Author: fenrisfil

A Dark Song (2016)

Posted on by fenrisfil

“A Dark Song” is an Irish independent horror from writer/director Liam Gavin. This was Gavin’s feature debut having only worked on shorts previously and is his only movie credit. Mike Flanagan (Netflix’ horror series guru) was obviously impressed enough with his work to bring him on board as a director for his second series “The Haunting of Bly Manor”. The movie stars Catherine Walker and Steve Oram. Walker has clearly caught the attention of Ridley Scott recently as she appears in both “House of Gucci” and “Napoleon”. Oram meanwhile is a prolific bit part time actor with over 100 credits to his name. For an indie movie horror these solid names and the film will need them to be solid since the majority of the movie is just them.

Walker plays “Sophia Howard”, a bereaved mother who has rented an isolated house in rural wales and hired occultist “Joseph Solomon” (Oram) to perform grueling month long ritual. The goal of which is to cause Sophia’s Guardian Angel to manifest itself and allow both of them to ask it for a boon. The ritual requires total isolation for the pair, once started they cannot leave the salt circle that is around this isolated house for any reason until the ritual is complete. It will also push them to both their physical and psychological limits. We follow the pair as they embark on this very personal journey all the way to the end… Whatever that will be.

A Journey Into Darkness

A Dark Song has the feel of a 1960’s horror movie. It reminds me of various films of the era including “The Haunting”, “The Devil Rides Out” and “Carnival of Souls. It also reminded me a little of “Don’t Look Now” (1973) which was itself a bit of a holdover from the 60’s. This makes the style quite refreshing. Obviously when special effects are called for they are modern (Though relatively low budget), but don’t expect to see much for the vast majority of the film. Like those 60’s movies, it is a slow burn but with a thick and tense atmosphere. The small cast and the fairly contained location give the film a claustrophobic feel and no doubt kept the budget under control. When things do kick off, it is brief but satisfying.

Obviously with what is effectively a two person cast their characters, relationships and acting quality is what makes or breaks the movie. The acting was mostly good, with a couple of moments that felt a little off. It’s worth noting two people losing their minds in a claustrophobic setting is a big ask for a pair of actors to pull off. It is in that regard very similar to what Robert Pattinson and Willem Dafoe achieved with “The Lighthouse”. This pair are not as good as Dafoe and Pattinson, but to even be in the conversation with those is an achievement. Those couple of moments where it didn’t quite work passed by quickly and on the whole they were excellent. The characters themselves were very interesting and did provide a good dynamic between the pair.

A Path To Redemption

One of the impressive elements of this movie is the details of the ritual. These are legitimate rituals as practiced by Aleister Crowley and the Golden Dawn and that authenticity really assist with setting the dark atmosphere. It pushes the unreal to a place where it feels like it could be real. There were obvious challenges to how to represent this kind of realistic occult activity in a horror film and I feel they tackled this well. When the movie switches from subtilty to pure chaos it is at a point beyond what poor Sophia can handle. She is broken. So you are left with the question of how much of what the pair suffer is hallucination from a fevered mind and how much is real. Ultimately it doesn’t matter because it works as a great horror story either way.

The atmosphere is milked to perfection with touches of music that underscore the scenes but don’t overwhelm them (The opposite of something like “The First Omen” where the music IS the atmosphere). The vast majority of the film is deliberately subtle and there are nice little touches that not everyone will pick up on. For example in a later scene there are some ghostly headlights on the road, implying that a car is travelling on the deserted road but Sophia is no longer in that reality. The best thing about the movie though is you really feel the character journey Sophia goes on. The ending is somewhat of a twist I suppose, but it feels absolutely natural.

Judgement

If you are into more subtle horror, especially the character and atmosphere based horrors of the 1960’s then this is definitely one for you. On the other hand if you want a fast pace and brutal murders, you need to look elsewhere as this has neither. It is a clever and emotional horror. It’s not the most visually stunning, though the visuals work fine. The same goes for the soundtrack. Everything is subtle and understated. That’s not for everyone, it’s certainly not a Friday night drive in movie. But if you like claustrophobic character stories with a minimal cast and creepy atmosphere, you will love it. For me this is an easy 7/10. I hope Liam Gavin gets a chance to helm and write another horror some time.

Rating: 7 out of 10.

One Dark Night (1982)

Posted on by fenrisfil

“One Dark Night” was the directorial debut of Tom McLoughlin. The director is perhaps most famous for providing one of the best Jason Voorheese movies, “Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives” (1986). The screenplay was put together by McLoughlin and Michael Hawes. The pair had been trying to sell the script for about four years before they found a group of investors will to put up one million dollars for the film providing they start filming within three weeks.

The movie stars Meg Tilly as “Julie” a young girl determined to prove herself above a group of college mean girls by passing their initiation into their club called “The Sisters”. The club is led by “Carol” (Robin Evans) who holds a grudge against Julie since she is now going out with Carol’s ex boyfriend Steve (David Mason Daniels). Carol tasks Julie with spending a night in a mausoleum, but intends to make be make it as uncomfortable as possible for her. Unfortunately for the girls the mausoleum currently houses occultist Karl Raymarseivich Raymar, rumoured to be a psychic vampire with the powers of telekinesis. The only person aware of the danger they are in is Raymar’s daughter Olivia (Melissa Newman), but can she save them?

