As we roll closer to Halloween I’ve decided to up my game and do three double bill reviews. I’ve picked movies that won’t require me to be too verbose in my analysis, but should still be fun. First up is a 1992 Doctor Double Bill. That is I am review the comedy horror Doctor Giggles and the fantasy horror Doctor Mordrid both from 1992. The coincidences don’t stop there though as they both star an actor named Combs. They aren’t related but if you watched TV in the 1990’s you probably recognise them both.
Dr. Giggles (1992)
First up is the horror comedy slasher film “Dr. Giggles” from 1992. Directed by Manny Coto and written by Coto and Graeme Whifler. While Coto may not be the most recognizable name as a director, he has become a regular writer for horror television over the years. His credits include Dexter, American Horror Story and the Exorcist TV series. One instantly recognizable name from the 1990’s in Holly Marie Combs (One of the stars of the TV series “Charmed”) and Dr. Giggles was her first staring role in a feature film. Slashers though are more about the killer than the final girl and here we have Larry Drake playing the titular villain. Larry previously played the villainous “Durant” from the movie “Darkman” (1990).
Thirty Five years after a killing spree by Dr. Evan Rendell resulted in him being shot dead by police, his unhinged son (Drake) has escaped from an asylum and returned to the town of Moorehigh to continue his fathers work. He becomes increasingly obsessed with Jennifer Campbell (Combs), a young woman with problematic heart. The original cause of Dr. Rendell’s killing spree was that his wife’s heart was failing and he became obsessed with giving her a transplant (By killing people and cutting out their hearts). Now his son wants to replace Campbell’s heart and will kill anyone else that gets in his way.
Open Up And Say Arrrrrgh
Slasher movies swarmed the 1980’s, so by the time 1992 rolled around we’d seen pretty much everything. It wasn’t until 1996 when “Scream” added a layer of polish and a big touch of meta-references that the genre started to feel relevant again. With that in mind you can see why this film had mostly negative reviews when it came out. However, we’re a long way from the 80’s now and slashers that don’t try and drop twists, subvert expectations or be self referential suddenly feel sort of fresh.
It helps that Dr. Giggles brings a lot of personality to the table courtesy of Larry Drake’s performance. The methods of killing and the medical puns make him a memorable antagonist. It also helps to have Hollie Marie Combs as the final girl. As well as being a generally good actress, few people feel quite as wholesome as Hollie. That works well for a final girl as it makes you automatically sympathetic. The rest of the cast are somewhat below average and don’t offer anything memorable. They aren’t so bad as to take you out of the movie and most of them are just there for the kill count so this is fine.
The Last Laugh
This is a formulaic yet fun slasher movie. The villain is memorable and has a distinct personality. The final girl is actually a good and recognizable actress (Who achieved fame later) and plays the part well. The kills all fit the theme and there’s even a few good visuals along the way. Against that is a paper thin plot with more than a few holes. That doesn’t get too in the way with a comedy horror slasher so this narrowly earns a 6/10. High than I expected to give this! If you like slashers and/or comedy horror I’m sure you’ll enjoy it.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 6 out of 10.
Doctor Mordrid (1992)
In the early 1990’s Charles Band’s Full Moon Entertainment became quite ambitious. In 1990 they released the movie “Robot Jox”, not a great movie but ahead of it’s time for what it tried to achieve on a modest budget. Marvel meanwhile was not in a great place with it’s movies. It wouldn’t be until 1998’s “Blade” that they started the journey to the modern era of superhero movies. Instead their most recent movies were Dolph Lundgren’s “Punisher” (1989) and 1986’s Howard The Duck. Not movies that set the world on fire. So no shock they were willing to give Band the rights to make a “Doctor Strange” movie. Sadly (Or luckily) those rights expired while this film was in pre-production and Band decided to simply change the names and move forward with it.
Anton Mordrid (Jerffrey Combs) is a wizard tasked by a being called “The Monitor” to protect the Earth from an evil Wizard called Kabal (Brian Thompson). Kabal needs to acquire the philosophers stone and a number of alchemical elements to unleash his minions from the fourth dimension. Mordrid befriends and is assisted by Samantha Hunt (Yvette Nipar), a research consultant to the police. As Kabal gets closer to his goal, Mordrid is suspected by the police of committing the crimes and he must escape custody and meet his nemesis for a final showdown at the Cosmopolitan Museum.
Master Of The Dark Arts
This is one of those horror adjacent movies, simply because it involves dark magic. In truth it’s no more a horror than Charmed or Buffy the Vampire slayer. Brian Thompson, who plays the evil antagonist “Kabal” was a regular on both of those shows and honestly I wouldn’t have been surprised to see the Shannen Doherty or Sarah Michelle Gellar turn up. Brian has one of those combinations of faces and voices that make him perfect villain material. His acting ability was never quite enough to raise him to a higher level and so he became type cast. For a cheap horror though, he’s perfectly adequate. Jeffrey Combs however is actually a much better actor than his long run of low budget horrors and TV shows would suggest. Any time he turns up in a movie like this, the quality raises.
Despite the budget this is a well put together movie with a mostly higher quality level of acting than you may expect. But in typical Charles Band style that is only true of the main characters. Once you reach the bit parts the acting quality drops right down. Again though, not really any worse than an episode of Charmed. Most aspects of this movie are reasonable. They just about get away with the effects at the end of the movie, which were obviously minimized for the sake of the budget. The big problem is the script. It is 50% generic and 50% plain bad. The climax felt sort of random and unearned as did the relationship between the main characters.
