Abigail (2024).

Review #2208: Abigail (2024).

Cast: 

Melissa Barrera (Joey), Dan Stevens (Frank), Alisha Weir (Abigail), Will Catlett (Rickles), Kathryn Newton (Sammy), Kevin Durand (Peter), Angus Cloud (Dean), Giancarlo Esposito (Lambert), and Matthew Goode (Abigail's father) Directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett (#1268 - Ready or Not)

Review: 

You know, it is funny, I picked this movie a few weeks after it was released because it just seemed like the kind of interesting little horror film you can encounter in the spring without needing too many audience members around (if one is paying over $8 for a theater experience, would you not take that chance?). Of course, it also helps particularly if you favor the directors, who, well, were behind Ready or Not (as released in 2019, although I suppose those two "Scream sequels" might be more familiar to certain folks). Perhaps not surprisingly, that film was also co-written by Guy Busick, who wrote Abigail with Stephen Shields (heh, a movie involving one controlled setting of a big house and trying to stay alive when presented with the fear of death, go figure). When it was first announced as being a production for Universal Pictures, it probably wasn't a surprise because of the fact that they were into the idea of just making a horror movie that could take loose inspiration from their previous history involving monsters to mold into something that would be along the lines of The Invisible Man (2020) rather than say, The Mummy (2017). With this in mind, one could be forgiven for thinking of this film as asking how one would do Dracula's Daughter (1936), which in it of itself was a very loose interpretation (read: little to no faithfulness) of a discarded chapter of the original Bram Stoker novel. And, well, I suppose I am making up for not watching Universal's two distributed vampire flicks in 2023 in Renfield and The Last Voyage of the Demeter.

The way one crafts the routine matters to enjoying what gets pulled for a film experience, particularly when it comes to horror, which gets plenty of flak from those who sure love other genres for playing to cliches just because they don't have "icky gore". But we aren't here to crap on people for their taste, we're here to see if a film seems worthwhile to spend time watching for 109 minutes. It delivers pretty much what you would expect from a film spent mostly in one location with a group of briefly describable characters and a title threat that is compelling enough to lend its ride to satisfaction. Weir (born and raised in Ireland) gets to play both sides of the coin that arises from a true wolf in a den of sheep that makes for an imposing presence in the fact that age and size is not the only way to spark terror when it comes to gnarly teeth and tone to go with it. She takes a playfully skilled approach to peeling off the illusion of being an outmatched youth with the endearing sense of fun theatrics. The ensemble around her (one that name drops And Then There Were None, to the surprise of probably nobody) does pretty well in the art of being picked off but having the tone of commitment a notch above staid. Barrera handles it best with useful timing that is generally worth rooting for when being in the house of the rising blood. When it comes to that old "final girl" trope, her worthwhile interest in the art of balancing "run!" and "it may be a vampire, but it's not a total monster" is solid for driving the film along, particularly when compared to the other key presence in Stevens in conniving engagement with baring opportunistic fangs. The others deliver a chuckle or two in their moments spent in the cast, such as Durand getting to play it naturally Canadian (with a bit of dim touch) or a silly Newton. As a whole, it is pretty standard type of gore, but it handles all the trimmings required of a well-oiled one-setting machine with the gore and pacing required to make for a solid curiosity piece. The setup for just what a vampire work just fine here (sunlight, ack!) to lend the climax a worthwhile execution when it comes to making decisions and, well, exploding splatter. Regardless of whatever may be next for Universal in playing it loose with familiar monsters or for the directors at large, I'm sure whatever lurks around the corner has a good chance of being solidly ready for viewing in the horror realm.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire.

Review #2192: Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire.