Pranks and Perils

As with a lot of horrors of the early 80’s, this is actually fairly slow to start. Things don’t actually kick off until the last 30 minutes and the rest of the film is pure set up. This is an approach that can work very well and can certainly cover for a lower effects budget, but it does ask more from the actors and script to make it work. If you are killing teenagers in the first ten minutes you have your entertainment factor. If you aren’t getting dirty until the final act you need to keep the audience entertained via other means. One Dark Night takes a two pronged approach to this. We have a story with college teenagers playing cruel pranks and walking blindly into the hands of the movies antagonist. But we also have Olivia, the antagonists estranged daughter learning via audiotape just what her father was capable of.

First thing I have to say here is I quite like exposition via audio tape in a horror. It works and doesn’t feel as awkward as having a character turn up mid way through to do a big exposition dump. Indeed, because it’s one sided and not a conversation it cuts the time needed for exposition right down. Of course you can’t do that in every film, but it works here. This exposition is spread out a bit as we see the events develop with the rest of the cast. The plot design here is pretty solid, the only downside is none of these characters are interesting. The antagonist, Raymar, is silent and sort of dead. The generic final girl is basically useless, her boyfriend is brave but also useless and her bullies are generic bullies. Well outside of one girls weird thing with her comfort toothbrush.

The Final Act

When it comes to events kicking off in the final act we have a lot of zombie like creatures, but because they are animated via telekinesis instead of being actual zombies they just sort of float into people instead of attacking them. Raymar is mostly motionless but occasionally fires out bolts of electricity at people. Ultimately it’s kind of goofy. But it is a pretty original idea. I’m not sure I’ve seen zombies created through telekinesis before. Maybe skeletons, but not flesh covered zombies. It occurs to me that saving these zombies until the final act was probably a good idea. The long build up and relatively brief time they are around for means they just about get away with it. Only narrowly though.

Ultimately this a pretty average 80’s horror with some interesting ideas that don’t quite work out in practice. The zombies look pretty good even if they move in a goofy way. Adam West feels wasted. The characters are generic, but the plot itself is fairly solid. A mixed bad that averages out to a 5.5/10. If you are a fan of 80’s horror it’s worth checking out, if not skip it!

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms (1953)

Posted on by fenrisfil

If you’ve followed my past October Challenges you know I always give a few days over October to checking out some golden age horrors. This year is no exception and I’ve decided to finally check out the American independent film that predated and influenced “Godzilla” (1954). That is “The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms”. Directed by Eugène Lourié and is very loosely based on the Ray Bradbury short story “The Fog Horn” (Ultimately just one scene). Paul Hubschmid stars as “Prof. Tom Nesbitt”. Paula Raymond, Cecil Kellaway and Kenneth Tobey provide support.

Far north of the arctic circle, a covert nuclear weapons test awakens an ancient beast from it’s frozen slumber. The loan survivor the monsters rampage, professor Nesbitt finds himself in the position of having to prove an ancient Rhedosaurus dinosaur is roaming the earth and poses a very real threat to America. He finds allies in paleontologist “Thurgood Elson” (Kellaway) and his young assistant “Lee Hunter” (Raymond). Eventually they convince “Col. Jack Evans” (Tobey) to investigate. They find the creature, but now the question remains: How to stop it.

The Beast Awakens

Much like Godzilla, this beast is awoken by nuclear testing. However, unlike the famous Kaiju, the Rhedosaurus doesn’t have a direct connection with the radiation. Indeed, it is definitely not immune to it like Godzilla is. However, it does spend half of it’s time in the ocean just like Zilla. Another similarity is unknown virus spread from the creatures blood. In Godzilla, survivors of his attacks tend to suffer radiation sickness, presenting largely the same way. There are enough similarities that it seems unlikely this film didn’t influence the more successful piece. There is debate on the subject though and maybe this is just another one of those coincidences. Personally, I doubt it. However, Godzilla is the better movie.

That’s not to say “Beast” is bad. It is a little straight forward, but it was the first of it’s kind. It’s safe to say they were more concerned about how to put a believable giant dinosaur on the big screen than coming up with a layered plot. The effects are really worthy of praise too. Yes they have of course dated (After 70 years, that is a given) but they haven’t dated as much as you may think. The animation is jerky at times and the transition from model to set is occasionally jarring. Overall though, I was impressed. In it’s day, this must have been stunning. It (Along with a re-release of King Kong) did spur a spate of giant monster films in the US. That’s not a bad legacy.

Conclusion

There’s not a huge amount more to say about the movie. It was an effects and spectacle movie and it provided that. Impressive for its age and for the fact it was independently created. The rest of the movie is average. The plot is divided between proving the monster exists and then trying to destroy it. The first half is solid, but not what anyone watches this movie for. The second half is very basic, but provides most of the spectacle. There’s not really anything I consider bad here, it’s just I know you can do a lot more with a giant monster. I’m going to settle on a 6/10. Your enjoyment may depend on how well you handle 70 year old effects, but if you like Kaiju’s, you owe this film a viewing.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

The First Omen (2024)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Shortly after I was born, the world was introduced to the ultimate devil child. Not me though, this was 1976 and June (November in the UK) of that year saw the release of one of Richard Donners masterpieces of cinema, “The Omen”. A movie that terrified me as a child (Not sure how old I was when I saw it, but far too young to be watching). The movie expanded to a trilogy (In 1978 and 1981) that told the entire story of the antichrist. The final part was the weakest but did take the story to it’s logical conclusion. This was followed by an ill advised fourth movie in 1991 that was universally panned and a disastrous remake no one asked for in 2006. After an even longer hiatus the franchise finally returned in 2024 for another ill advised entry. This time a prequel.