It’s A Kind Of Magic
This is film that could have been a lot better even with the special effects limitations of the day. Effectively being a Doctor Strange movie, we have a raw concept we know can work. We have an excellent protagonist, a good leading lady and a villain that slips into the role like a comfy pair of shoes. But then we have a plot that doesn’t seem to have any plans for how to tell a story with these very fine ingredients. The movie is on the short side at a mere 74 minutes, so it’s no surprise it feels like it was just about to get into its stride when BAM it’s over. As a result, the best I can give this is a 5/10. This is basically a TV movie. If you want to see Jeffrey Combs at his best, check out “Re-Animator” (1985) instead. If you are curious about the Doctor Strange movie that never happened it may be worth watching, otherwise give it a pass.
So James Gunn has finally dropped the plans for the DC movies going forwards and it was a bit of a mixed bag and frankly overall somewhat disappointing. Not that I’m going to join the Snyder fans or Henry Cavill fanclub in calling it DOA before a single trailer or even casting decision. But my enthusiasm has certainly lowered. But let’s have a look at what was announced. There were three main categories (Technically two but I’m adding a third reading between the lines).
The Elseworld movies that won’t relate at all to the DCU and likely Gunn won’t have any involvement in; The legacy movies inherited from the previous regime that need to play out and lay the groundwork for the full reboot and finally the new movies that start to paint a picture of the direction Gunn wants to go. Obviously I’m going to focus more on those but we’ll cover it all so let’s get started!
Elseworlds
The first thing to note is that there basically seems to have been some kind of deal to continue to support The Batman (Which also has a couple of TV show side projects in the work), The Joker (Which was DC’s biggest film since Dark Knight) and Teen Titans Go (Which I gather is also very successful). The deal means they are labelled as “Elseworlds” a title used in the comics to designate an entirely self contained universe where anything goes. These are likely decisions not directly involving Gunn and basically the directors/show runner has free reign with them.
It’s interesting to note Gunn didn’t mention any other Elseworlds stuff or future plans. However there is a rumour the dreaded JJ Abrams Superman project may still be in the works as an Elsewords story. Can’t say I’m pleased to hear that since it sounds dreadful but it’s possible they are committed to make it through old contracts. That Gunn didn’t mention it means he likely wants to wash his hands of it if it is happening.
Sadly, I get the impression the Elseworlds tag is basically there just to support contractual obligations and milk relatively successful IP’s for a bit longer. There doesn’t seem to be any real creative drive behind it and it’s a shame because I’d love to see something like Gotham by Gaslight or Batman Vs Dracula. Maybe they’ll get creative with it later. It actually could have been a useful tool for supporting the main DCU if used properly.
The Gunn Show
The second thing are the legacy films/shows. These can be split into two separate categories, the ones that Gunn listed as part of his “Gods and Monsters” chapter and the ones that aren’t. Likely the key difference between the sets are that those that are included are shows Gun is behind and those that aren’t are ones he had nothing to do with. But just how much the legacy Gunn projects will actually be worked into the Gunnverse remains to be seen.
It’s worth noting there was no mention of the Peacemaker crew here except as being a part of the Waller series so it may their second season will effectively be merged into that show. Creature Commandos is being written by Gunn and likely will be a testing ground that can be ignored in the DCU if none of the characters get over. Basically it’s a Groot/Grogu generating machine. See what is marketable, then move it to live action.
Remnants Of The Past.
The more immediate legacy shows though come with them big question marks too. How much will they relate to the new DCU? Will the actors still be employed after the theatrical run? The Flash is marked as the point that changes the whole DCU which means that the Gunnverse is effectively a spin off of the Snyderverse. Not sure how smart that is. But the main question is will they carry over the PR nightmare and frankly terribly cast Ezra Miller into the DCU?
It’s worth noting Gunn has made no mention of The Flash, Aquaman or Shazam outside of their originally scheduled movies. But it’s also interesting to note that Aquaman 2 is released after The Flash, so will it be set before those events or does that mean Momoa is still Aquaman going forward? That wouldn’t seem to fit with the actors own hints about perhaps switching to playing Lobo in the DCU.
That just leaves Blue Beetle which is new and far enough off to scrub any reference to the DCEU, meaning the character could well have a place in Gunns’ DCU. But if it doesn’t perform they can just forget about the character without too much worry. So on to the important stuff and what should suggest a direction for the DCU moving forward and raise potential issues. Let’s look at this first chapter of the DCU or as Gunn calls it: “Gods and Monsters”.
Superman: Legacy (2025)
The first real movie of the “DCU”/Gunnverse. All we know about this is that it features a younger Superman meeting the people at The Daily Planet for the first time. Presumably day 1 in Metropolis. It’s likely you won’t see his Smallville upbringing and possibly if you see him departing Krypton it’ll be relatively brief. Gunn clearly didn’t want Henry Cavill in the roll and it’s not clear how much of that is a desire to sweep out the Snyderverse (We’ll know when we find out if Shazam, Flash and Aquaman are remaining the same).
If he just didn’t picture Cavill in the role it makes me wonder what kind of actor he did picture for it. It’s worth noting he literally said this was a 7-10 year plan, so the age factor does come into it and how long they can expect actors to commit. Still, Cavill seems so well suited for the role it does raise alarm bells that he wasn’t even considered to continue.
Supposedly (according to a press release) the film will be about Kal/Clark balancing his Kryptonian heritage with his human upbringing. There is potential there for character growth, I just hope it goes in a way of establishing Superman as he really should be and not just deconstructing and subverting his story for the sake of it. If it involves his Kryptonian heritage it suggests that Lex Luthor probably isn’t going to be his main focus.
