Author: fenrisfil

The Equalizer 3 (2023)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For today’s review I’m stepping away from horror and film noir and checking out the recently released “The Equalizer 3”. This sees star Denzel Washington reunite with his favourite director Antoine Fuqua for the third installment in his race swapped Equalizer reboot series. I never really figured out why they decided to make the first film as a reboot of an 80’s TV series franchise most people didn’t even know. It always seemed to me there was more clout from having Denzel than their was from the franchise. It’s particularly puzzling since they dramatically changed the character and the franchise as a whole. At this point it’s only the name and the name of the protagonist that has any ties to the original. Ultimately though it doesn’t matter since the first two installments were really good. Anyway, let’s see if this one holds up to the others!

The Equalizer Busy Equalizing.

Our movie starts with Robert McCall (Washington) taking out a Mafia stronghold, to recover something (What is revealed at the end and is not relevant to the main plot, though it is to the character of McCall). While leaving he is shot by the grandson of the Mafia boss. Being a good guy McCall naturally didn’t want to kill a child and this left him injured and even considering taking his own life. In the end though he drives off, but falls unconscious somewhere along the Amalfi Coast and is rescued by Gio Bonucci (Eugenio Mastrandrea), a local carabiniere. Bonucci brings him to the remote coastal town of Altamonte, where he is treated by small-town doctor Enzo Arisio (Remo Girone).

As McCall recovers he grows attached to this little town and it’s people. He perhaps considers making his retirement permanent here. However it becomes apparent the local Mafia has plans for the town and it’s relentless shakedown of the working people there is part of a greater scheme. To protect this little pocket of paradise he has found, McCall must go back to what he knows and start equalizing things. Eventually he will have to face off the local Mafia boss, but he must also protect the town people.

Small Town Charms.

This is not an action film. This is the first thing to take into consideration because it doesn’t really work as an action film. Robert McCall is basically an unstoppable killing machine, so as an action film it would need a real physical threat to our hero and this film doesn’t find one. Instead it is a drama story book-ended by two major action scenes and with one very small action scene towards the end of the second act. In some ways it would make a good superhero film and it’s interesting because it does remind me a lot of Spider-Man 2. Specifically how the turning point in that movie is regular New Yorkers stepping up to defend Spider-Man. In the same way the town folk step up to help McCall, saving his life and effectively allowing him to do what he does.

While this is mostly a drama, the action that is there is well done. It’s nothing that wouldn’t be out of place in the first two movies. However the strength of this movie is in the heartwarming retired hero finds a home story. We get to see day to day life in a picturesque Amalfi Coast town and it is certainly charming. Italians love to socialise and this makes it impossible for McCall to stay aloof from things, he can’t help but love the place. After being nursed back to health there Robert it seems wants to stay. So when the village is threatened by the Mafia he has to stand in their way. It’s a very simple story. The side plot with CIA Agent Emma Collins is almost irrelevant. With or without that larger criminal activity, McCall would still need to protect the town.

Conclusion.

I have mixed feelings about this film. I can’t help but feel plot wise there is pretty much nothing here, at least not in the case of genuine stakes and plot that feels important. Yet, what is here works well. Perhaps it is a triumph for character focused storytelling. Perhaps it is proof that the charm of a small town is pretty much irresistible. Then again maybe it’s just Denzel Washington. He is after all one of the last genuine movie stars out there. Anyway, I’m giving this film a 6.5/10. About on par with the previous more action orientated sequel and a notch below the original film (Which is a strong 7/10).

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Ministry Of Fear (1944)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For tonight’s Film Noir I’m checking out the Fritz Lang film “Ministry of Fear” from 1944. This is a spy thriller, one of the less well known sub genre’s of Film Noir. These films were mostly popular around the second world war, for obvious reasons. Fritz Lang having fought in the first world war and fled Germany during the second was naturally a good fit for the genre. This particular story was based on the novel by the same name by Graham Greene (Adapted by script legend Seton I. Miller). It’s worth noting there have been a number of changes from the source material likely mandated by the Hays code and it does impact that story and characters. But I’ll mention that in the review section. The movie stars Ray Milland (Who would later go on to star in Noirs “The Lost Weekend” (1945) and “Dial M For Murder” (1954).

Guess The Weight, Win The War!

Set in England during the blitz, our story starts with the release of Stephen Neale from Lembridge Asylum. He was placed in the asylum effectively for legal reasons after he had been involved in the mercy killing of his wife. Though his wife took the poison herself, he did purchase it and so the court decided to sentence him to the asylum instead of prison. While waiting for the train to London, he stumbles upon a town fête. While having his future read by a psychic he is told to give a particular weight for the “Guess the weight, win the cake” game. He takes the advice and then wins the cake, but shortly after it’s clear there was a case of mistaken identity.

After boarding his train, he is joined by a blind old man who during an air raid takes the opportunity to attack Stephen and take the cake. Neale pursues, but the old man is killed by a bomb. With no trace of the cake, Stephen takes the man’s gun and returns to London. He seeks the help of private eye, who takes them to the charity that was organising the fête. Here he meets Willi Hilfe (Carl Esmond) and his sister Carla (Marjorie Reynolds) who seem to want to get to the bottom of things themselves. They pursue the medium from the fête and after joining her in a seance Neale is framed for murder and must go into hiding. Though he seems to be getting close to a dangerous Nazi spy right that are a threat to the entire country.

Creative Differences.

So the first thing to talk about are the changes from the book. These mostly impact the leading man and ladies personality. In the book, there is significantly more guilt on Neale’s side for the death of his wife. She was still ill, but he actively poisoned her and it’s suggested he feels it was more to end his suffering than hers. Meanwhile Carla is suggested to be part of the spy ring herself. This frames their relationship in an entirely new perspective. Two people afraid of having their dark secrets revealed finding some uneasy comfort with each other. It’s worth noting too that screenwriter Seton I. Miller fell out regularly with Lang over the direction of the film, but Miller usually had the final say (As he was a producer too).

