No October Horror Challenge would be complete without at least one stop over to the world of Giallo, Italian horror. For tonight’s movie I’m watching a movie from one of the legends of the golden age of Italian Horror Mario Bava. I’ve only seen one of his movies before (Black Sunday), which is probably my loss. That movie was in black and white, so this is my first colour Mario Bava horror. This has been on my list for a long time, so I’m looking forward to it. Ubaldo Terzano is the movies cinematographer. Carlo Rustichelli provides the score. The movie stars Cameron Mitchell, Eva Bartok, Thomas Reiner, Claude Dantes and Dante Di Paolo.
Set at a classy fashion house, Blood and Black Lace tells the story of a murder mystery that evolves into a killing spree. The catalyst is the murder of model “Isabella” (Francesca Ungaro) by someone in a white, featureless mask, a black fedora and a trenchcoat. It’s not so much the murder itself, but rather that the next day someone publicly discovers Isabella’s secret diary. It’s clear the diary could lead to the killer, but it seems everyone has their eye on it and their own concerns. It seems this won’t stop at a single murder. Police investigator “Silvestri” (Thomas Reiner) is on the case and everyone appears to be a suspect.
Every Frame A Painting
The most important thing to note about this movie is it looks fantastic. The use of both colour and contrast make this a piece of art in it’s own right. Ubaldo Terzano’s cinematography is fantastic, with a lot of truly original touches that felt fresh even though I was watching a 60 year old movie. The use of colour was a feast for the eyes. This movie along with “Peeping Tom” showed that those more aggressive tones of 60’s cinema actually could be used incredibly effectively for a horror film. That also means they do still come off as quite original since the approach to colour has changed so much since that period. Modern colour is realistic, but this was like a painting.
Italian Horror always had a tradition of style over substance and this is no exception in its priorities. However both are of a higher standard than the average Giallo film. The plot here is a murder mystery and it’s a slightly above average one. It is though definitely the weakest aspect of the movie. With less graphic kill scenes this wouldn’t even really be a horror. Those scenes are in the movie though and they are brutal for the period. It even had the Italian tradition of an eye poking, but done in a way that the gore was merely implied. Given the limitation of 1964 effects that is for the best (And a relief to me, I’m not a big fan of eyeball gore). Brutality aside, the murder scenes are the most artistically filmed of the lot. They are each a work of art in their own right.
Sound And Vision
Acting wise, the only stand out for me was Eva Bartok as Countess Cristiana Cuomo. The rest were fine, but forgettable. The soundtrack by Carlo Rustichelli is also quite notable. It reminded me a lot of Henry Mancini’s 1962 work on Experiment In Terror. Like a lot of Italian horror soundtracks, it is perhaps not the most fitting the mood. Instead, it is something you could listen to by itself. In this instance it does enhance the sensory feast this movie provides, but does little to help the plot or characters.
The script and acting are pretty average here. This isn’t a film that wins you over with the story or personalities. Instead it’s the audio/visual spectacle. The cinematography and use of contrast and colour especially raise this up. The murder scenes are exceptional and still feel original many years later. This is worthy of a 7.5/10 and a strong recommendation and a must see for Giallo horror fans.
Initiations to a sorority crop up relatively frequently in horror, especially in the 80’s. This one goes straight for the obvious with the title “The Initiation”. The movie is mostly directed by Larry Stewart. The original director, Peter Crane was fired a few days into filming but some of his footage remains. Charles Pratt Jr. provides the script. The movie stars a young Daphne Zuniga as “Kelly Fairchild” one of the aspiring pledges for a sorority. Daphne would most famously appear in “Spaceballs”: The Movie” (1987)” as “Princess Vespa”.As is usually the case for this kind of horror, the head of the sorority has a grudge against our lead and so wants to make their initiation especially unpleasant.
Kelly has plenty of her own issues however since she is plagued by a recurring nightmare. In the nightmare she stabs her father with a knife and then a man is set on fire in front of her. She decides to investigate this with the help of an older student, “Peter” (James Read) that is working on his PhD and is specializing in the study of dreams. The answer to the puzzle seems to be related to a series of murders that has started to happen around town, apparently at the hands of a partially burned man. All threads will link up as the pledges attempt their initiation in the department store.