The First Omen is directed by Arkasha Stevenson in her feature length debut, based on a story by Ben Jacoby. Stevenson, Tim Smith and Keith Thomas provide the screenplay. All relatively new but not totally inexperienced talent. Nell Tiger Free (Servant, Game of Thrones) plays the protagonist “Margaret”, a novitiate awaiting to take her vows. She is sent to an orphanage to finish her training but is caught up in a series of unexplained events and disturbing visions while there. A priest, “Father Brenan” (Ralph Ineson), explains to her that something nefarious is going on here and that the fate of the world may be at stake. However not even Brenan fully realizes the entire truth of the situation.

The Devil’s Greatest trick

Okay, so the first thing that comes across to me with this film is that it is really, really, boring. Not much of anything actually happens throughout the entire film and the plot twists are so easily guessed that there is very little pay off. The entire story of the Omen has run it’s course, a prequel was always an ill advised concept, especially since it was effectively done to absolute perfection decades ago with Roman Polanski’s “Rosemary’s Baby”. Not technically of the same franchise, but the best telling of the antichrists birth you are likely to see on screen. If the idea behind a prequel was to avoid comparisons to the original they failed as with this the movie will be compared to both The Omen and Rosemary’s Baby.

But this isn’t the only problem. like many demon/devil related horrors of recent years the makers have tried to steer the story into a somewhat anti-Christian frame and this is something that always works against the impact of this kind of horror. Demonic possession and the rise of the antichrist are Christian fears first and foremost and as such work best when the Christian element is leaned into instead of shun. This is the very reason why I felt “Nefarious” worked so well. That film was as biased towards Christianity as films like this and the recent Exorcist sequel are against it, but the simple fact is being biased towards it makes the film work! If you don’t want to lean into that, don’t make demon/devil films! H.P. Lovecraft is always a viable alternative as are Pagan deities or aliens.

Final Judgement

Tonally they did try and make the film at least feel like an Omen movie. In practice though, that mostly meant playing heavily discordant choral music over scenes of… well, not much at all. There were some references to events of The Omen but these didn’t serve that much purpose on their own. Mostly the film tries to create an uneasy atmosphere through the music and occasional unrelated visuals instead of from the plot itself. That plot involves a twist that is so painfully obvious that the swerve is really more irritating than anything else. This is no Angel Heart. The plot here has very little wriggle room due to the constraints of the other entries in the franchise and where they have found room for originality the directions are all disappointing.

Ultimately this is a confused offering. Politically speaking it is a very right wing franchise (Given the Christian element) taken in a very left wing direction. Which means the fears it tries to reflect are left wing fears, specifically female body autonomy and the danger of Christian fundamentalism. That couldn’t contrast more with the originals very Christian fear of the rise of the antichrist. As bad a fit as that is, my main issue with the film remains that it was just boring! This is a 4.5/10. Go and watch Rosemary’s Baby or the original Omen instead of this.

Rating: 4.5 out of 10.

10 Rillington Place (1971)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Many horror films have been made based on true stories. Usually these are embellished and sometimes end up having very little in common with the true story. In the case of 10 Rillington Place from 1971, an attempt was made to present the story of serial killer John Christie as accurately as possible. The focus of the story though isn’t so much on the horrendous crimes of Christie but on the travesty of justice that saw an innocent man hanged for some of his crimes. The movie was directed by legendary director Richard Fleischer, with a screenplay by Clive Exton. It is based on the novel by the same name by Ludovic Kennedy. Screen legend Richard Attenborough takes on the role of serial killer Christie and John Hurt plays unfortunate scapegoat Timothy Evans.

10 Rillington Place is part psychological thriller and part court room drama. The primary purpose of the movie is not to scare the audience so much as to lay bare the travesty of justice of the real life case involved in the story. It is effectively a drama designed to expose the great flaw of capital punishment. Despite that, there are definitely horror elements to the story. It is after all about real life serial killer and rapist John Christie, that murdered at least 8 people including his own wife and one baby. The film shows a few of those murders and while they are not especially graphic they didn’t need to be.

The Case That Shocked A Nation

The story starts when Timothy Evans, his wife Beryl and their baby move in to one of the apartments in Rillington Place. By this point Christie has already actively murdering women and burying them in his garden. It’s not clear how many he has killed, but we see one murder at the start of the film. Christie sets his sights on adding Beryl to his collection. Here I’m torn between not spoiling too much of the film and recognizing this is all real life events so a lot of people will already know what happens next. Suffice to say Christie ends up framing Timothy not just for Bery’s murder but also for their baby’s. However Christie’s bloodlust means he doesn’t have the sense to quit while he is ahead.

The movie doesn’t really have a main character though since it is more concerned with showing the historic events. At times this can make the film seem a little dry. There’s no mystery to it either, but then when dealing with a real life killer any attempt at mystery would be futile. Instead the film needs to build the suspense of impending doom for those living under the roof of 10 Rillington Place and it doesn’t always manage this. This is probably intentional though since the movie wasn’t meant to be a horror as such. It’s hard to dramatize these characters without delving into horror a little though and that is largely down to some impressive performances from the two leads.

