kind of folklore.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.