X (2022).

Review #2133: X.

Cast: 

Mia Goth (Maxine / Pearl), Jenna Ortega (Lorraine Day), Brittany Snow (Bobby-Lynne Parker), Scott Mescudi (Jackson Hole), Martin Henderson (Wayne Gilroy), Owen Campbell (RJ Nichols), Stephen Ure (Howard), Simon Prast (the televangelist), and James Gaylyn (Sheriff Dentler) Written and Directed by Ti West (#1893 - Pearl)

Review: 

It's the damndest thing. I found myself not having enough time to pick out this film when it came out in the month of March in 2022, but when it came to Pearl, billed as "An X-traordinary Origin Story" (as filmed on the same sets in New Zealand as this film) released in the latter days of September of that same year, I had all of the curiosity necessary to use it as a good way to start a month of horror. So, here I am basically trying to quantify my blunder in not just watching this film when it was new and wondering just how dumb I was in not picking it earlier. If you didn't already know, West had made a name for himself with a steady collection of horror features that started with The Roost (2005). This is his eighth feature film and just like the rest of them, he also wrote and edited the film himself. Sometime in the near future will be a sequel called MaXXXine, as already mentioned for those who were lucky enough to have seen Pearl, which will feature West and Goth again as one would hope makes a proper horror trilogy. 

Spoiler: well, I'm an idiot, I should've watched X back then. What better way to touch upon both a look into the world of X-ratedness that comes in porn and horror than a film like this? Sure, you might find something a bit familiar here with, say, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974). Both were at a crossroads as the 1970s were about to end, and the advent of video (with stuff such as Debbie Does Dallas, released in 1978) was a big reason for that, because now one could find a market interest in something that wanted to see flesh in their own homes. In other words, one could get away with doing something for themselves for others without having to go with Hollywood or through those proper channels, which could be places such as say, a farm in Houston. It has an amusing pace to it beyond the grisly elements that come in both the bloodshed along with the cries for being past one's youth that make for a really enjoyable time. It is craftsmanship of the best kind when it comes to the fear that comes in both delusional visitors and in becoming old, complete with prosthetics used to make a film that isn't just riding on CG-mush. When it comes to showcase, it goes doubly for Goth, who plays two roles that work in the view of people who desire a life for themselves filled with what they look like on the inside and out (whether that is a cocaine-sniffing actress or someone who obviously saw plenty in the 1920s when it comes to youth). This desperation makes for some curious scenes, such as their first scene together (after one is seen watching the other skinny-dipping in a pool that narrowly misses an alligator, anyway) that is uncomfortable in dreary enjoyment for one looking upon a younger one. The filming of the nudie scenes is particularly interesting when it comes to trying to construct something both pleasing and fitting to what looks and sounds right for both cameraman and cast undergoing it all that works for Parker and Mescudi (best known as Kid Cudi) for timing in performances. Henderson makes a worthy minor note in would-be film huckster, which compares pretty well when you think about Campbell and Ortega reacting to the idea of being involved more than just behind the camera (consider that reaction from the former in the aftermath carefully). It is the dynamic of Ure and Goth, however, that drives the film to where it must go, because even love must go hand in hand with sadism when it comes to helping others realize their desires, which is probably more unsettling than anything, at least when compared to the blood and gore (or the televangelist that occasionally appears on television, for those who don't care to hear of hucksters of the religious kind). One could actually feel bad for this character in the basic sense of aging, because, well, no one can be as young and free as they want to be forever, no matter what they may pretend to think (whether with others or by themselves, although the lonely usually die faster anyway). I especially like the ending for the subversion of the usual final person tropes when it comes to just wanting what they want, an ideal representation of "F you, got mine" if there ever was one. As a ballad of sex and violence with lingering degrees of uncomfortable styling, it makes for a highly interesting start to a horror series I really did not see coming (X and Pearl may actually be neck-and-neck with each other when it comes to how each do their own pastiche of a certain genre). Far from just a tribute or just an excuse to show skin and gore, this is the kind of film fit for its era when it comes to delivering unsettling entertainment with little to no false notes detected in the best of ways possible.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

I hope you folks have enjoyed this procession of October in Horror films (with one exception) in this historic month. I wanted to do a month packed with a handful of the usual names you might expect from horror, whether that meant a Vincent Price film or a John Carpenter effort and put them all together. There were plenty of films considered that didn't make the cut that I'm sure could be covered next October...or with Halloween The Week After, Year Five.