It’s hard to say if the changes were related to the Hays code or just Miller’s vision. But either way along with the character motivations, the Asylum itself is entirely removed from the spy plot. The resulting plot is a little far fetched, but no worse than the majority of spy films. I can’t help but think there were more foolproof ways to deliver microfilm than to rely on key words to a fortune teller to be told the weight of a cake that literally anybody could have guessed. Once the ball is rolling the first two acts settle down nicely. The final third though is a little rougher though with it feeling like a bit of a rush to tidy things up. This includes a happy ending that flies at you from out of nowhere.

Building Suspense.

In practice the movie basically feels like a Hitchcock spy movie than a regular film Noir. The plot having a number of twists and turns and there being a big focus on building suspense. If there is one man that can rival Hitchcock for his ability to build suspense however it is Lang and he demonstrates this tremendously here. There is never a rush to action, so each moment is given time to provide maximum tension. Scene by scene these are superbly well crafted moments and it makes the relatively short run time of the movie fly by. In actuality the moments of plot are very fast paced and straight forward set pieces, but the build to each moment is prolonged.

What I like about Lang’s approach is it is very casual and natural. Here he doesn’t rely at all on the score and often these moments are quiet, except for things like footsteps. The train scene in particular stands out as well built tension in a scene that is on paper very simple. Another scene has a tailor is on the phone while casually twirling around a very large and dangerous looking pair of scissors. The scene provides important plot information from the call itself, but also signals to the viewer something is about to go off. Neale is aware of this too and you can see his tension build, especially as he eyes the scissors.

Conclusion.

This is an interesting film. The performances from Ray Milland and his supporting cast are fine and the story is relatively fun, but it is Lang’s direction that makes this worthwhile. He really knows how to get the most out of fairly straightforward scenes, especially ones that are light on dialogue. Perhaps this is due to his silent film roots, but it’s something we rarely see these days so well worth spending time to appreciate it. That said, this isn’t one of Lang’s best movies. The final act is a little messy and the character changes from the novel definitely hurt it. Perhaps were he given more creative control it could have been a true classic, we will never know. What we have however, is still good and I’m rating it at a high 6.5/10.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Censor (2021)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Back in the 1980’s, every teenager and young adult in the UK knew the term “Video Nasty”. We were into a period of boom for the horror industry and specifically for low budget direct to video horror. Producers like Charles Band would be pumping out two horrors a year (One for theatres and one direct to video). Italians were actively making films for international audience and video stores paid very little attention to certifications (I know this first hand, I wasn’t 18 until 1994 and I watched it all in the 80’s). Unsurprisingly there was a moral backlash to this which got big media attention. As a result a number of movies got banned in the UK and even today those UK release VHS tapes are incredibly valuable. Because they were band obviously we deliberately sought them out. It became a point of pride to have watched a “Video Nasty”.

Anyway horror film Censorship became a big issue in the UK. Largely down to campaigner Mary Whitehouse and the MVLA. But there were those that realised this was a huge marketing boost for people peddling anything that pushes the boundaries. Whitehouse and friends became an unwitting marketing tool. The result was more such content got created and it fed back into the boom. So much for censorship huh? Anyway, the independent British movie “Censor” from 2021 plays off that entire scene. This is from upcoming writer/director Prano Bailey-Bond and appears to be based off a short film she made a few years earlier called “Nasty” (At least the synopsis sounds really similar). It stars Niamh Algar (Raised by Wolves).

The Mary Whitehouse Experience

Enid (Algar) is a film censor that takes her job very seriously. She wants to protect people, and this stems from some childhood trauma where her sister disappeared, presumably being abducted. No one ever solved the case. While her parents have taken the move to have her declared legally dead, Enid is unwilling to move on. After being shaken up by having one of the movies she approved accused of inspiring a real life murderer she is asked to look at a film from a particular notorious movie director. In the film one of the actresses looks really familiar to her and she starts to wonder if this is her missing sister.

This sets Enid off on a mission to find out about the director and see this woman for herself. She starts to believe her sister is in genuine peril from these people and it’s down to her to save her. But is everything what it appears to be? Has a career doing nothing but watching the most violent of movies for the greater good damaged her? Eventually she finds her way to the movie set where they are recording the sequel to the film she saw earlier. Mistaken for an actress she is thrust right into the center of the action.

Video Nasties

The biggest problem with Censor stems from it being a feature length extension of a 15 minute short. This is something I’ve noticed a lot in similar films. The truth is what it takes to come up with a cool 15 minute horror isn’t necessarily enough for a feature length movie. Despite not being especially long, Censor really feels like it doesn’t have much to say. We have the basic idea of the video nasties and a damaged mind unable to separate reality from fiction and… that’s it. That’s the movie. You can tell this is a story that could have just as effectively been told over 15 minutes. It’s a problem with a lot of modern horrors. Writer/Directors go in with one good idea and just try and stretch that out.

As far as the sort-of tribute to video nasties goes, it’s a little shallow. There were some aspects of it I appreciated, such as how Enid’s rampage is shown to us in a similar fashion to the movies she was watching earlier. But this isn’t a clever meta film like Scream was to slashers. It uses the British backlash and censorship of these movies as a backdrop but doesn’t really go much deeper. There are is a sort of minor plot thread involving a murder that is thought to have been inspired by a video nasty that Enid had cleared, but that is somewhat detached from the main plot. Eventually it transpires the killer never even saw the film. Of course Enid has seen all those films, so it’s left unclear where the film stands on the topic. Indeed, it feels like the film doesn’t really care to examine it that closely.

VHS Nostalgia

I do appreciate that they went to the effort to make the film itself look like it was filmed in the 80’s and that part of the production is well done. The flickering of what looks like bad VHS tapes done for atmospheric and stylistic reasons and work well in both regards. This isn’t the most original concept and 80’s nostalgia is the most cliched nostalgia, but for me it’s a positive. That aside the film doesn’t really provide much in the way of memorable visuals and perhaps it could have done with making some visual references to more famous 80’s horrors. The soundtrack is pretty forgettable too and feels like a missed opportunity. A “Goblin” or Fabio Frizzi style soundtrack could have really elevated this movie.

