Nosferatu (2024).

Review #2327: Nosferatu.

Cast: 

Bill Skarsgård (Count Orlok / Nosferatu), Nicholas Hoult (Thomas Hutter), Lily-Rose Depp (Ellen Hutter), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Friedrich Harding), Emma Corrin (Anna Harding), Willem Dafoe (Prof. Albin Eberhart Von Franz), Ralph Ineson (Dr. Wilhelm Sievers), and Simon McBurney (Herr Knock) Directed by Robert Eggers (#780 - The Witch, #1833 - The Northman)

Review: 

"A lot of people talk about my films as stylized. But aside from the fairy tale composition, it’s not intended to be stylized. I over-rehearse with the intention of it being in the actors’ muscle memory, so that it doesn’t feel like hitting a mark. If you’re doing expressionist cinema, you are aware of the artifice so much, because it’s stylizing the world in a way that is completely unrealistic. Here, obviously — you know, I’m sick of talking about my research, too, but obviously the verisimilitude of the material world is very important to me."

In 1922, a movie from a cheap studio came out with unusual circumstances. Prana Film was behind one and only one film: this one, which had been founded by Enrico Dieckmann and Albin Grau, with the latter being an occultist artist (supposedly, he was inspired to do the film based on an experience in World War I, where he met a Serbian farmer that apparently had a father rise from the grave to feed on blood); Grau designed the sets and costumes, complete with making up a letter with "Enochian" symbols that shows up in the film. The duo brought Henrik Galeen in to write a screenplay that would be inspired by the 1897 novel Dracula (as written by Bram Stoker) and F.W. Murnau as a director. Of course, Florence Balcombe, the widow of Stoker, did not like hearing that someone made a movie freely adapted from Dracula and issued a lawsuit, with the result being the negative and all prints of the film ordered to be destroyed (incidentally: years after the lawsuit, she did grant the rights of the book to a guy who made it into a play for the theater which, well, she didn't get the entitlements for it). But the movie, unlike Balcombe, would endure in the public sphere. Over a half-century later, Werner Herzog was eager to make his own "homage" of Nosferatu and waited until the copyright for Dracula to enter the public domain to make what became Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979). which had the names of the book characters incorporated for a curious outcome of artful terror (it set itself in 1850, whereas both the 1922 and 2024 film are set in 1838). As a youth, Eggers found an image of its star in Max Schreck that had him obsessed enough to later direct a stage version of Nosferatu. Eggers had first been tapped to direct a Nosferatu remake since the first announcement being in 2015. Each version has their own distinct edge in terms of the climax (the 1922 movie details a "pure-hearted woman" offering blood of her own will, the 1979 movie features an awakened sick man, and, well, "the purity of dawn" is something you have to see here).