It also seems unlikely they’ll bring in Zod or Doomsday since they’ll want to differentiate it from Zack Snyders’s Superman films. It’s also probably too close to Aquaman 2 to be Momoa as Lobo and I don’t think they’d want to start with Lobo anyway. Maybe we’ll see Braniac. Honestly we won’t likely know until they start filming.
Lanterns (2025)
The first legit live action show of the DCU is one that has been in the works for a while but seems to have changed form enough to become a key part of Gunn’s plans. It is supposed to lead into a key story piece perhaps setting up the first big team up. The series was originally supposed to air in 2023, but went through a lot of re-writes before Gunn even came on board. It’s an obvious show to do though and it’s not linked to the old DCEU so made sense for Gunn to convert it.
While it’s great news they are using both the most popular Lanterns (Interestingly, neither is the original) it seems a strange choice to do such obviously CGI intensive characters in a TV show. The suggestion seems to be it is going to be a bit of a buddy cop mystery, but with Lantern powers. The two are somewhat strange bedfellows, but on a TV show budget you can’t throw CGI out there every five minutes so I guess focusing on detective work helps, but will it satisfy fans? I think a lot of that will be down to if they can find the balance with the CGI and don’t end up with a show that looks as bad as She-Hulk did.
The Authority (Movie – probably 2025)
Based on the Wildstorm characters, which originated outside of DC but are now part of that family, though a fairly isolated part. It’s interesting that the second official movie out of Gunn’s DCU is based on characters that originated elsewhere. It’s also odd that they’ve basically decided to introduce what is effectively a subverted version of the Justice League (Even including a blatant Superman character (Apollo) and a blatant Batman character (Midnighter)… except these guys are gay and dating each other) before introducing the actual Justice league. Hopefully they’ll try and make them a bit more different to the characters they are blatant subversions of, otherwise it’ll damage the credibility of the originals.
There’s also the issue that they are basically all Black Adam and so when they engage with the actual Justice League it’s basically going to be that same story again. Again, a strange choice. However, they are obscure enough that Gunn probably feels he can do whatever he wants with them and figures he can turn them into another GOTG or Suicide Squad. Honestly though I’m not interested in this. I’m bored with subverted superheroes, popular culture has been swamped with them for a decade. We need to get back to the roots to remind us what is even being subverted. If I was more cynical I’d say they only picked this one because of the gay superheroes.
Paradise Lost (TV Show 2025/26)
Described as Game of Thrones but set in Themyscira. Game of Thrones isn’t easy to pull off, indeed not even Game of Thrones always managed it. Indeed it failed spectacularly in the end. So unless they have very talented show runners and actually get George R.R. Martin to write it (Which he’d probably do; anything to avoid actually finishing the next GOT book), it is likely the only thing it will have in common is the boring bits. I mean imagine all the conspiracies in gardens without anyone pulling off the shock factor. It’d basically be like all the scenes from The Witcher season 2 without Geralt in. Boring. Really boring. So I don’t hold much hope.
There is potential to set up some big events here, but the trouble is (As I think Marvel are discovering), most people will watch the movies, but very few will watch all the shows and all the movies. So if you don’t want to put people off the movies, you can’t make it a prerequisite to enjoy those movies to have watched the shows. So the truth is there is only so much they really can set up. If I was more cynical I’d say they just wanted a show with a majority female cast so they could say “Look, female characters!”.
The Brave and the Bold (Movie probably 2026)
Based on Grant Morrison’s work featuring Damian Wayne. Damian is Bruce Wayne’s biological son with Talia Al Ghul. He was raised to be an assassin, so he’s a little broken psychologically. In the comics, Bruce “Died” and Dick Grayson took over as Batman for a period and Damian became Robin. When Batman returned from the “Dead” he continued as Robin and after Flashpoint reset the universe and Bruce became Batman again, he continued to be his sidekick.
Now the question is, how does that possibly work for a first Batman movie for this new universe? You need a Batman old enough to have a kid and chances are he won’t be a ten year old like he was in the comics when he becomes Robin. So we’re probably looking at a Batman no younger than 35. Likely already well established. Meanwhile Gunn is apparently aiming for a younger Superman’s first day at the Daily Planet. This younger Superman, older Batman dynamic is suspiciously similar to Zach Snyder’s set up. It seems like a missed opportunity to pair two younger actors together. I can only hope that they won’t place this Batman too close to the end of his career.
One of the most frustrating things about Batman in the old DCEU was that they were constantly hinting at stories that were in the past and that sounded far more interesting than what they were actually putting on screen and largely made Batman seem like a has been. That’s not the way you should treat your top IP and make no mistake, these days Batman is way more important than Superman. DC’s tactic right now seems to be to hammer it with three separate franchises, “The Batman” with a younger Batman, but no larger DCU, “The Joker” with no real Batman but in a variation of his world and this older DCU version. I’m not sure this is a smart play.
Honestly as far as “The Batman” goes, they should really have either scrapped the film series or merged it into the new DCU. Having it run alongside it makes no sense. This isn’t exactly a really out there “Elseworlds” Batman, it’s just another darker, grittier Batman. While I didn’t like the movie, the casting was fine and nothing was broken. But if Gunn really wants his Batman he should have scrapped the future plans for that one. Instead it looks like they are trying to contrast them by making the character older again and this is disappointing. Still, we’ll see, maybe the movie will be good. At least they are actually introducing their Batman in a stand alone.
Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow (Movie probably 2026)
Based on Tom King’s work. That’s not good. That’s never good. The guy has written some of the most hated DC comics in recent years and it’s not bad writing but what he actually does with the characters that puts people off. This Supergirl will be a bitter twisted mess. It does contrast her with Superman of course, but not sure how likeable people will find the character. I also feel like introducing Supergirl so fast is a mistake, but it’s notable that Gunn talked about the “Bat Family” when talking about his Brave and the Bold movie. So if that movie sets up the Dark Knights family, this sets up Superman’s. Of course we also have multiple Lanterns right out the gate too.
I’m not sure diluting the water is that sensible, when you have such a variety of superheroes to draw from, putting all these “Family” characters into the shared universe right away seems the wrong way to go. In the case of Batman and the Lanterns it perhaps is just to pad numbers for epic fight scenes down the road, but Supergirl is being introduced in her own movie, she could have just as easily been Wonder Woman, Black Canary or Zatanna. Unique characters that don’t need life trauma to make them different from Superman. I get that Supergirl would eventually need to join the DCU, but this seems rushed.
Booster Gold (TV Show probably 2026)
Booster Gold is a very obscure character only DC comic fans will know, but he is popular amongst those. Gunn describes it as basically being the story of a loser from the future that goes back in time to the modern day so he can use future technology to be a Superhero and be popular. The character is an obvious one for Gunn really since it’s basically all his male leads. But that’s a problem too, how is this character going to feel unique if someone like Peacemaker is still in this shared universe and with his own TV show?
My feeling on this one is it will probably be funny, but it’s also yet another subverted Superhero character. When everything is a subversion, nothing is a subversion and Gunn needs to be careful not to make the majority of his DCU a subversion of superhero tropes. This seems to be the way it is going so far and that is not what is going to turn DC into a true rival to the MCU. I’ve said it many times before, but we are so far into subversion and deconstruction that these originally interesting writing tactics have just become clichés and what the public really needs, especially in a time when people are so divided is actual, traditional superheroes that are aspirational and universal.
Swamp Thing (Movie 2026/27)
Said to be “Tonally different to the DCU” but a key part of events (So not Elseworlds, despite the fact some media outlets are claiming it is). This I am looking forward to. It was a real shame the Swamp Thing series got axed right out the door (due to a messed up tax break situation I believe). Swamp Thing is a great character and I hope they focus this on the Alan Moore run and use it (though not in the first film) to introduce John Constantine to the DCU.
The thing is though, so far the trend has been for Gunn to follow Marvels current direction of adapting far more recent material instead of the more popular classics. So we will have to see if we get Moore’s version of the character or something else. Either way though, if they really double down on the horror tone this could be a great movie. On the other hand, I hope Gunn doesn’t direct this or if he does he doesn’t make it a comedy horror like his previous horror films (Remember Gunn started out at Troma). This needs to be a more serious affair.
But then this is a constant worry with Gunn. All his work so far has had a similar tone to it and that’s not what you want for every DC project. There are a lot of modern directors out there that simply can’t stop themselves from making every film about themselves (e.g. Taika Waititi who has made some good films, but every film has his stamp all over it, often to the point where it is more about him than the franchise he’s working in), if Gunn is going to make his DCU a success he needs to be a little bit more invisible and just provide what the film needs instead of showcasing James Gunn tropes and style all the time. If he can do that, he can do well.
Red Flags.
Ultimately while this is a fairly disappointing reveal with a large amount of red flags and one that will likely stir extreme anger from Snyder fans and the more obsessive Henry Cavill supporters, all that really matters is that they nail Batman and Superman. Those two have to be the main pillars of any shared DC universe and that universe can only ever be as strong as those characters. It really can’t be overstated, if they want to rival Marvel they need to weaponize their top assets. While neither of their movies scream “Masterpiece” just from the pitch they don’t sound terrible either. I don’t see any reason for them not to be able to pull them off and if they do they don’t need everything else to land. So with that in mind they announced the films and that is what matters.
The next tier of DC heroes (The B-List if you will) is Wonder Woman, The Flash and Green Lantern. Wonder Woman is the third most popular hero in DC and the most popular female superhero there is full stop, but the only mention of Wonder Woman at all is through the Game of Thrones knock off show in her homeland. It seems Gal Gadot isn’t continuing in the role, so there must be plans to introduce a new actress as some point, but probably not in that TV show (As Gunn would have mentioned that and it’d be silly to relegate your third most popular hero to a TV show anyway). It’s odd too that they are introducing Supergirl before Wonder Woman, again pushing duplicate “family” characters instead of embracing variety.
The Flash Situation.
The fourth most important character in DC is The Flash and this is a big, big issue for Gunn. Ezra Miller is both a terrible Flash and someone that constantly attracts terrible publicity to the point that many people will simply boycott his movies just because he is in them. This is guy that is mentally unstable and is regularly in trouble with the law (For everything from grooming, kidnapping, breaking and entering, theft, assault and running a cult… I should add most of that is accusations, but he was found guilty of the B&E and at least one of the assaults was captured on camera). If Superman and Batman can be pillars, Ezra Miller has the potential to be a fault line under which those pillars are built.
Currently Warner is publicly suggesting they support the actor but they really need The Flash movie to be a success as it sets up the new DCU. It was be logical to dump the actor after the film, but you still need a Flash. They need to find a way to justify the character changing the timeline in such a way it actually radically changes his own appearance. Either that or just switch actors like Marvel did with Hulk and War Machine and not even mention it. Whatever they pick, they need to get Miller as far away from their plans going forward as possible.
Underappreciated Heroes.