There are some things I liked about the movie, mostly in the final act. Although the twist is obvious in coming, I liked the way it is presented. Really this sequence is the highlight of the movie and remains good right up to the credits. I also liked the ending of the scene where Enid accidentally kills the horror producer. The scene itself was nothing special and missed a lot of opportunities to demonstrate Enid’s bad mental state, but her polite exit after the incident was a good way to show her shattered mind. That is basically the signal point for the final act which is in all very solid. The trouble is the first two acts to get there are not at all interesting or compelling. Niamh Algar however puts in a very impressive performance as Enid and that certainly helps elevate that finale act.

Eject

This is a conceptually good, but mostly below average horror with a strong final act that narrowly falls short of redeeming the movie. The trouble is while the concept is interesting, far too little is done with it. Ultimately the entire film is just designed to get us to the ending and little interesting or worthwhile is provided along the way. It would however have made a great Creepshow episode. It’s not a complete waste of time though and British fans of 80’s horror will likely enjoy the references to some extent. Censor falls just short of “Good” and levels off slightly above average at 5.5/10

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Where The Sidewalk Ends (1950)

Posted on by fenrisfil

The 1950 Film Noir “Where The Sidewalk Ends” is a reunion of a sorts for classic Noir “Laura” from 1944. Bringing back the pairing of the intense Dana Andrews and gorgeous Gene Tierney alongside that movies director, Otto Preminger. The movie is based on the William L. Stuart novel “Night Cry”. The screenplay is provided by veteran writer and academy award winner Ben Hecht who’s credits include “Underworld” (1927), Scarface (1932) and Hitchcock’s “Spellbound” (1945) and “Notorious” (1946). The movie marks the end of a run of films Preminger made for 20th Century Fox. Often with one or both of the two leads. All three were very comfortable working together at this point. This is a very strong set up, but will that translate to good film? Let’s find out.

The Set Up

Andrews plays “Mark Dixon”, a tough police detective that constantly gets into trouble for his rough treatment of criminals. He is a driven man, whose father was a criminal and this has left him determined to prove he is a better man. One of the criminals he particularly wants to take down was somewhat of a protegee to his father, “Tommy Scalise” (Played by Gary Merrill). He spots the opportunity to do so after a man is murdered at a craps game hosted by Scalise. However, he points the finger at “Ken Paine” (played by Craig Stevens), a man that brought the murdered man to the venue. Dixon doesn’t buy it, but is sent by his boss to investigate Paine.

Dixon confronts Paine, but Paine turns it into a fist fight. After a punch from Dixon, Paine falls hitting his head and dies. Likely this is a result of the steel plate Paine has in his head from a war wound. Fearing the consequences Dixon attempts to cover up the accidental murder, while trying to pin it (and the original murder) on Scalise. However, Paine’s wife “Morgan” (Tierney) , who accompanied him to the craps game and her taxi driver father “Jiggs Taylor” (Played by Tom Tully) are drawn into it, with the evidence pointing to Jiggs as Paine’s killer. It’s down to Dixon to put things right.

Between Two Eras

As a film sitting right in the middle of the Film Noir period it’s no surprise to find the film has elements of both halves. Mixing the gritty hard boiled stories of the 40’s and more experimental and visually polished films of the 50’s. Like many Noirs from both periods though the focus is on one character torn between self interest and doing what is right. A classic dilemma for a movie protagonist, but rarely handled with such intensity as it is in Noir. This movie is an excellent example of doing the trope right. The more Dixon tries to dig himself out of the mess he is in, the worse things become.

The cinematography is worthy of special praise here. Right from the opening scene it is clear we are in a new era of Noir. We start with steps on a rainy sidewalk revealing the movie title. This is followed by shots of the city at night and Dixon riding with his partner to the Police Station. It’s all just the title sequence, but it’s also a mood setter that gets you anticipating the movie to come. The the rest of the film features a fair amount of location shooting that helps enhance it’s visual appeal. The set lighting has the usual Noir use of light and shadows. Here though it is kept relatively subtle so doesn’t detract from the events on screen. The soundtrack meanwhile is a fairly standard affair for the period. Occasionally it dabbles into more experimental territory but then firmly returns to it’s 40’s love theme hook. It works well enough anyway.

I didn’t know a man could hate so much.

Dixon’s character is a bit of a mixed bag, but grows on you over time with the film. Early on he’s a bit over the top in his tough guy cop routine. While he and his boss are grilling Scalise, Dixon is a bit over the top. He’s so desperate to rough up Scalise regardless of having just been demoted for such behavior. That sort of conduct it sets him up as quite hard to sympathise with. However, the accidental killing of Paine was truly not his fault. With everyone being aware of Dixon’s temper, you can understand why he’d resort to covering this up. Even in the face of it all though, he never loses site of his grudge against Scalise. He keeps trying to work the situation to his advantage. It’s only when he realises how similar he has become to the man (And his own father) that he decides to do the right thing.

The film features strong dialogue despite Dixon’s somewhat one dimensional start. The lead, Scalise, Morgan and Jiggs are all interesting characters and unsurprisingly Andrews and Tierney have strong on screen chemistry. On top of that the pacing is very well done and the plot is clever, though the grand finale show down with the gangsters was a little contrived in how it resolved. To be fair, Scalise was never the story, so it’s what happens after that where the film really climaxes. What I like the most about this film is that Dixon is frankly a jerk, but yet I still feel sympathy for him and can tell he has enough good in him to make things right in the end. It’s a very well constructed character and perfect for the genre.