Sorority Slaughter Shenanigans
Despite the title, the story doesn’t really revolve around the initiation until the final act. It’s a bit like “Jason Takes Manhattan” in that regard. It’s also worth noting the initiation plot is virtually the same as in “One Dark Night”, only intimidating for the girls. Here the setting is a department store and the pranksters trying to scare them are totally ineffective. Not that it matters when there is a psycho hanging out there as well and that’s where the two stories diverge. It’s similar setup but very different movies. The focus is really more on Kelly and her dark past, along with building to a big twist. The twist here while somewhat predictable isn’t embarrassingly so. So it does work.
One thing this has over One Dark Night is that these characters are a little more varied and relatable. That’s not to say they are particularly deep. Instead they are very much college kid stereotypes, but there is enough there to actually care when they die. The acting quality however varies a lot across the board. Daphne Zuniga is the stand out and it’s no surprise she found her way on to Mel Brooks radar for Spaceballs. Her performance is great as the lead and also (spoilers) in her second role. Most of the main cast are passable too, but as you reach the smaller roles the quality drops off. Notably Peter’s colleague in the dream clinic Heidi has a few lines that really dropped me out of the movie.
Conclusion
Overall, I found this a pretty reasonable horror. It is generally fun, with a touch of that college kid comedy humour in places (Porky’s, American Pie, etc). The kills are relatively creative, the characters aren’t horrible and there is a proper story to it. There’s nothing exception here though, so it doesn’t warrant a high score. The movie lands a 5.5/10, held back from a six by those spots of bad acting. Still worth checking out though, especially if you like seeing frat boys/girls killed in slashers films.
The Watchers (Known as “The Watched” in UK/Ireland) is a mystery horror written and directed by Ishana Shyamalan, the daughter of M.Night Shyamalan. This is her feature debut. The movie stars Dakota Fanning as “Mina” who is stranded in a strange Forrest when her car breaks down on an unfamiliar road. She follows a woman named “Madeline”(Olwen Fouéré) who hurries her into a nearby bunker like building she calls “The Coop”. Inside she meets two other strangers Ciara (Georgina Campbell) and Daniel (Oliver Finnegan). Madeline explains that it is impossible to escape the forest and that every night they must return to the coop where they are observed by mysterious and menacing beings. Mina is determined to find a way out and to find out who or what is observing them.
Chip Off The Old Block
The Watchers is another film with an interesting premise that falls short on delivery. It’s interesting to see how much Ishana Shyamalan takes after her father. Like most of his films, the movie throws out a mystery right at the start. Then it gives you the expectation for twists, challenging you to figure them out. Like many of M.Night’s films, those reveals underwhelm and/or are predictable. That’s not to say the Shyamalan formula can’t work, but the success rate is low. Like her father, Ishana seems technically competent and has a good eye for visuals. The problem for this story is that the main twist is particularly predictable and the characters are especially stupid. On the positive side it lands a similar running time to most of M.Night’s work at around an hour and forty and keeps a relatively quick pace.
It’s interesting to note that there is one notable change between the movie and it’s source novel. I can’t reveal that without hitting spoilers but effectively the big reveal of who the watchers are is totally different. The strange thing is from what I can tell (I’ve only read reviews/synopsis of the novel) very little else is changed. But then I recall M.Night did something similar with Old. I don’t think the change improved the story but to be honest neither twist seems especially good. As far as the smaller twists go though, that is far too predictable. The movie runs into a lot of the pitfalls of the science fiction trope strangers trapped in a location. Why does it take the protagonist turning up for anyone to figure anything out? Why do people blindly trust the person that was there the longest?