Redux: The Ring.

Redux #140: The Ring.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts (Rachel Keller), David Dorfman (Aidan Keller), Martin Henderson (Noah Clay), Daveigh Chase (Samara Morgan), Brian Cox (Richard Morgan), Shannon Cochran (Anna Morgan), Jane Alexander (Dr. Grasnik), Lindsay Frost (Ruth Embry), Amber Tamblyn (Katherine Embry), Rachael Bella (Rebecca Kotler), Richard Lineback (Innkeeper), and Pauley Perette (Beth) Directed by Gore Verbinski.

Review: 

This was the third feature film of Gore Verbinski, a Tennessee native that grew up as both a filmmaker and a man interested in playing guitar. He directed numerous commercials after graduating from UCLA before Mouse Hunt (1997) was his feature film debut. Oh, but you aren't here for background when it comes to a review dedicated to re-doing an old review. Enclosed here is the entire review of what I thought about the movie in 2012, as a 15-year old in his second year of doing reviews.

This is a remake of a 1998 Japanese film named Ring (which was based on the novel also named Ring). Anyway, this film has some scares that don't use sneaking up on people, found footage, or gore, but by disturbing images that keep you invested. The acting's decent, with Watts doing a good job. The little kid feels like a Sixth Sense type of kid, which isn't necessary. This film feels fine, until the end. I feel this is a confusing end that makes you wonder this: Why? Why do you need this type of ending? Why not just end on a good end rather then twist end us, setting up the basis for a sequel rather then just easily close out this film that is decent, with scares, and...a setup for a sequel.

Pretty short, huh? I gave a movie a 7-star rating and I didn't even bother to make a useful case for why. I can at least give myself credit for listing it as a remake of Hideo Nakata's Ring (1998) which in turn was an adaptation of the Koji Suzuki novel of the same name that had a key distinction: no psych-meter to attempt to solve the horror-mystery like in the novel. That movie had a slow build in narrative threading to play on expectations with spirituality and calm pacing involving the threat of Sadako. The 2002 movie (as scripted by Ehren Kruger) has its own approach to its threat, now named Samara, based on the same idea of a ghost that is manifested after death with a grip of rage to seek vengeance on the living while never sleeping. So yes, you watch a VHS tape (yes) and possibly die in seven days. Incidentally, the film was 130 minutes when it came to its original version before being trimmed to 115 that mainly involved making it a bit less graphic along with cutting a character played by Chris Cooper that showed up for just the start and climax. Two decades later, The Ring is a decent movie, one that represents the time that it was made in capturing anxiety and unease without verging into gore. Granted, no movie is good or bad just because they don't play into the gore angle for horror (unless you happen to be squeamish or really into things), it all goes down to execution. After all, the VHS tape that makes it all possible is brief but unnerving enough to lurk in your mind. I think it works out quite well in keeping the tension at a reasonable length when it comes to the human element, complete with a gloomy setting in the state of Washington (mostly Seattle) to make it fit. Watts makes a solid presence to hold the film up in ordinary withered charm that works to the tension required when it comes to balancing mystery and family devotion, which works best when paired against her on-screen son Dorfman, who lurks in nerves without saying much. Henderson is casually there, but really the attention goes to Cox, hostile but alluring when presented in the second half of the film to bring it all together. 