Conclusion

Overall this is a quality Film Noir from a top director in the genre with an excellent cast and great cinematography. At the time it drew comparisons with 1944’s “Laura” (Due to the cast and director) and was found lacking and while I do prefer Laura, I can’t help but feel that was unfair on the movie. Dana Andrews was developing a lot of personal problems around this period (Alcoholism mostly) and becoming very frustrated with the studios, but he seems to have channeled it into one of the best performances of his career. All told I’m going to give this a strong 7/10. On a side note, let’s take a moment to remember that sixteen years later, Otto Preminger would play “Mr Freeze” in the Batman TV series. Mind blown, right?

Rating: 7 out of 10.

Smile (2022)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Just because October is over, doesn’t mean I’ve stopped watching and reviewing horror movies. This particular one I originally planned as part of my October Challenge, but I swapped it out for “Five Nights At Freddy’s” at the last minute. So this is somewhat late review of “Smile” from 2022.

Newcomer Parker Finn writes and directs the movie and it stars Kevin Bacon’s daughter Sosie Bacon in her horror movie debut. Bacon is not a complete stranger to horror however, having appeared in the “Scream” TV series for four episodes. The main support is from Jessie T. Usher and Kyle Gallner. Smile had a tremendously successful marketing campaign which mostly involved the stars standing around at public events with insane grins. It went on to gross $217m worldwide, which for a movie costing only $17m to make (and probably more than that in P&A) represents a huge profit. But is it any good?

I’m Not Crazy!

Sosie Bacon plays “Rose Cotter” an overworked but driven therapist at a psychiatric ward. Rose is largely driven in this career by the impact of witnessing her mother’s suicide when she was young. Having been too afraid of her mentally ill mother to assist her, she blames herself for her death. One day she asked to speak to a new patient called Laura (Played by Caitlin Stasey). Laura is thought to be suffering extreme trauma After witnessing her college professors suicide. She claims she isn’t insane and is instead being tormented by some kind of monstrous entity. The thing would appear to her in the form of various people, all of whom would be grinning. After freaking out in the interview, Laura takes on this same manic grin and cuts her own throat.

Rose is shaken by the incident and soon she starts seeing this entity herself. After realizing there is more to this then just trauma Rose begins to investigate. Looking into both her patient and the professor she finds a long chain of suicides. Convinced now that this curse is real she desperately tries to find a way out of it. Her friends and family however don’t believe her, largely because they wonder if she has inherited her mother’s mental illness. Her ex boyfriend however, police detective “Joel” (Gallner) attempts to help her dig into this mystery. They discover there was a break to the chain of suicides and Rose wonders if this may give her a way out. But will it be that simple?

Behind The Smile.

So first thing to talk about here is the crazy grin. This isn’t the first film to make use of the unsettling nature of an exaggerated grin. The first use was likely “The Man Who Laughs” from 1928, famously the inspiration for The Joker. It’s also worth noting a famous “Creepypasta” known as “The smiling Man” also features this and may well be the inspiration for the film. Not too many years before this Blumhouse released the movie “Truth or Dare” (2018), which also heavily pushed the gimmick. That movie was a much more generic horror than this, but it used the smile in much the same way. In both it is a way to tell the viewer and the victim of the presence of the movies antagonist. It’s also not really explained as anything other than just a thing that happens. Both antagonists seem to enjoy toying with their victims, but outside of that there is no real reason for it. It is a gimmick. Despite naming the film after the smile and very successfully focusing the marketing on it, It still feels like a gimmick

The strength of the movie though is in the atmosphere it builds. It’s notable that there are actually only two deaths on screen. Several are mentioned, but only two are actually shown. The vast majority of the horror is the evil entity creeping out Rose and these scares are done very well. Outside of this the movie relies a lot on the the creative cinematography (Interesting, though not always effective) and the discordant noise based music to maintain the atmosphere and it does it well. It’s become a trend with a lot of modern films (Mostly, but not exclusively horror) to have noise based soundtracks. Lots of ambiance, bangs, scrapes and a few discordant notes. I’m not especially fond of this trend, but it works effectively here. Without the creepiness the soundtrack brings to the table, the movie probably wouldn’t work.

Suicide Girls.

The movies is very competently put together, especially consider this is a directorial debut. We have an interesting protagonist. Rose is flawed and damaged, but is aware of both. She knows most of this stems from her guilt over her mother’s death. That trauma plays a key role. It’s hinted that all the Smile entities victims have this kind of past trauma. When she isn’t being abused by the entity, we get to see Rose’s regular life and watch her gradually failing mental state. It’s worth noting the “Birthday present” scene (No spoilers) either demonstrates that the entity can impact the world outside their victim, that it can control her already or possibly that Rose actually did it herself. It poses an interesting question for sure.

Laura the first victim, launches the film and sets the audience up for what to expect. Caitlin Stasey, mostly known for her roles in Australian soap operas, plays the role. As the first victim, the first person controlled by the Smile entity, the first person to provide exposition and the form the entity takes for a lot of the film, everything hinges on her performance. Fortunately she puts in a cracker. You really feel her terror and once she is taken over by the entity it is definitely creepy. I was less impressed with Jessie T. Usher, who just didn’t seem that genuine as a character, but despite being Rose’s fiance had only a small role.

Conclusion.

In conclusion while the smile thing is a bit of a gimmick and not particularly original, the movie itself is pretty good. It is straightforward but well put together. It provides a great creepy atmosphere, gives us a new interesting take on an evil entity (We’re never given a clue as to what it is, so I’m sticking with “Entity”) and gives us an interesting and flawed protagonist who we get to see deteriorate to breaking point. Perhaps the movie could be accused of being a little “One note”, but that persistence to the theme is key to what builds the atmosphere. I do think there could have been more done with it, but Overall I’m impressed and look forward to seeing what Parker Finn does next. This is a 7/10

Rating: 7 out of 10.