Conclusion
I had to laugh early when after running around trying to escape for half the day, the protagonist is show the “Point of no return” markers. These are the furthest you can go and have time to return before dark. But heading there part way through the day and then having a conversation at the location make it pretty clear you could definitely go beyond that and still make it back. Especially if you ran instead of casually walked. It made no sense, but no one questioned the bad logic. That sort of sums up the film really. It does have something going for it though as far as the atmosphere is concerned and the fast pace means it isn’t boring. I am going to write this one down as a reasonable start for a first time director, but ultimately not a recommendation. 5/10
1960 was an important year in history of the horror movie. Most importantly it was the year that “Psycho” came out, but it also featured “Eyes Without A Face”, “Village of the Damned”, “The House of Usher” and the less well known “Peeping Tom”. Despite the lower profile, this is a film that heavily influenced Martin Scorsese and many others of his generation. Indeed it’s largely thanks to Scorsese that the film is known at all these days as he helped fund a wider re-release for the movie in the 1978 after it had fallen into obscurity. When the movie was released the critics were disgusted by it and savaged it suggesting it be thrown into a sewer and other colourful language. As a result it was withdrawn from theatres fairly early and effectively ended the career of it’s director Michael Powell.
Decades later, critics revised their opinion. Now they called it one of the greatest horror films of all time. The revision was too late to save Powell’s career. Some people are ahead of their time, but if you are too far ahead the response can be savage. One of the main reasons for the backlash was that some sections of the film involve old movies of the main character and his father. These scenes reveal how the character was abused as a child by his father. The problem here was that Michael Powell chose to perform these scenes with his real life son. There was no actual abuse involved, but it seemed this made critics uncomfortable. Anyway, let’s look at the film itself shall we?
Don’t Let Me See You Are Afraid
The movie opens up with “Mark Lewis” (Played by Karlheinz Böhm), picking up a prostitute. Lewis is secretly filming her with a hidden camera. We see from the point of view of the camera viewfinder as he follows her into the flat and murders her. Later, we see him watching the recording in his dark room. Following this opening we are introduced to the other side of Lewis. A focus puller for a film crew who aspires to become a filmaker. His job doesn’t pay enough to cover his costs though and so he supplements that as a soft porn photographer for a local corner shop. His photos are sold under the counter to select customers.
Lewis is a shy but relatively pleasant person during the day. However he has been secretly working on his own film, a documentary about fear. Mark lives in his childhood home, though most of it is now rented out to other residents. One of which “Helen Stephens” (Anna Massey) has taken a liking to the young man. Mark likes Helen too but doesn’t want her to become one of his victims. He shows her the few films he dares to share with anyone, those of his childhood where his psychologist father abused him to investigate the nature of fear. She is shocked, but supportive. Their relationship becomes tricky because Mark is reaching the end of his documentary and soon he will be unable to keep the two halves of his life separate.
The Eye Of The Beholder
This is a very good movie. There is no denying that. The story has many layers, but the visuals are masterfully put together too. Let’s start with those visuals. This is 1960. Shooting from the first person perspective isn’t completely unknown at this point (Indeed there has been whole movies of it), but showing murders from the killers perspective is pretty new. Psycho of course made use of this two, but here it provides a double function. We’re not simply seeing from the killers eyes, but we’re seeing through his camera. We are seeing effectively a section of his documentary on fear. The movie has made us a voyeur of murder.
This isn’t the only thing interesting visually. Powell uses a technique called colour Chiaroscuro, where he uses a saturated palette with dramatic shadows. The colours are quite aggressive, almost feeling seedy. This is contrasted by the “Old” black and white camera footage of the young Mark taken by his father. This is another interesting one for horror at the time, it is almost a found footage situation. The scenes skillfully portray the abuse that Mark suffered but because of the nature of the home movies these scenes didn’t require much in the way of acting skills, so not a huge surprise he filmed them at home with his own son.
The Price of Obsession
In the film Mark has two obsessions and they are almost indistinguishable from each other. One is his obsession with fear. It is seeing fear that drives him to kill. More importantly though it drives him to capture that fear on camera. That is the real obsession here, Mark is a filmmaker and he is making his masterpiece. Most of the time Mark is a nice enough person, shy even especially around women. But his entire demeanor changes when he is preparing to film a kill. His most ambitious murder is recorded at the studio he works on the set on the very movie he has been working on for his day job. As his victim dances (Warming up for what she is an audition tape), he dashes around adjusting props and cameras. He is focused like a razorblade, his victim is no longer a human but just another prop to get in position.