Cast: 

Rebecca Hall (Dr. Ilene Andrews), Brian Tyree Henry (Bernie Hayes), Dan Stevens (Trapper), Kaylee Hottle (Jia), Alex Ferns (Mikael), Fala Chen (Iwi Queen), Rachel House (Hampton), Ron Smyck (Harris), Chantelle Jamiesson (Jayne), and Greg Hatton (Lewis) Directed by Adam Wingard (#1672 - Godzilla vs. Kong and #1753 - Blair Witch)

Review: 

It is hard to believe that May will be the tenth anniversary of the first real American Godzilla film with Gareth Edwards' 2014 film. Eventually, through the course of time, one has seen films such as Kong: Skull Island (2017), Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019), Godzilla vs. Kong (2021), and now this one, the first of the series with a returning director in Adam Wingard (there was an attempt at doing the "MonsterVerse" for television, but if I didn't like the idea of using Apple TV for watching baseball, why the hell would I go for it here?). The screenplay was done by Terry Rossio, Simon Barrett and Jeremy Slater while Wingard wrote the story with Rossio and Barrett (this is the first of these features without Max Borenstein as a writer). Well, I don't really have anything to build up here, this movie is about on par with the other ones, what did you expect? Each of these films have their own idea of what to do when it comes to handling the time besides their big creature, whether that involves killing off Bryan Cranston early, Kong in the Vietnam War era, a goofy fun one involving eco-terrorists, or a monster clash and hollow earths. It is particularly interesting to see a few returning castmates from the last one in Hall, Henry, and Hottle. It has been a few months since the last time Godzilla was featured in a film after Toho's Godzilla Minus One, but are we really so ridiculous to compare two different Godzillas? What, does every one of these have to be moving period pieces? (what, no complaint that the film title doesn't know how "&" is better than a silent "x"?)

To be honest, I don't really re-watch modern movies all too much (last year saw a mix of 200 movies watched for the first time, old and new, and that doesn't include ones seen as tradition), so going back to these films doesn't include a clear winner (King of the Monsters or Skull Island were pretty neat though). But these two Wingard features are relatively carry the torch well for loony entertainment, even if this one generally is more of a Kong film than one for Godzilla (I believe someone counted the amount of time for the creature around eight minutes in a 115-minute film); basically, you get more scenes of, say, Kong playing nice with a smaller version of himself (evidently named Suko,) than Godzilla doing those little things beyond charging up that involve, well, resting in the Coliseum. It likes to deliver exposition and roll with effects at roughly the same quick pace that results in a clutter of a movie that goes a bit further into the Hollow Earth with a different kind of bent on a familiar titan (hey, the last one had a mechanical one dealing with severed monster heads); it seems amusing to basically have a basement within the basement of the Earth for secret tribes and telepathy, really. The adventures of Kong and Suko (nice to have Son of Godzilla on the mind), which is more than I can say for a film that likes to have a bit of light human interaction without having many stakes apply to them. It likes to cut around what seems interesting just in case one needs a bit of info to follow along with, which can be hit or miss. The Skar King basically being a bully that likes using pain to rule is kind of interesting, but the closing is probably more interesting than the fact that the attempts at building up a threat from down-down below is only moderately interesting. Among the humans, probably Stevens does best in having that sense of just rolling with the material in amusement without buffoonery. Henry is probably more tolerable than he was in the previous film, if only because he doesnt have to act against teen actors or as much of a "conspiracy" bent this time around. Not to say Hall and Hottle can't handle family drama (sign language) of course, but it comes and goes in terms of actually caring beyond a passing glance. Of course, I do enjoy the event buildup to, well, reuniting Mothra into a tussle of creatures. The climax gives the mishmash you would expect in throwing monsters, playing with ice, and eventually dealing with the whole "monkey see, monkey go for the axe" thing. It takes a significant amount of lost patience to lose me on a film like this, but this one went relatively fine in zipping along without trying to brazenly insult one in its execution. On the level, it is around the other films when it comes to general spectacle if not managing to really do anything profoundly interesting on a wholly consistent level. It is neatly average fun, which in the grand scope of general Godzilla or Kong films is totally normal for those who know what they are getting into.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.