Star Performances

Richard Attenborough plays murderer Christie and he plays it with cold calculating calmness that makes the character that much more terrifying. He rarely seems flustered and even when he is, he still has a coldness about him and a politeness. I can’t help but see an element of Attenborough’s performance in Anthony Hopkin’s portrayal of Hannibal Lecter 20 years later. Of course Hopkins was playing a fantasy character and so could ham it up a little and have a bit of fun with it, but underneath that you can definitely see Attenborough’s Christie. The two were friends and collaborated many times, so it makes sense.

Attenborough wasn’t the only big name actor in this movie, we also have John Hurt showing his flexibility as the somewhat simple minded man scapegoat, way out of his depth, Timothy Evans. Hurt won a BAFTA nomination for his role and it was well earned. Evans is a man with a certain amount of pride and an equal amount of hubris and yet is played the most tragic of hands. His wife and child murdered and he takes the blame. It is too much to deal with and Hurt puts it all into his performance without overdoing it.

The Verdict

Overall this is a pretty strong telling of a tragic and horrifying series of events. It makes a good argument against capital punishment as well as the failure of a police to spot a killer with no clear motivation. It is however a little too dry for my liking, even for something based on real events. That leaves it a little short of a 7 for me but it’s still a recommendation. This is a strong 6.5/10.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Hannibal Rising (2007)

Posted on by fenrisfil

The big debate about this film is if Hannibal Lecter should ever have had an origin story/prequel movie. The answer in my view is: Probably not. That said, an origin for the character is absolutely consistent with Thomas Harris’ writing style. Every other character in his novels have their motivations and psychology examined closely. Often, by Dr. Lecter himself. Harris style of writing largely relies on the realism of these characters. What made Hannibal stand out so well was because he was the enigma, the one unexplainable evil. Harris edged into explaining a lot of Lecter’s thought processes in “Hannibal”, his third novel. That novel was less warmly regarded and the film adaptation skipped most of those elements. To be fair, it’s hard to show thought processes on screen. For this reason, they were correct not to have Clarice take Hannibal up on his offer and go off with him.

But if you have read the novels, it was always clear that Harris wanted to explain Hannibal to us. He just wasn’t sure if he should and I have heard that he did need his arm twisted somewhat to finally set to work on a full origin story. Supposedly it was producer Dino De Laurentiis who told Harris that if he didn’t write the origin story, someone else eventually will. Horrified by this prospect, Harris set to work. As I mentioned though, if you read the books you know Harris does try and help the reader to understand Lecter. He’s not entirely the enigma he is in the movies. To make sure his message wasn’t lost this time he insisted on writing the screenplay to the eventual movie himself. For better or worse director Peter Webber has provided a fairly faithful adaptation of the source material.

Dark Origins

The film begins with a young Hannibal (Played by Aaran Thomas), with his loving family and young sister Mischa (Helena-Lia Tachovská) living in a castle in Lithuania. This is not a good time to be in Lithuania though as the Nazi invasion of Russia has turned the area into part of the bloodiest front line in World War Two. As Hitler and Stalins forces clash, the Lecter family is caught in the middle. The parents are killed and Hannibal and Mischa are left to fend for themselves. Matters get worse as a group of ex-Nazi’s now just trying to survive as Russian forces take over the region hold up in their castle. With it being in the thick of winter and no food available they take drastic action.

Many years later, the story picks up with an adult Hannibal (Now played by Gaspard Ulliel), who has made his way to his last surviving relatives home in France. After settling in, he sets out on his mission to extract vengeance on the people that murdered and ate his sister. Gong Li plays his aunt “Lady Mursaka”, who understands Hannibals drive but can’t stand by who he is becoming. Dominic West (McNulty from the TV series “The Wire”) plays Inspector Pascal Popil, a detective that specializes in bringing war criminals to justice. He too understands Hannibal’s desire for vengeance, but won’t let him get away with taking the law into his own hands. Rhys Ifans plays “Grutas” the head of the gang that murdered Hannibal’s sister.

A Man of Exquisite Taste

The most obvious issue with this film is that Hannibal Lecter is not a character that any actor can play. The gold standard is obviously Sir Anthony Hopkins, who elevated the character into the movie villain hall of fame. Before Hopkins took on the role Brian Cox put in an impressive performance in the movie “Manhunter”. After the release of this movie a third actor, Mads Mikkelsen would take the role and make it his own in a way that arguably even outdid Sir Anthony. With that in mind, perhaps my view of Gaspard Ulliel is a little unfair. However, I was not impressed. It’s not that his acting was bad or anything. It’s just we’re dealing with a complex and chilling character at a time in his life where he is perhaps the most conflicted he is ever likely to be and he felt… generic.

As for the origin itself, it does make a certain amount of sense. Starting out with a trauma that desensitized him and showed him how brutal life can be. Then giving him a reason to pursue and murder those that had wronged him. After that, I guess he just kept going. But this is where the problem lies. Even though Lecter does murder one character simply for being rude there’s not really any suggestion that he will keep going indefinitely with those kinds of murders. The vast majority of his actions were motivated by his revenge. So these elements don’t totally add up. What we do see though is his casual brutality and lack of empathy for his victims. This is balanced by the fact he does not harm the children on one of his victims. So at least here we see something of the man he would become.