I'm not quite sure where I would rank it among movies involving vampires, but it probably will rest pretty high, managing to outrank directors who tried to make their own Dracula movies such as Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), for example. But with this "folk vampire" story, one will have plenty to highlight in a movie that focuses on a psychic and erotic connection with a creature of pure evil that emanates haunting atmosphere most films would dream to have. It is the perils of being blinded by perceived enlightened times at the cost of folk tales. With a film like this, we get to participate in the ritual of folk terror that clearly had plenty of investment from Eggers in history and curiosity (for one, Eggers had already read Montague Summers in terms of his work on vampires but obviously one would wonder about the imitation of Vlad the Impaler and the works of Jean-Martin Charcot in terms of hysteria). In short, Eggers has crafted his own legend of unsettling nature that earns every moment it crafts in terror with craftsmanship made from love that is deliberate in its pacing (132 minutes) for all of the senses possible. Interestingly, Skarsgard had read for the role later played by Hoult (of course, I can't imagine what the film would've ended up with Harry Styles or Anya Taylor-Joy as leads). Skarsgard (as aided by opera singer Ásgerður Júníusdóttir in lowering his vocal range) is exquisite in his unsettling nature as a rotting Transylvanian nobleman corpse. He ends up wrapped in darkness and makeup that makes him pretty distinct in an obsession and rotting core that one can certainly see as both repulsive and seductive. Wrapped in agency as a victim of choices (most significantly the ones to start and close the movie) is a wonderful Rose-Depp that seems to understand the darkness that lies beneath the surface of the time one is wrapped up into with a grace that works well in selling this gothic tragedy. Hoult is the most normal of the folks in the main group, which namely means a man having his 19th century preconceptions shattered (consider that in this version, he is even warned to not go to the Carpathian Mountains by his wife), which he handles with worthy timing. Rounding out the cast is a mix of strange seasoned dignity, whether that involves the conventional in Ineson, the shaken Taylor-Johnson (who gets to have a disturbing last highlight), or, well, the occult magic of Dafoe, who plays the role with gusto in terms of shattering belief that dominates the screen in a way that is distinct from the usual "vampire hunter" role because of how committed he is mystical devotion. Of course, Corrin and McBurney also do well in the cast (the latter proves quite suitable in raving madness). Above all, this is a tremendously gorgeous movie to view in Gothic despair (as captured by Jarin Blaschke), one in which there are plenty of moments to simply gaze in curiosity, whether that involves a nighttime ritual (consider what they do there when compared to how things go in the last scene involving vampire confrontation) or the leadup to meeting Orlok on his realm. As a whole, it is a charmer of the grotesque that builds its dread for righteous furor for a damn good time that likely will improve with further viewings. It is a tossup to figure out what lurks best in the totally-not Dracula adaptations, but you will not go wrong here.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

John Wick: Chapter 4.

Review #1998: John Wick: Chapter 4.

Cast: 

Keanu Reeves (John Wick), Donnie Yen (Caine), Bill Skarsgård (the Marquis Vincent de Gramont), Laurence Fishburne (the Bowery King), Hiroyuki Sanada (Shimazu Koji), Shamier Anderson (Mr. Nobody / The Tracker), Lance Reddick (Charon), Rina Sawayama (Shimazu Akira), Scott Adkins (Killa Harkan), Clancy Brown (the Harbinger), Ian McShane (Winston Scott), and Natalia Tena (Katia) Directed by Chad Stahelski (#905 - John Wick, #906 - John Wick: Chapter 2, #1222 - John Wick Chapter 3 – Parabellum)

Review: 

"John Wick is a weird spillover of anime, manga, graphic novel sensibility as well as Wuxia films, Chanbara films, Samurai films, and Westerns. It’s got this weird transference."

It was ten years ago this year that Keanu Reeves signed on for a project that in the end run became a franchise. It is funny to consider that John Wick became a franchise that has seemingly risen in ambition with each passing sequel that has adequate staging in plot to accompany exquisite staging when it comes to action. You don't need me to tell you that this film is already a hit or that it is the longest film of the series at 169 minutes. I would be silly to not mention that a spinoff of the series is intended for release the following year with Ballerina with some of the main cast; a limited series "from the world of John Wick" will also be present in the coming months, if you are into that sort of thing. The film was written by Shay Hatten (who co-wrote the third film with series creator Derek Kolstad) and Michael Finch.