Having seen both films, at least one can say the ending works just about right for a film that involves a cycle that does not yield to simple actions. I think the original film has a better resolution when it comes to the final decision made, although each have pretty decent choices to show its creature without going overboard. One could have ended without going back to the TV, but you need that little bit about what kind of sacrifice is needed to "combat" the threat. It is debatable as to which film is the better one, since the 1998 is probably a bit more subtle in subverting expectations while the 2002 film carries its own way of getting from point A to point B without falling into the remake trap of repetition without innovation. A 2005 sequel to the film followed in The Ring Two, directed by Hideo Nakata. It did not end well, to say the least. A 2017 film called Rings was released by Paramount Pictures. As a whole, the appeal of Ring definitely kept the attention of filmmakers in Japan busy, evidenced by the eight features (Sadako DX was released in October of 2022) with varying plot relations to the books or previous films. As for The Ring, the legacy of the film is the fact that it managed to be a quality remake that stands on its own in calm suspense for the 21st century.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Rings (2017). We are almost done.

The Strangers: Prey at Night.

Review #1062: The Strangers: Prey at Night.

Cast: 
Christina Hendricks (Cindy), Martin Henderson (Mike), Bailee Madison (Kinsey), Lewis Pullman (Luke), Emma Bellomy (Dollface), Damian Maffei (Man in the Mask), and Lea Enslin (Pin-Up Girl) Directed by Johannes Roberts.

Review: 
I will admit, this came out of left field. Spring Break means that random things can happen, such as friends deciding to want to see some scary - how can I get in the way of seeing some entertainment? This is likely the first ever time of having two consecutive reviews being part of the Theater Saga - hence why I try to make sure and watch new (interesting) films with a bit of space between them. I hope you enjoy this review. 

I knew nothing of this film nor the fact that it is a sequel to a film named (obviously) The Strangers (2008), with the director/writer of that film serving as writer for this movie. For what I looked up, that film was inspired by the Tate murders along with a series of break-ins that happened in Bertino's neighborhood as a kid, with the same inspirations applying to this film. Admittedly, the idea of random strangers committing crimes without much reason could make for an interesting film, and I imagine that the first film likely had at least some sort of success with that idea, because I didn't find too much to really enjoy with this movie. It is not so much that the film is exactly terrible or anything, but I didn't find it too particularly scary. Perhaps it is easy to admit that the story is thinner than a cracker when the film has a 85 minute run-time and a small cast, which makes for a relatively small body count, with the film not having much in terms of energy to respond with. The fact that there are a few dumb moments (that you might expect for horror or slasher films) doesn't help too much with getting the film to click. The killers are what they are, strangers with masks, which is somewhat creepy but not enough to really carry the movie to pure fright. The secluded setting is fine and quiet for what the movie wants, and the way it is shot is also alright (with no real resorting of jump scares or anything too ridiculous), but it never seems to really click to make something that I can get with. It doesn't feel like a cash-grab or something cynical (I was surprised to note that it was made for $5 million, however), which I suppose gives the film some sort of credit.

The fact that the first half of the film feels a tad dull doesn't particularly help; it isn't that the actors are terrible, it just seems that the material doesn't spark much, with Hendricks being a decent standout with her material. Madison isn't too terrible, but the material isn't too helpful. That's not to say that there aren't other films with exposition that isn't particularly interesting (along with the fact that a film doesn't need to have much in terms of story to work), but the half that follows doesn't make up for it. At times it can be a bit creepy, but it isn't anything that could also be made fun of (and at least one or two cliche action in the middle of the pursuit), with a climax that feels a bit too stretched and an ending that just feels like it is taunting you. The fact that the film is an R helps make sure the violence doesn't get washed out, so there's that at least. The film utilizes music that you might call "ironic" for what you might expect in a horror flick, such as "Kids in America" for the opening and other music choices - which I suppose will have an effect for some, although I didn't really get much from it in terms of chills. If you like slasher/horror flicks, you could like the film. If you were a fan of the original film, chances are you might get a kick out of seeing another film with these strangers. In any case, it's up to you to decide. This is the kind of movie that I can't hate nor give much credit to, falling in the middle that will find a place in some people's minds but will likely go down for me as something that just passes through in the annals of middle-of-the-road horror flicks.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.