As for Green Lantern, this is a character that has never been given the respect he deserves on screen. The Fifth most popular DC hero and yet all he’s had is a bad movie and now a TV show that has to have multiple Lanterns in. This seems a waste, but hopefully the pair can move over to the big screen at a later date. At least they will be in place and with two there they have two chances to get it right.
After the top five, DC should really embrace it’s variety. There is a very big C tier including the likes of John Constantine, Hawkman, Zatanna, Martian Manhunter, Green Arrow, Cyborg (Safe to say that will have a change of actors), Aquaman (We still don’t know if Momoa is continuing in the role, though he’s hinted he isn’t) and Shazam (Likewise and Black Adam being canned possibly bodes badly). It would be a mistake to ignore this tier just so Gunn can try and find the next Guardians of the Galaxy. Many of these characters have never had movies either.
Missing An Open Goal.
There are two Superman related characters that would actually be perfectly well suited to James Gunn’s style and neither of them got a mention. Those are Bizarro and Lobo. Films with those two could be incredibly fun and Gunn would have been perfect to write and direct them. So I can’t help but feel a little disappointed he hasn’t opted yet for either, but I still suspect after the Aquaman film comes out they will announce Momoa is departing that role but will be Lobo instead. I hope that is the case anyway.
So that’s my thoughts on the announcements. Ultimately there were a lot of strange choices and disappointing omissions but there is potential here so I’m not rage quitting just yet. I will give them at least until their Superman film has a trailer and that will be a long time off. At the same time though I don’t feel at all enthusiastic about the various remnants of the previous regime we have to get through before we get a sniff of the direction of this new DCU. If other people feel like I do on this, that’s at least three movies likely to flop in a row, maybe four if no one gets on board with Blue Beetle.
Then we have the new Superman movie sandwiched between two Elseworld Batman movies (Joker II and The Batman II). That’s a good run of films, but if DC has four flops before that, will it be able to recover? Also will it confuse the audience to place the launch of the new DCU between two movies not even set in the DCU? Honestly, Warner still largely seem like they don’t know what they are doing. Time will tell however.
Tonight’s movie is technically as a “TV Special” instead of a movie, but as a stand alone story of 52 minutes length and some of the movies it pays homage to are only around one hour too I feel this counts. “Werewolf By Night” is technically part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, though the story has no direct links or mention of other aspects of the MCU so it is for all intents and purposes a separate world (At least for now). The story is based around two Marvel characters that date back to the early 1970’s, the title character (Often just referred to as “The Werewolf” in the comics) is joined by “Man-Thing” a character similar to DC’s “Swamp Thing” but who debuted two months earlier. The story is directed by Michael Giacchino and written by Heather Quinn and Peter Cameron. It starts Gael García Bernal and Laura Donnelly.
October Review Challenge – Day 27
The story starts (In black and white) with the introduction of an ancient society of monster hunters. The groups leader, Ulysses Bloodstone (Another character taken directly from the 70’s comics) has died recently and so they need to crown a new leader of this society. For this purpose they have designed a special monster hunt where the winner is not only crowned the leader but also gains possession of the powerful artifact the “Bloodstone” (Whose red glow is the only colour on screen for most of the film).
The participants are those hunters with the highest kill ratio, including Jack Russell (Bernal) and Bloodstone’s estranged daughter Elsa (Donnelly). The hunters are only allowed to use the weapons hidden around the estate and may combat each other as well as the creature. Spoilers ahead (Though I don’t feel these are big ones).
Werewolf Amongst Us
Unbeknownst to the rest of the hunters and the events hostess (Bloodstone’s widow Verussa), Russell is not there to hunt the monster and has no interest in the Bloodstone, he is actually a friend of the monster and there to free him. He ends up teaming up with Elsa who is very different to the other hunters herself. The rest of the group are vicious and bloodthirsty, as eager to fight and kill each other as they are to hunt the monster.
But when Elsa and Russell cross paths they clearly have no interest in fighting and as a result end up working together, especially when Russell comes clean to Elsa that he isn’t after the Stone, only the Monster, whom he calls “Ted”. As the Hunt concludes, Verussa turns on Elsa and Russell and this sets up a final confrontation where we finally get to see the Werewolf the story is named for. No spoilers for what happens here, but you can probably guess as a Marvel film who is going to come out on top.
Wait… Marvel did something good again?
One of the reasons I wanted to review this is because Marvel has been incredibly disappointing for me over the last few year. The good story they’ve attempted to tell since “End Game” was “Spider-Man: No Way Home”. As a result I didn’t rush in to watch this, but when I did it was a huge relief. This was very well made. Here we see versions of classic Marvel characters actually done justice too. So while I’m focused on horror this month I really wanted to highlight Marvel doing something actually good!
There is a little bit of modern day subversion thrown in and Jack and Ted have some changes to their comic book personality but the changes work so that’s not really a problem. Elsa being a post 2000 character I’m less familiar with as I have read few Marvel comics post 2000 (and the ones I read I didn’t like that much), but the character on screen is good and seems like a good combination of ass kicking and actually being likeable.
A love letter to Universal
The most impressive part of this story by far though is the visuals. The intent here is to make people think of the classic Universal Monster movies of the 1930’s (and to a lesser extent the 1940’s) and to achieve this the most obvious creative decision is the use of black and white. However, this isn’t a grainy film black and white, it is a very clean modern black and white, with a spot of red thrown in through the bloodstone. A touch that was not needed, but looked damn good visually so I still approve.