Honestly, it is hard to say which of the three John Wick sequels has turned out the best (if you want to be technical, the first is probably still the best for the surprise that comes with such a raw film). It definitely is the one where Reeves seems to say the least number of words, adhering most to the tradition set out by Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns with its one quiet hero. Each of the films feature plenty of what you might as well call gun-fu to go with fairly distinct actors getting to play support to Reeves and his exquisite timing as an action icon. The movies are bombastic in trying to top the other while finding new places to play like a kid wanting to take the toybox to new places, whether that means a sequence shot in Jordan or an action sequence at the Arc de Triomphe. The movie takes action sequences like it is water to absorb, which means one sees the vast effort required to make these scenes important to view in their ass-kicking glory without a feeling of repetition. There's plenty of targets to go around from the disposable to Scott Adkins in a fat suit hamming it up for all that seems clearly required. Reeves clearly knows what he likes as the ultimate action-boogeyman, one who moves through any sort of scene with precision and engagement for the action ballet that takes place with him usually at the forefront that shows the dedication required in performing a mix of judo and mixed marital arts that looks just like it feels to watch in absorption. The fact that a good chunk of his dialogue is just "yeah" is probably more of the fact that one has gotten to the point where he is simply just where he needs to be without such need for lengthy moments in his path of last vengeance (or in a different way, the path of seeing where his smoldering decisions have left others). Yen accompanies him in his style of worthwhile action charisma, a worthy match against Reeves in saying what needs to be said, which goes double for someone playing a blind assassin. Skarsgård makes a quality adversary, preening in haughtiness in a series all about the sheer arrogance that comes with not planning more than two steps ahead of a "Baba Yaga". Among the other additions is Anderson, who makes an adequate background mercenary, while Sawayama (a singer in their acting debut) does well in the parts they are in the film, which mostly involves interaction with Sanada, which is neat. It's always fun to see Brown or McShane around, but it is especially true with Reddick, who passed away last month at the age of 60 (small sentences or not, he always made this role distinct). The fact that a duel for the climax be handled so fervently in elegance is a testament to how the series has managed to hold in consistency. It is fun without becoming a needless excuse of dim lighting or being wishy-washy with its tone. As a whole, the film is paced well enough to roll with every punch and shot without dawdling on something for too long. Who knows where the series might go from here, but I can safely say that it was a pleasure to see Reeves on screen again in a role that he obviously seemed born to play to go along with a director that knows what he likes in raising the expectations set as a director that makes one curious to see what could be next.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: A special celebration on April 20th in the way best suited for Movie Night: a double-header with one film of world cinema and one from America.

Barbarian (2022).

Review #1894: Barbarian.

Cast: 

Georgina Campbell (Tess Marshall), Bill Skarsgård (Keith Toshko), Justin Long (AJ Gilbride), Matthew Patrick Davis (The Mother), Richard Brake (Frank), and Kurt Braunohler (Doug) Written and Directed by Zach Cregger.

Review: 

"As long as I have no long plan, then no one could know what’s coming.”

Well, there is always time to do horror movies, modern era or not. This is the second feature film for Cregger, who directed exactly one other mainstream feature film in Miss March (2009); he was one of the founding members of the comedy troupe The Whitest Kids U' Know. Truly I suppose this is the time for people known for comedies trying to play their hand in horror in the same way you would see comedians attempt to play serious roles. Cregger had his inspiration when he read the book The Gift of Fear, as written by Gavin de Becker. Specifically, he was inspired by the chapter giving advice to women to pay attention to the little red flags men can give off in day-to-day situations (such as doing a favor when you didn't ask for it). It spiraled from writing a scene with all of these little red flags that somehow spiraled into a film, complete with a rule that if he was surprising himself, then he would have to surprise the audience. So yes, that is how one gets a movie where a double-booked Airbnb (in Detroit, the gate place for some scary thoughts) leads to a variety of events, all that come from a director who went from turning a scene into a horror movie that has gotten some appreciation from audiences.