The Big Shot (1942)

Posted on by fenrisfil

So now October is out of the way, it’s tradition here at Screen Wolf to throw in a few classic Film Noir reviews for November (Or “Noirvember” as I call it). November is largely a recovery month for me after hitting up 31 horror reviews for October so I don’t set any particular targets, but there will certainly be more than one. My Noir watch list is almost as large as my horror one so I have no lack of material. The month won’t be exclusive to Noir though like October is to Horror.

Anyway, first up is a double whammy for me as it’s also part of my quest to watch every single Humphrey Bogart movie. This is “The Big Shot” from 1942. Directed by Lewis Seller (Who also worked with Bogart on “King of the Underworld” in 1939) and written by the team of Bertram Millhauser, Abem Finkel and Daniel Fuchs. Bogarts support in this film includes Irene Manning, Richard Travis, Stanley Ridges, and Chuck Chandler.

Every Angle Covered.

The story focuses on Joseph ‘Duke’ Berne (Bogart), a three time loser trying to keep his head down and stay on the straight and narrow after his recent release from prison. Naturally that doesn’t work out as he is encouraged to lead a team in a heist. After meeting the heists mastermind, a lawyer called Flemming (Ridges), he is reunited with his former girlfriend Lorna (Manning), now married to Flemming. She meets Duke in his apartment and encourages him to stay out of the heist, which he does.

Unfortunately a witness incorrectly places him at the scene and not wanting to expose his involvement with Flemming’s wife he get’s the attorney to find him a fake alibi. After Flemming finds out about the pairs involvement he double crosses Duke, who is sent up for life. This leaves him trying to find a way to break out and perhaps get even. However it’s not that simple as innocent lives are being dragged into this, notably a good man named George (Travis), who had provided his fake alibi.

The Wise Guy.

The Big Shot is a one man show, but fortunately for the movie that man is Humphrey Bogart. Since the scene changes mid way through to the prison, the supporting cast shifts with it. Only George following him to lock up, so most of the supporting cast is absent for this middle section. Not that this is a problem, since most viewers turned up to see Bogey anyway. Bogart had a long period playing gangsters for Warner Brothers, but this would be his last appearance for the studio in such a role.

This was one year after he finally made it big with “The Maltese Falcon” and High Sierra. So it’s not a surprise he wasn’t just playing the villain here. He was instead a sympathetic lead, a gangster with a heart. The main theme of the film being focused on his internal struggle between doing what is right and doing what he knows. The movie has solid dialogue and Bogart’s delivery is very good, but the truth is this is a pretty average performance from the screen legend. The rest of the cast do a solid job in support and with them all having fairly limited roles none really had a chance to stand out more.

My New Act Will Kill Ya!

We get a good bit of variety of settings with this movie. We get some bar scenes, a botched heist, a court room scene, the prison section with it’s break out and of course a variety of apartment buildings. The variety adds to the story, but there’s not really much of note for the cinematography here. Really the film feels more like a 30’s gangster movie than a 40’s Noir. True to that, the most notable visuals are the high octane car chases.. Dating the movie a bit further is the prison entertainment show that includes a blacked up prisoner dancing with a life sized gollywog. It was a different time.

The strength here is in the character aspects of the story. Duke has a conscience but is constantly drawn into things but more nefarious characters. This always seems to lead to innocent (Or mostly innocent) people being pulled into the line of fire and Duke being responsible for it. Some of these maneuverings are quite subtle, but when you put it all together you can see the chain of events. For example despite Duke telling his fellow escapee “Dancer” to leave the planning to him, it is him that suggests using Georges job as the warden’s chauffeur to bring items in to the prison to use for their escape. That of course puts a big target on George’s back after Dancer murders a guard while trying to escape.

Duke of Nothing

That said, there is also a lot about the plot that doesn’t really seem to make sense. The only reason Duke is fingered for the heist (Which he didn’t take part in) was because the police encouraged the witness to name him as the person that grabbed her and used her as a human shield. She clearly couldn’t remember and even thought it was the chief of police at one point (Because their photo was on the desk). While the cops of the day may well have worked that way (I couldn’t honestly say), it seems like you’d need more than one very bad witness to pin the crime on Duke. A simple cross examination should have been enough to put doubt in the jury’s mind. It wouldn’t even need the fake alibi.

The other issue is Dukes reputation. At one point it’s declared he is pushing 40 (He was 43 at the time). The Warden claims Duke is one of the best criminals out there and had a 20 years career. However, it’s also pretty clearly spelled out that Duke has done three stretches in prison, two of five years and one of ten. So If he’s 40 and spent 20 years in prison, that doesn’t seem to leave much time to actually be the big shot everyone claims he is. Even if he started out very young, he still spent most of his time in prison, suggesting he’s probably not the great mastermind with all the angles covered either. Honestly, it’s a bit messy.

The Verdict

Overall, the movie has strong dialogue (All the more stronger for Bogart’s delivery) and reasonable ideas but is dragged down by notable plot holes. Visuals and music are pretty average and really there isn’t a lot else that stands out about it. I enjoyed the movie for what it was, but there are better Bogart movies and better movies about Gangsters doing the right thing in the end. If you are a fan of star you will enjoy it, but otherwise probably not worth your time. I’m giving this a strong 5.5/10. Falling under a six mostly because I just don’t buy the set up for this one. I should add, the film (Or at least the copy I saw) has not been preserved in especially good condition so this may impact my rating and your own enjoyment.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Blood Diner (1987)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Well that’s it, the final review of my 2023 October Challenge. This is the low budget horror comedy “Blood Diner” from 1987. The movie was the third of four movies directed by Jackie Kong in a short career likely only made possible by the VHS boom of the 80’s. The movie was written by Michael Sonye, who has had a reasonable career as an actor but only has writing credits for six movies. This is the highest rated on IMDb at 5.3/10. His lowest is rated at 2.8 out of ten. This is one of those movies where much of the cast have only appeared in this one film and many of the ones that have been in other things use shots from this movie as their bio picture on IMDb (Or have no picture). This gives you hint of what to expect!

Bon Appétit.