A Trail of Destruction

There is another problem too. All these killings are high profile. It’s hard to imagine that no one ever casually looked into Lecters past. Had they done so, he would have quickly become a suspect in Chesapeake Ripper case. In the movie, he fakes his own death too. But then doesn’t change his name after. In the novel at least he is actually arrested, but between the public support (For killing war criminals) and the lack of evidence, he is released. There was an obvious solution here in Inspector Popil. Had the story allowed for Popil to be somewhat sympathetic and realizing that the only way for these men to face justice was for Hannibal to kill them there could have been an air tight backstory for the character. Instead though Popil is totally dedicated to the law, despite his own tragedy. So much so it’s hard to imagine him buying the faked death and not flagging the name globally.

Popil’s actual role appears to be like an early version of Hannibal’s relationships with Will Graham and Clarice Starling. Someone he finds very similar to himself, but just not quite able to see the world the way he does. Sadly though the film doesn’t spend any time looking into this relationship. It’s just sort of there. Another relationship somewhat wasted is Hannibal’s odd romance with his Aunt, Lady Murasaki. We aren’t given a great deal of time to know the character except that she is the one person Hannibal feels close to. Perhaps the idea was for Popil to be a prot-Will Graham and Lady Murasaki to be a proto-Clarice Starling, but in practice neither of them really are that interesting.

Conclusion

As a stand alone movie, this is a reasonable revenge story. As an origin story for Hannibal Lecter though it is a disappointment. It’s not however a complete disaster. Things do, by and large, add up. Even the plot holes can be explained by the fact that in the novels at least, no one suspected Lecter until Will Graham. There was no investigation because Lecter, sensing he’d been rumbled, immediately attacked. While an origin story for Hannibal Lecter was always likely to disappointed, I do feel this one could have been better. Specifically with more to his relationship with sympathetic characters and perhaps a different actor in the lead. I’m giving this a solid 5.5/10. Despite some promise the movie largely just coasts along on it’s predecessors coat tails.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

The Puppet Masters (1994)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Over the years there have been many versions of the alien body snatcher idea. The 1951 Robert Heinlein novel “The Puppet Masters”, may well be the earliest entry in this sub-genre. However the movie adaptation comes very late to the party following in the footsteps of three versions of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” (1953, 1978 and 1993) and two versions of “Invaders From Mars” (1953 and 1986). There have also been a number of tangentially similar films such as “The Thing” (1982), “The Hidden” (1987) and “Night of the Creeps” (1986). On top of this both Star Trek and The Outer Limits produced episodes based on Heinlein’s story. Even Roger Corman ripped it off for “The Brain Eaters” (1958) and was sued by Heinlein as a result. All that considered, it is strange it took so long for a direct adaptation.

The Puppet Masters was somewhat of a passion project for Michael Engelberg. The producer had been pushing for the film to enter production since the mid eighties. He was assisted by his long term friend and Disney CEO Michael Eisner. Disney didn’t have a lot of experience with this kind of film however, as a result production was a tad bumpy. The script ended up with countless re-writes, two competing scripts were being developed simultaneously at one point. Directors were hired, minds changed, a third new script was developed and then finally a variation of the original script when to filming with a whole lot of compromise.

Invaders From Space

The Puppet Masters is directed by Stuart Orme. A strange choice given his career until that point was mostly directing made-for-TV movies (And still is). The screenplay was provided by by a combination of David Goyer, Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott. Eric Thal stars as “Sam Nivens”, Donald Sutherland as his father “Andrew” who runs a special branch of the CIA that deal with extraterrestrial activity and Julie Warner as xenobiologist “Mary Sefton”.

The team are called in to examine a site where a UFO is suspected of landing near a small town. When they arrive they quickly determine something is up with the inhabitants of this town and after a confrontation with one realise they are being controlled by an alien lifeform. What follows is a tactical battle between the two sides. The invaders do their best to take over key personnel while the humans try to detect the invaders, figure out what they want and most importantly find a way to kill them without killing their hosts.

Stars And Slugs

Coming as late to the pod party as this movie does has left it in a difficult position. Trying to repackage the original body snatching story to appear fresh and unique in a sea of similar stories that came after the original novel is a difficult ask. It’s most obvious imitator “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” already re-invented itself twice and the second version of that story from 1978 is still regarded as the gold standard for the theme. The earlier 1953 movie was no slouch either. Both versions pushed the fear and paranoia to the extreme. Puppet Masters is more focused on the bigger picture, than on individual characters. This is more about the war between the humans and the space slugs, instead of the paranoia of the individuals. The result is interesting, but not especially compelling.

The cast is a relatively strong one, with the big name unfortunately being Donald Sutherland. A fantastic actor for sure, but unfortunate because he was also in the 70’s Bodysnatchers movie and as I mentioned, that is the gold standard. There was no possible way that this film wouldn’t be constantly compared to the 1978 classic with Sutherland being the face of both. His performance in the film is good, as you’d expect. But since he isn’t the lead, he is largely wasted. All his inclusion does is lead to harsh comparisons with a better movie. The actual lead is Eric Thal (When he’s not being controlled by space slugs) who puts in a solid performance. Keith David and Julie Warner are pretty good too. It’s not the acting that lets this one down.