Maybe the movie is an elaborate joke on critics who think it is really, really good for being "unpredictable" and something about the nature of gender politics in ways that reminded me of the overrated The Invisible Man (2020) or debatably average films such as Hereditary (2018). Oh sure, I thought it was decent as a mild take on the "person goes to the dark basement and finds something down there", but to call it some sort of new kind of twisted classic is just begging for mockery (Pearl, a movie made for a 1/4th of Barbarian's $4 million budget, is better in every single way). The thought that was going down in my head when watching it was the idea that this seemed more apt for a television movie rather than a whole feature. One can only keep the surprise for so long in a 107-minute movie, particularly when one of its lead characters doesn't appear until forty minutes have passed and you could basically separate the film into three parts: the Airbnb parts where something is totally not right about things (because hey, awkward dialogue is fun to hear for 20 minutes), the parts that see Long step into the fray and finds the thing best not spoiled here....and the endgame result that comes from a horror film. Go figure that the best part of the movie for me is the last of these segments. I'm here to watch a weird and grisly time that may or may not have interesting characters in it. Campbell is at the very least interesting enough to hold the film together in patience and composure, rolling with what the (potential) dangers that come with seeing fresh faces and handling it well. Skarsgård is meant to play a nice guy for what is meant to be drained out of a "hey, look at how weird it can be with little red flags", which, okay, sure (you can play story-time for your first half, just don't make one want to twiddle their thumbs). Your time will be spent better with Long, who manages to make a suitable semi-heel caricature (his character may or may not be a pervert, get it?) when he finally shows up when compared to all of the other things of the film, so take that for what it is worth when contributing mild humor to a movie that rides the dark humor trail for fair results. Brake comes in by the hour and is there to do exactly one or two quiet scenes. The handling of the creature is far more interesting in the grotesque, and this is done without much lighting to show much of it (hey, a horror trope worth going for) until the climax that actually does have a few chuckles to it in execution. The final shot does sell itself pretty well, for what it is worth, fitting in trying to throw the audience for one more loop without treating them like complete idiots. As a whole, when it is actually on the game of horror with grimy patience rather than sneering belief that it is ahead of things, it makes for a fine movie. The simplest things are sometimes the best, and that means that while it is at least a semi-useful way to spend one's time for the horror season...however many horror films one ends up seeing. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

SURPRISE! A double-header to start off a new October of Horror enjoyment. Enjoy the show, folks.

It Chapter Two.

Review #1271: It Chapter Two.

Cast: 
Jessica Chastain and Sophia Lillis (Beverly Marsh), James McAvoy and Jaeden Martell (Bill Denbrough), Bill Hader and Finn Wolfhard (Richie Tozier), Isaiah Mustafa and Chosen Jacobs (Mike Hanlon), Jay Ryan and Jeremy Ray Taylor (Ben Hanscom), James Ransone and Jack Dylan Grazer (Eddie Kaspbrak), Andy Bean and Wyatt Oleff (Stanley Uris), Bill Skarsgård (Bob Gray / Pennywise), Teach Grant and Nicholas Hamilton (Henry Bowers), Javier Botet (Hobo / The Witch), Xavier Dolan (Adrian Mellon), Taylor Frey (Don Hagarty), Molly Atkinson (Myra / Sonia Kaspbrak), Joan Gregson (Mrs. Kersh), and Stephen Bogaert (Alvin Marsh) Directed by Andy Muschietti (#991 - It)

Review: 
I curiously anticipated this film from the moment that the last one had completed its run. Whether one had read the 1,138-page novel by Stephen King or not, there was certainly a chilling atmosphere brought by the filmmakers in terms of its direction from Muschietti and his three writers in Chase Palmer, Cary Fukunaga, and Gary Dauberman. The key difference now is that Muschietti has just Dauberman contributing to adapting the second film. With a run-time of 169 minutes (horror fans could compare it to Midsommar (2019), which was actually ten minutes shorter), my expectation was that it would try to cover all of its bases in terms of story and horror and do so just fine. Ultimately, the resulting film is an okay one. It only proves fitting that the film jokes too many times about a character's bad endings to his novels, since this film is the lesser of the two It installments, an example of a film stuffed to the brim in ambition but not quite up to task in delivering all of its goals safely. That's not to say I didn't like the movie, since I did feel that I got my money's worth when it comes to entertainment, but It Chapter Two is certainly going to be one of those sequels that will inspire discussion over how far it needed to cover with its adaptation material and where it could've gone a different direction. For all of the horror imagery that it delivers in terms of its monsters and dark corridors, it feels a bit weird in really trying to stick together. This is in part due to the humor that gets sprinkled throughout the film. It isn't so much that I don't love a horror comedy (Ready or Not was a pretty good dark horror comedy, and that came out just weeks ago), but it sometimes seems to actually get in the way of keeping a tense atmosphere. As mentioned earlier, the references to the bad ending does tend to get old. How many times do we need to hear about it before it gets old? The Peter Bogdanovich cameo? Jokes by the other leads? No, I think it really does go overboard when Stephen King shows up for a cameo and does that. Sometimes you really need a more tense film to keep you on your toes.