The design of many of the visuals, such as the use of the ancient mansion and of the shadow play do a great job of reminding you of the Universal movies without being overly limited by that nostalgia. They have a lot more space to play with but they make sure to drop in a more Claustrophobic feel every now and then. Really outside artificially reducing the the quality of the picture and the effects there is not much else they could do to make it feel authentic. This takes the best aspects of the modern and mixes it with the best aspects of that classic style.
The Wolf Man and The Giant Sized Man-Thing!
One of the best examples here is in the design of The Werewolf. It’s worth noting he’s had several different looks in the comic, so creative changes are par for the course. Here they’ve basically taken a design that is similar to both 1935’s “Werewolf of London” and 1941’s “The Wolfman” but then taken to the pinnacle of what you can achieve with CGI. It creates perhaps the best looking werewolf I’ve seen on screen for a long time. The transformation is done beautifully too with
Contrasting to that Man-Thing (a.k.a. Ted, the hunted monster) is kept largely to his comic book look and while he is black and white, he obviously would never fit with a Universal movie of the 1930’s. They could have tried to make him look like a guy in a suit or something but it would have ruined it so they didn’t, they just made him look like the comic and it worked superbly.
Music To My Ears.
Outside of the look (Which is always going to be the main thing with this special/movie), I have to compliment the use of music. It’s worth noting Michael Giacchino is actually better known as a composer. This is his directorial debut and so naturally he did the music. But this allowed him to work the music precisely against the images on screen. This is another sensible change from how things were actually done for the peak period of the Universal Horrors from 1930-1936.
In those years speech on film was new and while silent movies had accompanying music (and occasionally original scores, such as for Nosferatu), the early talkies tended to have minimal non-diegetic music (that is, music that doesn’t have an on screen source) and the music that was there tended to be stock music, usually classical and in the case of Universal horror often mixed very low. So the use of music here is less about nostalgia and more about enhancing the visuals and it works well. This is a case of creating things how people remember it instead of how it was. No complaints here.
Assessment
Though the story doesn’t really tax any of the actors they all perform their jobs well enough. There is no particular stand out but no let downs either. The story is engaging and fun but also very straight forward. We go in knowing who the Werewolf is (Even if it wasn’t on the poster you’d guess in seconds) and we know inevitably he’ll wolf out, so there is no real complexity there.
Along that many of the side characters lack a bit for the short screen time. Honestly though with only 50 minutes of time they tell the story they needed to, they don’t break anything in doing it, they introduce three interesting characters and the have a good mixture of fun and engagement along the way.
It does what it needs to and nothing more. Clearly Giacchino was given free reign to do what he wanted (where as with the MCU usually the directors have little control) and it paid off big. I don’t know if this will prod the MCU into a more interesting direction through it’s success, but I do hope we get to see more of these characters in the future.
On the other hand it may end up as Marvel’s “Joker” an outlier reminding us of what is possible, but what may not ever be the studios preferred path. Perhaps more of note for the future though is Giacchino, a man that clearly has as much of an eye for visuals as he has an ear for music. If Universal had any sense to them they’d pouch him and get him to work with the actual Universal Monsters.
Conclusion
Overall, with such a short amount of time this achieves a lot. It’s not perfect, but what it lacks is mostly what could have been added instead of mistakes with what is there. I think this is well deserving of the second 7/10 from me this October. Time is running out for anything to overtake so as it stands so far this “Special” is my number 2 horror (or horror adjacent) movie this year around.
The latest offering from Warner/DC in the Superhero genre is 2022’s “The Batman”, a movie that seems to have been a long time in the coming and that was probably greenlit by a very different team than is now in charge at Warner. The original intention for the movie was to be a vehicle for Ben Affleck’s Batman but this changed fairly early on and the idea became to launch a Batman shared universe separate from the DCEU. Already a very questionable idea, however if any DC hero can bare the weight of their own shared universe it is Batman. The question is though, does this film provide a good launching point for it? Let’s dig in.
In Bloom.
Matt Reeves directs the movie, having replaced Affleck during pre-production and is an old hand at coming on on other peoples franchises. His work includes directing JJ Abrams brainchild “Cloverfield” (2008), then in 2010 making the American remake of 2008’s “Let The Right One In”, title simply “Let Me In”. Following that he took up the reigns of the Planet of the Apes reboot series from Rupert Wyatt, making the two weaker films of the trilogy. Now he has replaced Ben affleck helming this franchise and it seems unlikely much remains of the original concept for the movie with Reeves taking the opportunity to tell his kind of Batman story. The characters role as a “The Worlds Greatest Detective” would appear to be the focus of this version, with Reeves taking influence from Film Noir and stories such as “The Long Halloween”. Perhaps unsurprisingly there would also be a push to make this the darkest and grittiest Batman yet.
Scentless Apprentice.
Robert Pattinson plays the title character, a casting choice that would prove highly divisive amongst Batman fans, perhaps unfairly due to his role in the “Twilight” film series. Pattinson is a pretty good actor, so for me it was all going to depend on the script. What did surprise me with the casting through was the sheer number of Batman characters that seemed to be involved in the film. Zoey Kravitz took the role of Catwoman, Colin Farrell was cast as The Penguin and John Turturro as Carmine Falcone. There was even talk of some Joker casting. But it was Paul Dano as The Riddler that would be the main villain of the story. The rogues would be joined by Andy Serkis as Alfred and Jeffrey Wright as Gordon. My concern was the story was starting to look unnecessarily cluttered but there were certainly a few names in there that had my interest.
Something in the Way.