The plot of the movie revolves around a pair of cannibals and their “Vegetarian” diner. Two brothers and their dead uncle (Now a brain in a jar) are planning to perform an ancient ceremony to resurrect the ancient Lumerian goddess Sheetar. To do this they have to make a number of preparations that mostly involve killing young women, preparing a cannibalistic stew that will make those that consume it turn into feral zombie like cannibals and prepare the sacrifice of a virgin. On their tail are a pair of tough yet bumbling police officers, investigating a what appears to be a serial killer targeting vegetarians.

Junk Food.

Okay, so I’m just going to say it: This is a bad movie. Whenever I review a fairly average movie I usually say “It’s not terrible but…”, well this one is terrible and there is no real “But” to that. There are some good ideas, but the execution of them is so poor that most viewers likely won’t even give it that much credit. It is poorly acted, poorly scripted, badly paced (Rushing from one joke/murder to the next without giving any of it room to breath), music that seems absent half the time it is needed and overstays it’s welcome when it is not, the gore was so comical that it lost all impact and worst of all, it just wasn’t funny.

Most of the humour falls flat. Most of the jokes are either casual but cartoon like violence or general gross out stuff. There were three scenes that were sort of funny. One was the intro, specifically the radio broadcast about the psycho. Another was where one of the brothers has to keep running someone over before he actually dies and another where a woman having seen her friend being chopped up goes to run away, but then runs back because she forgot her handbag. That was it. The rival chef’s ventriloquist dummy could have been funny in theory, but didn’t really work in practice. It felt out of place and just came across as pointless and dumb.

So Bad It’s Bad.

The acting is especially bad. I’ve watched a lot of low budget B-movies, so I have a pretty good tolerance for bad acting, but this was next level bad. Pretty much all the actors playing the police were dreadful. The worst of the bunch was Sheba Jackson as “LaNette La France” and it’s no surprise to see this is her only credit on IMDB. Max Morris was almost as bad as the Police Chief and joins Sheba in the “This is my only acting credit” department. Fortunately Rick Burks and Carl Crew, who played the two cannibal brothers were just regular bad, though the script they had to work with didn’t do them any favours. Drew Godderis also managed a tolerable performance as the brain in a jar psycho uncle, though he is helped by just being a voice actor.

I get the impression half of the joke here is meant to be that the film is really bad. This kind of thing never really works for me. Things being intentionally bad always fail to reach that “So bad it’s good” category. Most humour works best when played straight, most funny low budget movies work best when the makers treat it seriously, no matter how crazy the ideas they are working on are. Here it seemed they spent too long laughing at their own jokes. Really a lot of this plays like a series of sketches haphazardly thrown together, with most of it adding nothing to the overall story.

Concussion.

Ultimately, this is one big fail. The concept could have worked, but not with this director, writer and most of these actors. Some people may be able to get a kick out of it and I think being drunk and/or high will help. But coming in dry, it’s just plain bad. I give it a few points for trying to be fun and for the half decent concept, but the most generous I can be with this one is a low 3.5/10. On a side note, I like the trailer. It’s better than the movie. That’s all. Happy Halloween and whatever your viewing tonight (If anything), I hope it’s better that this!

Rating: 3.5 out of 10.

Five Nights At Freddy’s (2023)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For the penultimate review of my 2023 October Challenge I’m checking out the long anticipated and recently released “Five Nights At Freddy’s”. This is of course based on the hugely successful survival horror video game series from 2014 onwards. So disclaimer up front: Although I own the first few games, I never got around to playing them. I know a reasonable amount about them, but I no doubt missed a lot of references. That said, that also means I’m not going to give the film any bonus points just for including Easter Eggs. This is directed by Emma Tammi

 A Magical Place.

The movie is set mostly at “Freddy Fazbear’s Pizza”, a closed down 80’s diner that is likely based off Chuck E. Cheese that features large animatronic robots that resemble anthropomorphic animals. In the prologue we see the death of the previous security guard at the hands of the animatronic monsters and we are then treated to a pretty cool intro credits sequence involving what appears to be a tribute to the 8-bit style minigames from some of the games. We’ve then introduced to our protagonist “Mike Schmidt” played by Josh Hutcherson (Mike was also the protagonist from the first game). This version of Mike has a young sister Abby (Piper Rubio) he takes care off and a traumatized past where his brother was kidnapped and never seen again.

Mike is desperate to find a job so he doesn’t have to give up custody of his sister to their greedy Aunt Jane (Mary Stuart Masterson). As a result he takes the job of the new night security guard at the Pizzeria. The place has a strange effect on him though, where his recurring dream about the kidnap of his brother is altered to including five mysterious children that he believes may hold the secret to the identity of the kidnapper. Things reach a whole new level of crazy though when he discovers the animatronics are possessed by the souls of murdered children and it’s these children that were appearing to him. This revelation puts him and his sister in imminent danger however, both from the animatronics and their mysterious master.

Horror In The Hallways.

So the first thing to mention here is as far as being a horror goes, the movie is very light. There isn’t really much in the way of jump scares, though the animatronics are done very well and do look pretty menacing. There are kills of course, mostly in one section where Aunt Jane sends a group of thugs to smash up the diner in an attempt to get Mike fired. The problem here really is that all the kills are either people we don’t know (The original security guard) or bad people we are meant to dislike and none of the kills are themselves particularly interesting. The horror elements are also very spread out, so if you turned up to watch people slaughtered by animatronics you will probably be disappointed.

That out of the way, there’s actually a lot of positives with this movie. It just may not be what people expect going in. What it does excel at is the general look. As I mentioned above the animatronics look great and it’s satisfying to see quality practical effects on my screen again. The monsters have enough life to both be able to express basic emotions and to provide a suitable amount of menace. The diner also looks great and the general feel seems to fit really well with what I would expect for something with 80’s ties. Of course 80’s nostalgia has been done to death, but here it used right. Never really pushing it too far, though of course it’s not set in the 80’s that’s just where the diner originates.