Mark is driven by obsession. Obsession with his camera, which he takes with him everywhere he goes (Until Helen asks him to leave it behind on a date). There is also Marks original obsession with voyeurism, where the movie takes it’s title. But it is his obsession to finish his documentary and record the faces of fear that drive him beyond all reason. Martin Scorsese felt this obsession reflected the drive of many a filmmaker and the dangerous line they walk in their pursuit of perfect. Considering that, it frames Powell’s direct involvement and the damage it did to his career with the themes of the movie itself. The masterpiece reflects the reality (But fortunately it was only a career killed in real life).
Conclusion
This is an exceptional film and I can see why Scorsese was so heavily influenced by it. Karlheinz Böhm is not an actor I know, but he is exceptional here. The film really is clever and definitely was ahead of its time. As always though I review from the modern day, not in context of how ground breaking something was. This movie has aged remarkably well though. Nothing here really has dated, except perhaps for the color palette but that palette works so well for the movie even this isn’t a problem. This scores a well deserving 8/10
Dead of Winter is a thriller/horror from “Bonnie and Clyde” director Arthur Penn. It is written by Marc Shmuger and Mark Malone and is a loose remake of the film noir movie “My Name Is Julia Ross“. The movie stars Mary Steenburgen in three roles. Primarily as aspiring actress “Katie McGovern”. Katie has been hired by a “Mr. Murray” (Roddy McDowell) as a last minute replacement for actress Julie Rose, who she is told had a nervous breakdown. Desperate for the work she agrees to go out on location for a screen test.
The pair drive upstate into the midst of a snowstorm and arrive at the secluded home of “Dr. Joseph Lewis” (Jan Rubes). During her stay it starts to become apparent there is more going on than a simple screen test. What manifests is a sinister plot to have Katie replace Julie Rose in more than just a screenplay and with potentially fatal consequences.
Woman In Peril
This is a well contained small cast gothic horror. It is more a psychological thriller really, though there is a little bit of blood. Despite being presented as horror, the film is heavily influenced by “My Name is Julia Ross” (1945) and as a result has a very film noir feel. Those lady-in-peril noirs always had a leaning towards psychological horror. They always had a small cast and focused heavily on the ladies fear. This is old school and that’s not a bad thing. Of course a small cast means the performances matter much more and Mary Steenburgen actually has to play three roles here. Fortunately the twin sisters are small parts, but it makes her job harder and the weight of the film was already on her back. Happily, she does a great job.
I’m less convinced by the rest of the cast though. Roddy McDowall does reasonably enough but it’s not his best performance and often feels on the comedic side, which may be deliberate but I don’t think helps the tone of the film. Jan Rubes as the primary antagonist did nothing for me and was certainly the weak link. The rest of the cast are somewhat average. The plot is actually pretty interesting, though it feels more complex than necessary. Those complexities would be fine if they got explored properly, but they are all just a means to an end. The film does however provide some good visual ideas and moments. The chaotic final act satisfies somewhat but feels a little anti-climactic after the journey to get there.
Conclusion
A reasonable horror thriller that has it’s moments but never really excels. Steenburgen does a great job and the plot has some good ideas, but rarely makes the most of them. The film provides some spectacle and is reasonably paced. Overall the movie just about scrapes out a 6/10. If you are a fan of gothic horror or lady-in-peril film noirs this is a recommend. As a horror though, its probably not worth going out of your way for.
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.
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.
This months review roundup is a little on the late side (Narrowly making April) but hopefully worth the wait because I have three solid recommendations for you this time around. Not even a hint of a clangers. To be fair some of these are higher profile films than I usually cover in the round up. That’s no guarantee of quality though, especially these days. So this month I am reviewing the Shudder surprise hit “Late Night with the Devil”, Dev Patel’s ambition action/revenge movie “Monkey Man” and the heartwarming man-and-a-dog film “Arthur The King”. Since these are all recommendations I’ve avoided spoilers, so read on and enjoy!