A few things immediately come to mind while watching “The Batman”. The cinematography is actually pretty good and the darker grittier vision of Gotham this time does take a very Noir like form. It almost is a shame it is in colour. The soundtrack however is far less impressive. In interviews promoting the film Reeves talked about how he took influence for Batman from Kurt Cobain and his music. This seemed odd at the time, but in practice it becomes a sort of sonic worshipping of one particular Nirvana song: “Something in the Way”. A strange choice given it is effectively a song about being homeless and sleeping under a bridge and not really something I would attribute to a Billionaire superhero. But the piece is not just something played once, but the entire core of the soundtrack as the two chords the build that song are used throughout and unfortunately make most of the sound track reminiscent of “The Imperial March” from Star Wars. The only sections of music that don’t appear to be built around Nirvana are the recurring performances of “Ava Maria”, which also becomes somewhat tedious over time.
Like many modern movies the themes are far from subtle and designed to smack the viewer across the face in the most on the nose ways possible. Character development is spelled out in dialogue instead of demonstrated through action, with Batman declaring himself as “Vengeance” early on but then in a voice over in the final act deciding he needs to be more than vengeance moving forward. The voice over would be fine had I felt that Batman actually went through an emotional journey to get to that conclusion.
Heart-Shaped Box.
Part of the problem with this set up is it relied on Batman not having learned the lessons of his own origin story. Bruce would have had an entire emotional journey between the death of his parents and becoming Batman and this movie is set in his second year in the role. This is all very similar to what the Sony/Disney did to MCU Spider-Man, skipping showing the characters origin but also skipping that core character development that comes with it (In the case of Spider-Man, it was the impact of Uncle Ben’s death). For Batman it is that journey from orphaned child to the physical and mental peak of humanity. A journey that was shown to us so perfectly in Nolan’s “Batman Begins” (2005). Instead here we have a character that has the physical capabilities of Batman, but pairs that psychological makeup of a freshy orphaned child.
Bruce Wayne, as we know him, is largely absent here too and when he does show up he comes across like a depressed teenager. The suggestion seems to be that he is yet to learn to wear that mask in public, but this brings with it the issue of it being obvious who Batman is. A situation not helped by a plot constantly teases the idea that his secret is going to be revealed. Of course it’s not like superhero movies of old haven’t had questionable secret identity issues (like the Clark Kent glasses situation), but this is like deciding to do Clarke Kent without the glasses and still expecting the audience to buy no one has figured it out.
Negative Creep.
A major part of “The Batman” is the focus on Batman as a detective., an aspect of Batman that while not absent in past on screen incarnations was not specifically the focus. On paper this was an interesting change and one I was looking forward to seeing. Sadly though, this too ended up being a negative because ultimately this Batman is frankly terrible at it. He is a step behind, not just the Riddler but often everyone else as well. One of Batman’s accolades/titles is “The World’s Greatest Detective”. If you want Batman to be at all true to his comic roots his skills should be more like a Sherlock Holmes than a generic FBI Agent from a random TV procedurals. True, the Riddler is perhaps the best foil for him as a detective , but their battle of the wits should be more akin to Holmes and Moriarty and this was not even close. Batman was an embarrassment in this department and pretty much failed at every turn. It is really more the illusion of detective work than actual detective work. Batman does have a nice gadget in his surveillance contact lenses, but that doesn’t make up for his inability to figure out the central riddle.
Come As You Are.
So that’s Batman covered, what about everyone else? Well much as I feared when I saw all the cast the movie is unnecessarily bloated. It’s true you can have multiple Batman villains in a movie and have it work, The Nolan trilogy demonstrated that, but to varying degrees of success. It’s interesting to note that the longest of the Nolan movies is also the weakest and the one that utilised it’s three rogues the least successfully. Here both Penguin and Catwoman were unnecessary to the story being told and both added significantly to the movies run time. Selina does play a role in the main story, but it’s not a role that actually required or even benefited from being that character specifically, it could just as easily have been any other female character, even a wholly original one. Her role in the story has nothing to do with her skills as a thief or in combat, both of which are basically there without explanation (Much like Batman’s). They don’t even really deal with the cat gimmick outside of showing she has a few strays (Which she shows very little actual affection for). The cats don’t feel part of Selina’s personality and are just sort of there. As for Zoey Kravitz herself, she is okay in the role but hardly ground breaking.
Pennyroyal Tea.
The Penguin is a real mixed bag. Colin Farrell is superb in the role and the make up work to change him into the notorious character is incredibly well done. However, Oswald’s role in the story is even less relevant than Selina and his entire story arc could have been dropped with the only impact being they would probably have had to change one of the riddles. Given that riddle was the worst one and the one that made Batman look incompetent as a detective, that would not have been a bad thing. I would estimate that between the Oswald and Selina arcs you have about 20-40 unnecessary minutes trimmed from the story in a way that would have tightened up and improved the rest of the plot. Because of this I’m going to have to mark both down as a failure. However, seeing more of this Penguin in the future would be a good thing.
Big Cheese.
The third character from the rogues gallery is gangster boss Carmine Falcone and this is a character that actually should have had more of a focus on him. Not only is he important to the plot, he is played superbly by John Turturro and the underuse of the character does a lot to diminish the impact of a number of reveals later on in the film. The character would have been a perfect enemy for this grittier neo-noir type Batman in his second year of operation in the role, but when you clutter the movie up with Penguin and Catwoman Falcone ends up largely just in the background.
Drain You.