The Players And The Game.

The second thing I liked here was how they managed to take the basic premise of the game and work a character driven story into it. This is very much Mike’s movie, but his sister and officer Vanessa Shelly (Played by Elizabeth Lail) all get decent character development. Even the con woman babysitter (Secretly working for his aunt) actually has an implied crisis of conscience after having grown attached to Abby. Through this the movie actually has the feel of a family film and with its PG-13 rating I think parents could find this quite a suitable Halloween film for the family.

In regards to the actors performances I can’t say any particularly stand out. Probably Mary Stuart Masterson is most notable, though her role is short and her character one dimensional. The other characters are absolutely fine, but nothing more. The music is a little hit and miss, in places working very well but in others feeling sort of generic. Having not played the game I don’t know if there were any musical references, but I gather the first game largely used modified public domain music so probably not. The story itself appears to be very true to the main story/theme of the game, with only a few minor modifications which were entirely reasonable to make it work as a film. Of course big fans of the game may disagree on that, I can only go by the broad strokes I’m aware of.

Freddy Vs Willy Vs Banana!

Since this movie was beaten to the screen by two knock off’s of its concept, it’s worth examining how those contrasts with them. The movies I’m talking about here are “The Banana Splits” (2019) and “Willy’s Wonderland” (2021). The Splits was the first out and utilized a licence for the Banana Splits franchise, a legit children’ s program’s variety show that ran from 1970-1982. A bold movie and the movie itself was perhaps the most straight horror of the three. I actually quite enjoyed it and anyone that hasn’t seen it and wanted more horror to this movie should probably give it a shot.

Willy’s Wonderland however was largely a subversion of the concept, where the animatronics (In this case possessed by a serial killer and his acolytes) come across something more terrifying than themselves… Nicholas Cage. It’s actually a huge amount of fun, but must be said is really more about Cage’s character. This one was far more action orientated and far less of a character story since Cage keeps silent the whole time and outside of some obsessive compulsive behaviour is largely just an ass kicking machine.

Despite coming out last, Five Nights At Freddy’s contrasts really well with it’s imitators. It provides something they don’t with its more family friendly, polished and character driven approach and with that, carves out it’s own place in the world of psycho animatronics. Perhaps most importantly though in the head to head, the animatronics simply look much better in this Movie (Credit to the Jim Henson team for that). Is it better though? I think all three films will have their supporters. Personally I preferred WIlly’s Wonderland, but I would say Freddy’s is the objective best of the bunch.

Conclusion.

Overall this was an entertaining film. It dragged a tiny bit in places and the actual horror elements were a bit disappointing both in their number and quality. However it has a great atmosphere, solid character writing and appears to be relatively true to the game. Far truer than most video game adaptations anyway. So this is a strong 6/10. Worth a watch, even if you aren’t a fan of the games.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Carnival of Souls (1962)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Tonight’s movie is the arty indie movie “Carnival of Souls” from 1962. Loosely based on a French short film and later Twilight Zone episode “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge”. The setting and characters are drastically changed but the core of the story is the same. This version was directed by Herk Harvey (As his only feature length movie) and stars Candace Hilligoss with main support from Frances Feist and Sidney Berger. Originally it was released as part of a double feature with the Swedish anthology film “The Devil’s Messenger” (Actually a compilation of episodes from a TV show). The movie was largely forgotten until randomly becoming a cult classic in the 80’s. Let’s see if this Carnival is worth visiting.

Life Is A Drag.

The story starts with “Mary Henry” (Hilligoss) and her friends being challenged to a drag race by some young men. During the race Mary’s car goes off a bridge. It appears there are no survivors until someone spots Mary struggling to the shore. A few weeks later she has decided to leave the town and take a job as a church organist in Salt Lake City. Here she is haunted by visions of a strange man (and occasionally over ghoulish apparitions) and finds herself strangely drawn to an old pavilion just outside town where there used to be a carnival.

Mary seems to be indifferent to personal relationships and going through life now almost like in a day dream. When she actually does dream, she dreams of being invisible to people and still pursued by that strange man. Usually when he catches up to her is when she awakens. One day while practicing her organ parts at the church she falls into a kind of trance where she starts playing spooky music (It’s a shame it was six years too early for In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida) and sees people from the carnival dancing around. She is stopped by the reverend who fires and for playing such “Satanic” music. Freaked out, Mary tries to spend the evening with her neighbouring lodger John (Berger) so as to not be alone, but eventually drives him off too. The following day she decides to flee from the town… but can she leave?

A Silent Movie With Sound.

Carnival of Souls is very much an art movie. Director Herk Harvey was influenced by European films of the period such as the works of Igmar Bergman and Jean Cocteau. However, this movie comes across to me more like a silent movie… just with occasional speech. The organ soundtrack is reminiscent of a live musician playing to a silent movies (As well of course being a reference to Mary’s job) and the more silent scenes involving the carnival ghouls have the entities moving around in exaggerated ways that could be right out of a silent film. There is not a great deal of dialogue and that’s probably for the best because the acting is mediocre at best.

The editing and cinematography is well done considering how much of it was filmed guerrilla style (I.e. Rushed and without permit). It’s no masterclass though and is overall quite a mixed bag. Some very impressive spots and some seeming quite amateur. However all together, it fits the tone of the movie. The whole thing is designed to feel like somewhat of a dream and for a very specific reason, which you should have already guessed. Spoilers for the next section, skip to the conclusion if you don’t want to know the twist.

Soul Spoiler Section.

I’ve written before about twist movies, but there are some times where a twist doesn’t make a movie disposable and that’s where the movie doesn’t rely on the shock factor to work. In the case of Carnival of Souls… well, the name is pretty much a giveaway to the story, at least paired with the already quite suspicious intro with the car crash. It’s pretty obvious that Mary is dead so when the car is recovered in the epilogue with her still in it, there was no shock.