Bad Adaptation

This is a film made out of compromises, resulting in a final product that probably didn’t please anyone involved. It’s not a fair reflection of Heinlein’s novel, it’s not that different to the various other body snatcher films it doesn’t really offer any great moments. While the screenplay gave up most of the cool moments from the novel to executive pressure, the director Stuart Orme failed to make anything that remained at all memorable. The movie is all bland and dry. There is a reason he went right back to made-for-TV movies after. The cast do their best and there are elements of the plot that are interesting but none that really make it compelling.

It’s a real shame, but that’s Hollywood. Maybe one day someone will make a better adaptation. For now we just have this. It is conceptually interesting in places, but nothing in the film really stands out and it’s ultimately a movie you’ll have forgotten minutes after watching. This is a solid 5/10. Not a total waste of time, but also not a recommendation. If you want a more fun version of the story on screen, watch the Star Trek episode “Operation — Annihilate!”

Rating: 5 out of 10.

Trap (2024)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Is there any director more all over the place in quality than M. Night Shyamalan? Most of his movies are divisive with the audience, rejected by most but loved by a solid number. Some of his movies are universally panned and some are universally loved. It could be argued that he is doing exactly what a director should do (When making original content). Taking big risks and following his inner muse. However, his work always follows a certain formula, namely the big twist. As a result, he has all the hallmarks of both a good and bad director. Auteur’s do tend to have their own unique style. But when that style makes the stories predictable it does more harm than good. In many ways Shyamalan is his own worst enemy, because technically speaking at least he is a good director.

Here he has a conceptually interesting story. John Hartnett stars as “Cooper”. A family man taking his daughter, Riley (Ariel Donoghue) to a concert by “Lady Raven” (played by M. Night’s daughter, Saleka Shyamalan). Cooper though has a dark secret (Revealed in the trailer and early in the movie, so not a spoiler), he’s a notorious serial killer known as “The Butcher”. It turns out the FBI was aware he would be at the show (Though they don’t know who he is or what he looks like) and have the venue locked down. Having caught on to this it is down to Cooper to find a way out, preferably without ruining his daughters big day. He is being hunted by FBI profiler “Dr. Josephine Grant” (Hayley Mills).

Two Sides of Night

This is very much a film of two halves and it is the first half which is by far the superior. The interesting thing is this first half is entirely free from Shyamalan style twists. Sure the concept itself is somewhat of a subversion, but you find out very early that Cooper is the butcher and his attempts to escape the trap plays to M.Night’s actual strengths as a director. Scenes play out with a tension underneath where the audience understands the stakes but most of the characters on screen do not. This is classic Hitchcock style tension and Shyamalan pulls it off well. The pacing is pretty solid too leaving you on the edge of your seat. The problem is there is only really enough content here for half a movie. Horror films don’t need to be long, but all too often these days we see a horror with a cool concept that just can’t sustain itself for even 90 minutes. These ideas are better off as anthology shorts.

The second half of the movie is where we see the bad side of Shyamalan. Where the obsession with twists and subversions actually leads to the film becoming clankly and predictable. Here we see Cooper constantly outsmarted by almost everyone he comes across. He loses all ability to inspire fear and with the mask now off he turns out to be far less interesting as an antagonist/protagonist. In some ways it reminds me of the 2018 Halloween sequel since you effectively have three “Final Girls”, from three different generations taking down the villain. The difference is that none of these three are really main characters. Lady Raven comes closest but she doesn’t take a central role until the second half of the film and leaves the story a fair while before the climax. The result is a complete disconnect between the audience and these characters. It’s also a noteworthy horror for the total lack of deaths during the film.

Conclusion

This is a difficult film to rate. This represents the best and the worst of the M. Night Shyamalan. The first 40 minutes are very solid and would probably have garnered a strong 6.5/10 from me. The rest of the film though is disappointing and probably would have landed a 5/10 if I was feeling generous. I’m going to balance those out to a 5.5/10. Ultimately this is not entirely bad and you won’t regret watching. However, it’s not worth going out of your way for it and it certainly won’t be bothering your physical media collection (If you have one). Slightly above average, but with the good weighted so heavily towards the early half you will likely walk away with a bad taste in your mouth. I don’t really recommend it, but if it’s on streaming and you have nothing else you want to watch, go for it.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Legacy sequels are a difficult nut to crack. The vast majority of these films (and occasional shows) are for Gen X franchises. That’s my generation, so I’ll give you my bias up front for that. For a legacy sequel to work it has to appeal to the franchises existing fan base. But Gen X is aging (Believe me, I’m all too aware), so you need to bring in younger generations too. The important thing is you don’t bring them in at the expense of the built in fandom. Indeed the entire point of using these old franchises is that the enthusiasm and love of the existing fans helps to encourage in new ones. Ideally you want parents to introduce the kids, but as long as the general reaction is positive you get a nice momentum boost.

The problem is that quite often these sequels are created by people that either don’t care for the franchise or have a very fringe take and as a result they garner a huge backlash from the original fans and new fans are put off. This is true of remakes/reboots too, but the potential for both success and failure is that much higher with a continuation. The success rate for legacy sequels is marginally better than that for remakes, but still lands under 50%. What tends to weigh things more to the positive is the inclusion of legacy cast members and creatives, so the fact that the new Beetlejuice sequel sees Tim Burton, Michael Keaton and Winona Ryder return had me hopeful this one would join Top Gun, Beverly Hills Cop and Karate Kid in the win list.