Late Night With The Devil
For our first movie I’m looking at the the hot new movie from Shudder, “Late Night With the Devil”. Colin and Cameron Cairnes share duties on both writing and directing this one. The duo have a handful of films to their name, the best received probably being 2012’s horror comedy “100 Bloody Acres”. David Dastmalchian stars as struggling late night talk show host Jack Delroy. Laura Gordon, Iam Bliss, Fayssal Bazzi, Ingrid Torelli and Rhys Auteri provide support. The movie is presented as a lost recording of a notorious Halloween special on the late night talk show “Night Owl” from 1977. Unseen” background footage supplements this along with a documentary like intro explaining Jack Delroy’s backstory. During the show we are introduced to various guests including a medium, a profession skeptic/magician and a young girl suffering an apparent demonic possession.
Right from the start you know this is going to be a fun and somewhat unique movie. It reminded me somewhat of “WNUF Halloween Special” from 2013. That movie pushed the comedy a bit more, while this is a little more serious and a lot more polished. Fake “Recovered footage” movies are quite rare. A lot of what makes them work (Or not) is how well they convince you they could be genuine. Obviously no one is going to think this was real, but you want it to at least provide a decent illusion of reality. They achieved this and more. Now to be fair, I was only four years old by the time 1980 rolled around. However, I have seen enough TV from the 1970’s to know what it should look like. In my view they nailed it. The cast is solid with everyone putting in quality performances. Dastmalchian is especially worthy of note though and it is his performance that ties the whole story together.
Abracadabra
The plot here is fairly straight forward but extremely well put together. The movie seamlessly sets up a number of story beats that all get paid off in meaningful ways, which is quite refreshing for a modern movie. The story builds organically throughout the (In movie) evening, with hell breaking loose in the last few moments. The movie wouldn’t have required a large budget because it is mostly talk, with well spaced out events that help build to the inevitable crescendo. It is really masterfully done. This is a movie partially about the originality, but mostly about the execution. The plot itself is sort of silly on the surface and could easily have been the bases of a truly terrible B-Movie, but instead we have a true cult classic on our hands.
It’s not hard to see why this has become somewhat of an overnight hit. I wasn’t even aware this movie was coming at the start of the year. Of course I did say when I wrote my article of upcoming movies that the best films of the year may well come out of nowhere, so here is the first example. This is a strong 7/10 and a definite cult classic. If you are into horror you will like it. If you are into imaginative horror comedy you will love it.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 7 out of 10.
Monkey Man
Monkey Man is an melee based action and revenge thriller hybrid and the directorial debut of Dev Patel. Originally he intended his friend and past collaborator Neill Blomkamp to direct. Blomkamp declined but encouraged Patel to try his own hand at directing and this is the result. The movie is set in India and see’s Patel play “Kid” a somewhat mysterious character who is on a one man mission of revenge. His targets are a despotic cult leader and a corrupt and murderous chief of police. Kid works as a masked fighter in fixed fights at an underground boxing club, giving him some fighting skills and some cash to put towards his revenge plans. When the time is right he gets himself into a position to be hired as kitchen staff at a luxury brothel where his targets reside. Things do not quite go to plan however.
The movie is a hybrid between a neo-noir revenge thriller and outright action. In regards to the latter, these action scenes are quite spaced out in the movie with the vast majority in the second half. The momentum certainly builds up and once the hero passes the “Death and Rebirth” point of the heroes’ journey the movie provides solid edge of the seat action all the way to the finish. Speaking of the “Heroes’ Journey” it is clear that Patel has studied Joseph Campbell’s work on the subject. This is mostly a positive, though the movie wears the journey on it’s sleeve to the extent that becomes somewhat predictable. It also really makes it feel like somewhat of a superhero movie as well. The grittiness of the thriller side is mostly presented through the environment and the heroes flashbacks.
Future Promise
Patel puts in a solid performance as the lead and shows promise as an action star. His support does well too, but the characters themselves did not really interest me. Indeed the only character that was interesting was Patel’s “own.”Kid”. The setting itself is interesting and there is a definite feel of India to the movie, but not much is done to build up any of the characters outside of the lead. The villains especially come across as feeling somewhat generic. The protagonists backstory and the cause of his vengeance begins as a mystery and is slowly revealed through flashbacks. This can work in some movies, but here it also shrouds the antagonists in that same mystery making them seem distant and vague.