But it’s not just the title, the entire tone of the movie, the dreams where Mary can’t be seen by regular people and her aloof nature, not even feeling any desire to be with people, until she was afraid to be alone. All these things laid out Mary’s condition pretty plainly. I don’t know what they did intend with the movie, but in my view it was never meant to be a shock. It was meant to feel inevitable and we were meant to be watching a lost souls journey into accepting the reality of her terrible fate. The story of the ghost that doesn’t realise they are dead is pretty well known these days and a fairly standard part of the horror genre, not sure I can think of earlier examples on film though. So credit for that.

Conclusion

All told this is a very melancholy horror film. Indeed it’s not really much of a horror, it’s more just a sad supernatural story. The ghouls are far from scary, partially because neither the extras playing those roles nor the quality of their make up was especially good. The lead ghoul was actually played by the director, but was not much more convincing than the rest. But none of that is a big problem because as a melancholy supernatural tale it doesn’t need horror. The movie talks to isolation, both self imposed and simply not feeling part of society. It is also a very fatalistic movie. It certainly invokes a vibe.

Overall this movie is a pretty straight line from A to B but presented like a confusing dream. It was always clear where things would lead, and while it embraces that it doesn’t give you a huge amount extra. With very little actually going on in, without any real actors performances of note and with a conceptually interesting but easily forgettable soundtrack this movie ends up feeling overly long, despite the short run time (80 minutes). This is effectively a short movie dragged out into a feature. Which is not surprising considering it is literally based on a short French movie/Twilight Zone episode. This is a strong 5.5/10. Sure to be divisive, artier viewers and those that love good cinematography will enjoy it, those after fun entertainment or engaging characters will probably not.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

The Wolf Man (1941)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For tonight’s October Challenge review it’s time to fix a gaping hole in my Horror viewing and check out the Universal Horror classic and one of the earliest werewolf movies “The Wolf Man” from 1941. This wasn’t the first werewolf movie as they’ve been around since 1913. “Werewolf of London” came out only a few years earlier in 1935 and that movie largely created the modern concept of the Werewolf including passing the curse from a bite and full moons triggering the transformation. This however was the gold standard and the most famous Werewolf movie for the next 40 years (Until “American Werewolf in London” came out in 1981)

Whoever Is Bitten By A Werewolf And Lives…

The Wolf Man was written by Curt Siodmak (Robert’s brother) and directed by George Waggner. The movie stars Lon Chaney Jr. in the titular role as “Lawrence Talbot”. The supporting cast included Claude Rains, Warren William, Ralph Bellamy, Bela Lugosi and Evelyn Ankers. Lugosi’s role is brief but pivotal. The movie begins with Lawrence’s return to the Talbot estate after the passing of his brother. He hasn’t been back for a while but he and his father (Played by Rains). Larry becomes infatuated with a local girl called “Gwen” (Ankers) and takes her and her friend “Jenny” to have their fortune read by some local gypsies.

While Jenny is having her fortune read, Larry takes Gwen off for a walk. They hear Jenny screaming and Larry rushes to her to find her being attacked by a wolf. Larry is unable to save Jenny but kills the wolf with his cane (A cane with a silver wolf head on it, purchased from Gwen’s shop earlier in the day). Having been bitten during the struggle, Larry is injured and taken home. The next morning the body Jenny is found alongside a dead gypsy that has been killed with a blunt instrument.

Lawrence is told by another Gypsy that he was bitten by a Werewolf and is now doomed to become one. This upsets Larry, who can sense something is wrong but is not yet willing to accept it. However over the following nights Larry finds he is transformed into something part way between a man and a wolf and though he has no memory of it, he has been killing people while in that form. Larry suspects the truth and as a good man at heart he is broken by it. This is a story that can only end in tragedy.

There’s Something Very Tragic About That Man

This is the archetypal tragic monster story. Larry’s battle is more of an emotional and psychological one than a physical one. From the moment he is bitten he is not the same. No longer bold, confident and charming. Instead he uncertain of himself and of the world around him. Now punished for his act of heroism in facing the wolf by being cursed until the day he dies. Lon Chaney Jr. performs his part perfectly and broadcasts an air of tragedy in every scene he is in after. The rest of the cast is solid, but outside the brief Lugosi appearance nothing particularly stands out.

What does stand out is the visuals. The sets are very well made, the use of fog and lighting make the whole picture very aesthetically pleasing and atmospheric. It would be many years before you could really pull something like this off in colour and this movie makes maximum use of the benefits of black and white. It’s the kind of lighting and shot framing used in this kind of horror movie that would later be a big influence of Film Noir directors.

Bark At The Moon.

Of course this is a very short movie at only one hour and ten minutes long. Fortunately the plot is very focused and straight forward, so there are no obvious holes. This was the standard Universal way of working for these horrors. To a modern viewer now it definitely feels a bit rushed, especially towards the ending.Much like with Frankenstein, most of the movie is the origin story and then it’s a rush to the finish line. In many ways it’s actually a very similar story to American Werewolf and the contrast between the two exposes the two main weaknesses, the first being the legnth.

The second weakness in comparison to modern movies is of course the effects. After American Werewolf showed us a full on Werewolf transformation and The Howling presented truly monstrous Werewolves it’s hard to look back at the limitations of 1941 and fully appreciate what they achieved. The Wolf Man make up does look pretty good and we do see a sort of transformation with spontaneous appearances of hair. The problem is when we see the original Werewolf it is a full on wolf (Or wolf prop for most of that fight). That made it seems sort of strange that Larry doesn’t go full wolf. I guess having Larry fight a man-wolf at the start would have made his skepticism not make sense.

Conclusion

Overall this is a great tragic horror that in some regards has aged badly but still largely holds up. Ultimately Werewolf movies are hard and most of them are not especially good, so that this early entry in the list is still in the top ten (Possibly even top 5) is a great testament to the quality of the film making. In it’s day I’d say this was a 7/10, but for the modern day I rate it a narrow 6/10.

Rating: 6 out of 10.