Showtime!

Tim Burton returns to the directors chair, with Danny Elfman once again providing the score. Script duties though have been passed to “Wednesday” writers Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (Original writer Michael McDowell died in 1999 and his collaborator Larry Wilson is absent). Keaton and Ryder of course return as the titular character and franchise lead “Lydia Deets” respectively. Catherine O’Hara, returns in her role as “Delia Deetz” (Lydia’s step-mother) and while her husband “Charles” is somewhat present as a character, actor Jeffrey Jones did not return. Ghost couple “Adam” and “Barbara” (Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis) are entirely absent. The primary addition to the cast comes from Jenna Ortega (Fresh off “Wednedsay”) as Lydia’s estranged daughter “Astrid”. She is joined by Willem Dafoe as ghost detective “Wolf Jackson”, Justin Theroux as manipulative douche bag “Rory” and Monica Bellucci as soul sucking seductress “Delores”.

Many years after the events of “Beetlejuice” (1988), Lydia has made a career for herself as a TV Medium, utilizing her ability to see the dead. She is however haunted by visions of Beetlejuice and the events of the first movie has left her somewhat fragile. That didn’t stop her marrying and having a daughter, but after the death of her husband, her relationship with her daughter has become strained and she has found it increasingly difficult to cope. After her father also dies during a tragic plane crash, Lydia, her daughter Astrid and step-mother Deelia return to “Winter River” (Site of the first movie) for the funeral. While there, a series of events unfold that leaves Lydia with only one person to whom she can turn, the devious and outrageous Beetlejuice.

Stitched Together

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice is a bit of a mixed bag and that is a shame because the ingredients are all here for what could have been a fantastic legacy sequel. The returning cast settle into their roles as if it was still the 1980’s, Tim Burton is able to indulge in all that quirky gothicness that we love about his style and the film provides what is effectively a female-centric story while avoiding all those modern cliches that tend to ruin that kind of thing. All the characters have their flaws, the heroic ones learn to overcome them and everyone else milks their flaws for entertainment value. They even dealt with controversies with the original cast (The ones that didn’t return) in a manner that fed into the story instead of derailing it. These elements, while good come up against the films big problem: The Plot.

The main issue here is that there are effectively three main stories, that should all intertwine in a way where each one enhances the other, but instead the three threads feel separate and get in each others way. Astrid’s plot provides the opening for the Lydia/Beetlejuice story but in no way intersects with the Delores story and is confined almost entirely to the middle act. It’s hinted that the Delores story factors in to Beetlejuices motivation with Lydia but this is never really explained and ultimately doesn’t change his intentions (He always wanted his wedding). Ultimately, the Delores plot feels entirely detached and just an excuse to place additional disconnected scenes and characters momentarily into the story. Her actual engagement with the rest of the cast is very brief and highly anti-climactic.

Happy Families

Conceptually speaking the Astrid and Delores plots should have had a movie each for it to work, with the Beetlejuice/Lydia story being the focus for a trilogy. Perhaps this was the original plan, but at some point that was abanoned and both plots were squeezed into the one movie. A side effect of this is that Beetlejuice really doesn’t get enough screen time and that is a shame because Keaton was truly on form. It takes about half the movie before he gets properly involved. He’s not alone though in providing a good performance and one surprising highlight is Catherine O’Hara who gains extra screen time largely due to the exclusion of her onscreen husband. Meanwhile, Willem Dafoe’s reminds us that he can do comedy just as well as he does everything else and while his character is sort of pointless, you are glad he is there.

The movies leads though are Winona Ryder and new addition Jenna Ortega. Winona continues her Hollywood comeback she started when she landed her role in Netflix “Stranger Things” and long may it continue. Lydia has changed since she was a child, and is somewhat neurotic, but throughout the film you still feel the young Lydia inside and waiting to come back out. Jenna was an obvious choice for the daughter, since she did so well as Wednesday Addams for the Burton directed Netflix series. While Astrid isn’t a million miles removed from Wednesday, the differences are clear. Astrid has a layer of innocence and naivety that Wednesday does not and Astrid is actually interested in hooking up with boys. She does however have Wednesday’s goth girl sarcasm, but that fits considering how her mother was at her age. The pairing was perfect.

Final Judgement

In conclusion: This is a film that will very likely be both disappointing and enjoyable. It’s an odd combination and almost certainly your mileage will vary. It’s no surprise that reviews of the film have been somewhat split and I am going to land somewhat in the middle. As legacy sequels go, this is more of a win than a loss. This is a film that you want to be fun and it delivers that. That said, a Beetlejuice film can’t just coast by on the humour alone, it needs a solid plot too. The weaknesses with that plot are a lot more noticeable here than with something like Deadpool and Wolverine. On a positive note though, the film doesn’t damage the franchise or any of it’s characters and I don’t think anyone will regret watching.