Monkey Man is somewhat of a mixed bag. It certainly has flaws and perhaps most of them stem from the movies ambition. The action, comedy and neo-noir elements tend to operate in a disjointed way, usually working against each other. It’s like a superhero origin story randomly merged with a Japanese style revenge movie. A lot of the time the movie doesn’t seem entirely sure what it wants to be. I suspect that Patel really wanted to create something unique, but unique is not always good. That’s not to say the film isn’t without merit. Overall I liked it, I just feel that it had a lot of room for improvement. Patel clearly has potential as a writer/director and is one to watch in the future. For now though, we have a solid 6/10.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 6 out of 10.
Arthur The King
The final movie of this month’s review roundup is a heartwarming true story about an adventure racer, his team and a special dog. You can’t go too far wrong with that kind of story, in some ways perhaps it is a bit too easy, but easy doesn’t mean bad. The movie stars Mark Wahlberg who is supported by Ali Suliman, Nathalie Emmanuel and Simu Liu. It is directed by Simon Cellan Jones, written by Michael Brandt and based on the true story/novel “Arthur: The dog who crossed the jungle to find a home” by Mikael Lindnord.
Arthur the King tells the story of Michael Light, a professional adventure racer that has struggled to win gold all his career and is determined for one last shot. To get there he assembles a team of individuals with their own goals and points to prove and they head to the Dominican Republic for a grueling multi-day race across all kinds of dangerous terrain that will test their abilities to the peak. Along the way though they make an unexpected friend in a local stray dog that bonds with them and becomes their fifth member. Their journey captures the imagination of the races audience, but the team must risk everything to come home with what they truly desire.
Crossing The Jungle To Find A Home
Looking into the true story it seems the adaptation takes some creative liberties in regards to the protagonist (Now American and not Swedish), the makeup of the team (Adding in backstory drama and diversity), the location (Moving it from Ecuador to the Dominican Republic… Much to the chagrin of Ecuadorians) and a few minor details. The important part of the story though, the relationship between the team and this determined dog remains and seems pretty close to the real life events. The changes to the protagonist and his team allow them to build in a lot more general drama to the story, but not so much as to distract from the core story. It is enough that every member has a reason to be there.
The key character though is of course the dog “Arthur”, a very beaten down but determined dog that after a simple act of kindness pretty much decides to adopt the team and look out for them. It will definitely pull at the heart strings of every dog owner out there and I think everyone else will be moved as well. Outside of the emotional stuff, the film actually provides some solid action on top. Not really a shock given this is about adventure racing. Lives are at risk here several times throughout the journey. The risks are diminished somewhat though in that the film never really has the tone to make you think any of the team are doing to die, but it’s still a good spectacle. This is another film that proves the value of a simple story done well. This is a 6.5/10.
This month I’m looking at three lesser known movies from 2024 and giving you a double dose of science fiction (sort of) and a horror comedy to chew over. Heads up though, none of these movies did much for me though I appreciate certain elements of all three and the best of the bunch is probably not going to be a lot of peoples cup of tea. I will cover positives and negatives though so you can decide for yourself if you want to give them a chance. The movies in question this month are “I.S.S.”, “Spaceman” and “Lisa Frankenstein”. Let’s dig in.
I.S.S.
I.S.S. is directed by Gabriela Cowperthwaite (Black Fish) and penned by Nick Shafir (In his debut script). The name refers to the International Space Station, the permanent manned orbital platform that has become a central hub of scientific study and international cooperation in space. One of the most notable things about this station is that it is usually manned by a mixture of Russian and US astronauts along with a few from other nations. In this story however it is basically 50/50 between the two main countries and for a good reason since the story asks the question: What would happen on the I.S.S. should Russia and the US have a nuclear war?
The lead character in this story is Dr. Kira Foster (Played by Ariana DeBose), a new arrival to the station. She is joined by five others making up a full cast of just six. Adding a layer of complexity to the situation two characters, American Gordon Barrett and Russian Weronika Vetrov are in a relationship. Things begin friendly but when they witness explosions on Earth both groups get a directive from Earth “Take control of the I.S.S. by any means”. Each crew member must decide where their loyalties lie and what their duty truly is.