When it comes to a cast like this, where the adults have to live up to the previous (and current) portrayal by children, it sure is nice to see a main six that work out just fine. McAvoy is pretty good with walking into the shoes of the nervous yet capable head of this group, emulating what was without any sort of struggle. Chastain seems a bit more reserved, but she makes her echo count just fine. Hader steals the show at times, cracking a few lines alongside fighting the fear that goes with the territory. As much as the film should just relax with trying to be funny, at least Hader is not making an annoyance of it all, which would be the case in the hands of an unrestrained comic relief. The other members of the cast also manage to pin down the quirks from before with no reservations. Undeniably, the film really does hinge on how Skarsgård does with having a second act for his clownish character. In that sense, he does just fine with some creepy voice-work, even the physical side of his character perhaps doesn't feel as scary as before. Sometimes seeing the villain again just diminishes their effect. There are a few highlights, such as a scene in the bleachers, or the one involving fortune cookies, and while scenes may drag on a bit sometimes, there are more effective scenes than failures. The film likes to jump between the modern (well, 2016) time and scenes with the kids, which feels a bit like It 1.5, which does work out fine for the most part. Honestly, I am curious to see how a compilation of both films into one would look like (let's not forget that the miniseries was just three hours), but what would it have looked like as a show? Sometimes it just seems that the movie wants to spend a little too much time down memory lane (restoring their memories through artifacts), where nearly every character gets their own trip down the memory hole while barely spending much time around the town itself. The weirdos seen from the first one barely make an impression (such as an older reception lady who liked to tease Eddie back then), but it really becomes glaring when one does not see much of Grant and his character of Henry, who was pretty intimidating but isn't as such now (the mullet joke makes this apparent). The film spends so much time with this group that you barely even realize half of these folks actually have spouses (from what I've heard in the book, this matters especially for one couple). The fates may not change, but the circumstances certainly change to make for a slightly more optimistic if not simpler film (while the book involves things such as a "Macroverse" - yep). When you know a giant spider is on your way, one wonders what kind of expectation to have, and there certainly is enough a light show to make it try to seem creepy. Ultimately, this is a horror film that tries to cover as many bases as it wants with a lofty material (much like with its first installment) that goes up and down a roller coaster of loading the senses with attempts at scares and laughs that lands long enough to make it mostly worth it without a huge crash.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

It (2017).

Review #991: It.

Cast: 
Jaeden Lieberher (Bill Denbrough), Bill Skarsgård (Pennywise), Jeremy Ray Taylor (Ben Hanscom), Sophia Lillis (Beverly Marsh), Finn Wolfhard (Richie Tozier), Chosen Jacobs (Mike Hanlon), Jack Dylan Grazer (Eddie Kaspbrak), Wyatt Oleff (Stan Uris), Nicholas Hamilton (Henry Bowers), Jake Sim (Belch Huggins), Logan Thompson (Victor Criss), Owen Teague (Patrick Hockstetter), Jackson Robert Scott (Georgie Denbrough), Stephen Bogaert (Mr. Marsh), Stuart Hughes (Officer Bowers) DIrected by Andy Muschietti.