The original movie is a strong 8.5/10. An all time classic. This sequel just about hits 6/10. That’s a recommend, but not an earth shattering one. Set your expectations accordingly and you will have a good time.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Deadpool and Wolverine (2024)

Posted on by fenrisfil

It’s been a while since I’ve reviewed a superhero movie. The truth is most of them aren’t that interesting to me these days. However, this team up is too appealing to resist. If the box office is any indication, I’m not alone in feeling that. This is a truly unique situation for a movie. It’s not just along overdue team up (We don’t talk about “X-Men Origins:Wolverine”). It’s also the first time Deadpool, regular breaker of the fourth wall has been able to directly reference the MCU. Last but not least it is more than nostalgia it is the farewell to the Fox X-Men universe. Truly, the end of an era. Effectively this is the “End Game” of the the Fox Superhero franchises.

Spoiler Free

This installment of the Deadpool franchise is directed by “Free Guy” (2021) director Shawn Levy. Writing credits go to Levy, Reynolds, Rhett Reese, Paul Warnick and Zeb Wells. Ryan Reynolds obviously returns as Deadpool and is joined by Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. Emma Corrin and Matthew MacFayden play the movies main antagonists (“Cassandra Nova” and Mr. Paradox” respectively). The rest of the cast will remain unnamed by me since that is basically spoilers (Don’t look at imdb btw, they are listed). Before I give you the basics, it’s important to know this is a spoiler free review. However, I will reference the material in the trailer, so if you have been avoiding even watching that you may want to skip to the conlusion.

I will keep the plot summary minimal. Effectively Deadpools universe is going to collapse due to the death of it’s “Anchor”. Being the universe of the Fox X-Men it’s no surprise that the anchor is none other than Wolverine. Don’t think to hard about an entire universe revolving around one single person from Earth, it is what it is! Deadpool is recruited by the Time Variance Authority and offered a new life in a certain other universe (Yes, the MCU). However, he would prefer to try and fix his own world. To do that he needs to find a new Wolverine. From here on things get complicated and spoiler filled, so that is all you are getting from me on the plot!

The Fox Multiverse

The movie features a lot of cameos, some of which actually turn into substantial supporting characters (At least for the middle act). If you have seen the trailer you know of two of these cameos, X-23 (From “Logan”) and Sabretooth. X23 is one of the characters with a more substantial role and it’s good to see the character grown up. Alongside her though there are three more characters that get a bit of a story arc and one more big (If short) cameo. On the villain side there are several cameos but most are blink-and-you’ll-miss-it affairs. The selection for all of these are well balanced and will give some surprises while providing at least one long overdue return of a fan favourite.

In some ways the use of the multiverse for these characters is similar to how it was used in Spider-Man: No Way home. It actually provides somewhat of a redemption arc for characters and actors that were not given the best of send offs or really even given a chance. But it’s important to note, these characters are mostly limited to the middle act. The first and final act still make use of the multiverse but in very different ways. But while this is all fun and creative the film never loses sight of what is important: Deadpool and Wolverine. This is their journey. Of course this is a Deadpool film first and foremost and that means Deadpool style humour and fourth wall breaking, but Wolverine fits into that world almost perfectly.

The Good, The Bad and The Other Stuff

So what about the weaknesses? Well, the plot never really feels that important. Perhaps because it is approached in a such a meta way or because the multiverse removes all stakes anyway. The movies two antagonists are okay and Emma Corrin does a great job as Cassandra Nova but their motivations for the entire film effectively feel like they just need to make the plot happen. It’s like they didn’t want a plot to get too in the way of the comedy. That’s fine but it is still the movies weakness. The TVA (As revealed in the trailer) are basically just here to initiate events and in many ways feel like an unwelcome interloper into a movie that is very much about the Fox Marvel films. It’s not a major issue though as they don’t dwell too heavily on any of the MCU elements.

The best thing about the movie is that it is fun! Of course it’s a Deadpool movie and you know what to expect. Outrageous comedy, meta comedy and outrageous meta comedy. The movie dives head first into the last of those right at the start. They found a remarkable way to simultaneously respect and disrespect the ending “Logan” (2017). This, they managed in a way that I think most people will be okay with it. Many watching will have no idea who the cameos are and won’t get a lot of the references. The humour though, should all still land. That is important because technically to get the most out of this movie you need to have seen every Fox and Disney Marvel movie, but if you haven’t seen a single one of them you should still have fun.

Conclusion

So what does the future hold now for Deadpool, Wolverine and the MCU? Impossible to tell. This movie has a lot in common with Spider-Man: No Way Home. That movie firmly remained an outlier for the MCU. The wrong lessons were learned and Marvel ultimately dived blindly into the multiverse to the point where everything seemed unimportant. Outside of that the MCU stuck to the plan that Kevin Feige had laid out before the Fox acquisition with extreme tunnel vision. This movie should show them that those Fox characters are still well loved. Ignoring them is leaving money on the table. That said, they need to have their own take on these characters. I don’t envy anyone stepping into High Jackman’s shoes.

The MCU is a juggernaut of a franchise and course correction takes a long time. We will have to see if they can manage it while there is still an audience. Whatever fate has in store for the MCU, this movie is a success in every way that matters. It is a final emotional farewell to the Fox era of superhero movies, a long overdue team up and highly entertaining movie in its own right. Oh and it’s also making bucket loads of money at the box office. This is a success and it’s a big recommendation from me. Is it the perfect movie? No, frankly the plot is paper thin and that limits the rating, but the movie is so much fun I’m still giving it one of my highest ratings 8/10.

Rating: 8 out of 10.