Concept Vs Execution
The first thing to say about this movie is I love the concept. What really would happen at the international space station if nuclear war broke out on Earth, that’s an interesting question. The problem is the execution is just sort of uninspiring. It is the kind of premise that in the hands of the right director and cinematographer could win Oscars, but in the hands of anyone else it basically becomes a glorified TV movie and that is pretty much where we land with this one. This is more of a case of missed opportunities than doing anything disastrously wrong. The first act is fine, but nothing special.
The second act is easily the strongest and showed a bit of the potential this concept could have had and then the third act just fails to deliver on any kind of level. It’s the second act that you get the paranoia on both sides, the moralizing over what the right thing to do is and the mystery of what has happened on Earth. But the final act really fails to do anything interesting with that. Still, it could easily have been worse. There’s not really much else to say on this. The movie is the very definition of “Adequate”. 5/10.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 5 out of 10.
Spaceman
Spaceman is based on the novel “Spaceman of Bohemia” by Jaroslav Kalfař and is the feature debut of director Johan Renck. Adam Sandler stars (Continuing to prove himself as a capable serious actor) as Czech astronaut Jakub Prochazka. Prochazka has been sent on a one man mission to Jupiter to investigate a strange dust cloud called “Chopra”. This is a bit of a space race between Czech and South Korea, but Prochazka’s shuttle is a few days ahead and as such he has become a bit of a celebrity back at home. Jakub’s mental state though is strained by the journey and by his difficult relationship with his wife back on Earth.
Things take a turn for the unusual when he is greeted by a giant talking spider. After deciding this wasn’t a figment of his imagination he begins to talk to it. It turns out the creature is somewhat of a kindred spirit, another explorer far from home that had become curious about humanity. Over time they develop a bond and Prochazka is forced to examine his own life and what is important to him.
Looking Outward To Look Within.
This is a weird movie for sure. The vast majority of it is Adam Sandler having a philosophical conversation with a giant spider. Chances are just reading that you have already decided to skip this or watch this and in my view whichever way you are leaning is almost certainly right for you. The movie has a lot of flaws and opening up with faster than light communication via quantum entanglement (Which is not possible), despite the movie clearly being set in the near future was an odd choice. With the movies themes of isolation and loneliness and with a lot of the communication being done by recorded message anyway, it just seemed unnecessary.
That aside, this is not so much a science film as it is a philosophical one and it did pull on my heart strings at times. By the end I found I did care about this giant talking spider and so job done there. The movie removed a lot of the thriller based elements from the novel, lightening the tone a bit and giving it a heavy focus on the philosophical aspects. The problem here is it can be quite boring in places. Still, this is a strong 5.5/10, just a little short of a 6/10. If you like surreal philosophical movies you will probably enjoy it, otherwise chances are it’ll bore you.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 5.5 out of 10.
Lisa Frankenstein
Lisa Frankenstein is the feature length directorial debut of Zelda Williams. The movie is written by Diablo Cody and stars up and coming youngster Kathryn Newton (Star of the surprisingly good “Freaky” from 2020). In what is designed as a subverted take on Frankenstein the movie tells the story of orphan Lisa Swallows, whose mother was murdered in a home invasion while she hid in the cupboard. Her father remarried. Lisa has a strained relationship with her stepmother but a fairly supportive step sister who tries to get her open up and be more social.
Lisa though prefers to hang out in the graveyard and fantasize about one of it’s residents who she has become infatuated with. After declaring that she wishes she could be with him one night a bolt of lightning strikes the grave and resurrects an apparently lovesick corpse. One thing leads to another and uh.. yeah people die and she starts sewing bits them onto the corpse. I guess you aren’t meant to think too much about this one.
A Frankensteinian Abomination.
This is the weakest of the movies I’m reviewing this month but it’s not totally devoid of positives. I liked the aesthetics, which have a very Tim Burton quality to them. The visual style is quaint and I especially liked the animated intro. Unfortunately those are all the positives I can give you. The movie is effectively a cross between “Heathers” (1988) and “May” (2002), with a little bit of “Corpse Bride” (2005). The problem is it absolutely fails to deliver the charm of any of those movies. The characters are, excuse the pun, lifeless and the script is disjointed and bland. You can see what they are trying to do, but none of it works.