Review: 
Admittedly, I hadn't read the novel of the same name by Stephen King before going in to see this movie; I also never watched the 1990 miniseries adaptation, partly because I wanted to go into this like I would with any kind of horror film, without any real sense of comparison or with too much hype. In the end, I would say that this definitely succeeds as a thrilling piece of entertainment, even if it may not be the chilling kind of horror movie that one might have desired, though there are some quality scares. The cinematography by Chung-hoon Chung stands out pretty well, with the film's 80s look certainly passing itself off pretty well (without being doused in too many references), which makes for a good atmosphere.

The core of the film is the seven child actors (Lieberher, Taylor, Lillis, Wolfhard, Jacobs, Grazer, Oleff) that do tremendous jobs that surely keep the movie on the rails while also standing out quite well; Lieberher proves to be a quite capable lead, with Taylor and Lillis also being fairly interesting, though the one who sticks out the most is Wolfhard, who helps inspire some laughs with some timely "mouthy" remarks. With regards to Skarsgård and his performance, he does a pretty good job, mostly because he toes the line between playful and terrifying, with accompanying facial expressions (and some digital effects that are mostly successful) that make for satisfactory creeps and chills. The rest of the cast (such as Hamilton) do pretty decent in their roles, definitely helping in the creepy factor. It doesn't go too much into the gore factor, but it definitely is a movie that uses its R rating decently enough. Admittedly, there are a few jump scares, and while they don't come off as too distracting to the film's credit, I can see where someone might find it more harmful to the film. At 135 minutes, this certainly has an acceptable length when it is all said and done, and seeing how there most definitely will be a "second half" to this film in the near future, I can say that I will be waiting for it with curious anticipation.

It seems fitting to have done a horror film as part of the countdown to #1000, and it is also fitting that it is done just five years since the first installment of the Theater Saga on Movie Night, Paranorman (#240), done on September 8, 2012. Interesting how times have changed. The movie theater certainly has gone through some changes, but the experience is still pretty fun even to this day. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Atomic Blonde.

Review #978: Atomic Blonde.

Cast: 
Charlize Theron (Lorraine Broughton), James McAvoy (David Percival), John Goodman (Emmett Kurzfeld), Til Schweiger (The Watchmaker), Eddie Marsan (Spyglass), Sofia Boutella (Delphine Lasalle), Toby Jones (Eric Gray), Bill Skarsgård (Merkel), Sam Hargrave (James Gasciogne), James Faulkner (Chief C), and Roland Møller (Aleksander Bremovych) Directed by David Leitch (#905 - John Wick)

Review: 
This is adapted from the graphic novel The Coldest City by Antony Johnston and Sam Hart, It is good to ring in the new month of August with another film from 2017, which has had quite a diverse amount of films, such as John Wick: Chapter 2 (#906), released earlier in the year. I say this because of how this film reminded me of that film and the previous Wick film, which Leitch help direct (though this is his first credited feature as director). Like those films, this movie has a great sense of execution with its action sequences, managing to not blur the line between action hero and killing machine. The plot of the film takes time to really gel, in part because of it doesn't try to be simple with its espionage, but it is never boring in part because of the actors and their performances. Theron pulls off an entertaining performance that is as engaging and capable as one would expect from something like the James Bond films, and her scenes with Boutella are also fairly compelling (and not gratuitous in any shape or form, thankfully). McAvoy is pretty clever, managing to have a sort of mania and enjoyment that balances off of Theron rightly enough. Goodman and Jones are also fine highlights, and the rest of the cast all seem necessary and useful to the plot. There are numerous highlights within the action scenes, with the staircase scene featuring good editing and fine pacing to it, and the cinematography by Jonathan Sela (who happened to do the cinematography for the first Wick film) is also a fine highlight. The music is also neatly handled well (in part because of it being set in 1989), with my personal highlights being "The Politics of Dancing" by Re-Flex, "London Calling" by The Clash, and "Under Pressure" by David Bowie and Queen. The run-time of 115 minutes is likely a bit too long, although it isn't anything too harmful. It's not a perfect movie by any means, but there definitely is enough competent action and presence by Theron to justify checking this one out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.