At no point did I find myself rooting for or having sympathy for the protagonist and the events surrounding her lack any kind of consistency. Effectively most of the characters have no personality, but occasionally do things because the plot needs it or they need to vaguely justify killing them later. Random over the top humour is inserted haphazardly and is doesn’t fit with the rest of the movie. None of it is funny. It simply doesn’t work. This is a 4/10 at best. If you want a subverted take on Frankenstein do yourself a favour and watch “May” instead, it is a far better movie.
For my first major movie review of 2024 I give you David Ayer’s “The Beekeeper”, staring perennial action hero Jason Statham and with notable support from Jeremy Irons, Emmy Raver-Lampman and Josh Hutcherson. This is the only major release in January, but that isn’t entirely unusual since January is a notoriously bad month for the box office, so studios avoid it where possible. Ayer is a solid director with several good movies to his name, but with a patchier track record of late. Penning the movie is writer/director Kurt Wimmer who has a mostly bad track record but did give us “Equilibrium” back in 2002, which was a very good movie.
The movie follows the story of “Adam Clay” (Statham), a Beekeeper in the literal sense but also as it turns out a retired member of the most secret of secret agencies, “The Beekeepers”. When the nice old lady that rents him land for him to work his bees is scammed out of all her savings and takes her own life, he reactivates himself to bring down those responsible. As he follows the money he finds this corruption goes far deeper than anyone would have expected, but Clay takes his profession seriously and will deal with anything that threatens the health of the “Hive”, no matter how far up the corruption goes.
Maximum Statham!
First and foremost this is a fun movie. The movie is effectively split into five chapters with the odd, brief interlude. The first introducing us to the lead and setting up the story, the next four all revolving around large action scenes. One interlude is also an action scene so that is five solid action scenes spread over one hour and 45 minutes. This keeps the pace fast throughout and the time flies by. The most important thing for a movie like this is that those actions scenes are entertaining. This is not on the John Wick level of graceful action choreography, but it is solid, fast paced and clear (That least one is often overlooked in modern action films). Some suspension of disbelief is required of course because Statham’s Beekeeper character is basically an unstoppable ass kicking machine.
Statham has made a career of playing old school action heros and here this is ramped up to eleven. While he doesn’t have the superhero level indestructibility of John Wick, in some ways it is even more far fetched as he simply avoids getting injured for most of the movie and even when he does it is barely an inconvenience. A lot of the time this would be a big negative for me, but Statham is one of the few actors that can still pull off that kind of over powered character (Which is probably why he gets so much work). Clay has a Batman level of determination and morality, in many ways making the character a bit too simple but once again Statham is so comfortable in the role you just roll with it.
The Hornets Nest.
The plot itself is a pretty standard action affair built on the theme of kicking the hornets nest. When the scammers steal the money off the old lady that has befriended Clay they had no idea what they had unleashed, but when Clay sets out for revenge he has no idea just how far up the chain his hunt for vengeance and justice would take him. As a result the story constantly escalates, but it is all pretty predictable. Fortunately the movie doesn’t really rely on each revelation being a major twist. Instead the escalation is more like going up levels in a video game, each new level requiring Clay to be more resourceful and up his game.
One of the things I found most interesting (And this is a minor spoiler) is that the main villain seems to be based on Hunter Biden, which is certainly a bold choice but it actually works pretty well. In some ways this is a refreshing choice for the villain, but it’s actually just a variation on a pretty common trope. For example we basically saw a version of this with the original John Wick movie where the loose cannon son is the catalyst for Wick to go to war with his underworld boss father. Unfortunately most of the villains here are just one dimensional dirt bags, the most notable exception being Jeremy Irons who is both the smartest and most reluctant of Clay’s opponents.
Conclusion.
Overall the movie is a bit by the numbers but presents a fun, fast paced ride that will keep you on the edge of your seat. The ending for me though was a bit anticlimactic and it would be nice to feel Clay was in actually in genuine danger at some point. Ultimately though I had a lot of fun and really isn’t that the main thing we want from our action movies? This is a narrow, possibly generous 6.5/10. It’s not a cinematic masterpiece, but I think most people will get a kick out of it. This has done okay in the cinema so I expect to see a sequel at some point.
You must be logged in to post a comment.