The final and most important member of the rogues gallery is the primary antagonist of the film, The Riddler. Played well by Paul Dano, but the character somewhat falls apart in the final act. As I mentioned earlier, The Riddler is the ideal foil for Batman as a detective, however just as this Batman is not an especially smart detective, neither is the Riddler especially smart as an antagonist and once the veil is lifted on his motivation he really comes across as quite a pathetic, naive character. Not that a pathetic character can’t be a villain but it does lead the end of the film to somewhat fizzle out (despite the attempt at a big set piece action ending). Overall though, I’m marking this one down as a positive.
Serve the Servants.
On the other side of the playing field you have Jeffrey Wright as James Gordon and Andy Serkis as Alfred. Both somewhat fell flat for me as the plot seemed to assume the characters relationship with the lead without really showing it on screen. Neither reallys seemed to have much chemistry with Pattinson and the Gordon/Batman scenes were some of the weakest of the movie due to the pair apparently trying to out mumble/whisper each other. Andy Serkis’ role in the movie felt small, like they didn’t really want to deal with the fact Batman has such a close ally and confidant, especially one that is also his butler. These are sadly both negatives.
Lithium.
Overall, there is some hope for the franchise going forward. Pattinson wasn’t terrible and nothing was broken beyond repair by this movie. Indeed some characters such as Penguin I absolutely look forward to seeing more of. However, they do need to learn from their mistakes if they want to build a worthwhile trilogy (or longer series). The next movie needs to be more focused and they need to vastly improve the character work and stop trying to push current day politics onto a character created in the 30’s that is meant to be timeless.
Milk It.
On a personal note I have to say I am tired of “Darker, gritier” batman movies. The Nolan trilogy was for me as dark and gritty as Batman should get. This movie pushes things so much further in that direction that to me it feels more like an “Elseworld” Batman (i.e. a one off novelty) than something trying to be comic true. That would be fine, but it’s also not quite unique enough to push that novelty. As you will know from this blog, I love Film Noir, so you’d think a Neo-Noir Batman would be right up my alley. Sadly though while the movie attempts to push that vibe, it feels artificial, like yet another attempt at a Noir that fails to understand the genre in the first place. A full on elseworlds Noir Batman, perhaps even in black and white could certainly be interesting, but I doubt Warner would ever greenlight something that radical.
Stay Away.
I would actually much rather see a Batman movie embrace the characters gothic side again like Tim Burton’s movies did 30 years. Indeed if we’re talking about doing an “Elseworld” Batman I would love to see a “Gaslight” universe set in victorian times that not only gave us Jack The Ripper, but also re-imagined some of the rogues gallery in a more gothic style and perhaps even had a bit of Batman Vs Dracula in the mix (I’m talking over several films or a series here). Maybe that’s just me, but I’d find that more interesting than yet another darker and grittier version. Of course they could also just try and put the character and the stories from the comic actually on the screen without interpretation and re-imagining. I know, crazy idea right?
For tonight’s feature I viewed Sony’s new release from their “Venomverse” universe, “Morbius” (2022). This marks Sony’s first addition to the Venomverse and as such the movie the finally turns that world from a playground for Symbiotes into a true shared universe. Not that this has any cross over material outside of a throw away line and an awkward post credit scene, but it is an important milestone for Sony and one you’d think would be important to them. Then again they made so much money off Spider-Man maybe they no longer care.
Blood, Sweat, Tears and more Blood.
The movie is helmed by director Daniel Espinosa, who obviously has some horror experience from making the Alien-esque “life” (2017) and I assume this is why he was picked for the movie. The movies writers, Matt Sazama and Burke Sharpless have a string of genre movies to their name but it’s worth noting their highest IMDB score is for Dracula Untold (A movie I did enjoy) which hits the heady heights of 6.2/10. The rest of their movies are in the fives and that probably explains a lot about this one.
Jared Leto stars as the eponymous Doctor Michael Morbius and is joined by Matt Smith’s Milo/Lucien, Adria Arjona as Martine Bancroft and Jared Harris as Dr. Emil Nicholas. There are also a number of minor roles that appear to have been reduced to bare bones in the edit room including Tyrese Gibson as a race swapped Simon Stroud, who in the comics is actually a superhero himself but apparently his entire arc was cut, reducing the role to just a chasing FBI agent that seems a little more competent than his colleagues. Apparently there were whole scenes featuring his cyborg arm, but neither those nor the arm itself made the theatrical release. Still, he has more presence than Michael Keaton’s Adrian Toomes who appears to have had his entire role reduced from something worthy of inclusion in the trailer, to just a confusing mid credits cameo.
Vampire Interrupted.
Speaking of Keaton, let’s address the elephant in the room. This movie was originally due to be released in July 2020, but with Covid delaying things both Sony and Disney shuffled their Marvel deck and this had a knock on effect to a lot of the movies and the continuity between them. There was also a new deal signed between Sony and Disney in relation to Spider-Man’s on screen presence. Through all this there ended up being a need for extensive reshoots and a key change to the movie that removed all references to anything MCU, until the mid credits. At this point I think Morbius ended up a gutted husk of the movie that Espinosa originally intended, though it is hard to tell. What is clear is that Keaton definitely had a bigger role as the scene from the first trailer is completely absent. Also absent is the Spider-Man “Murderer” graffiti that was present in the trailer. Apparently this was added by the studio without the directors knowledge.
Best of Enemies?
One can speculate on what was meant to be, but ultimately we can only deal with what is. So let’s dig into that. The first thing to note is this film feels very small. There are effectively only four characters with any importance to the story and Jared Harris is used sparsely. Adria Arjona has a bit more of a role but even that feels like it is missing some key character moments. The movie instead focuses on Smith and Leto. In itself that’s not a bad move but if you are going to focus so heavily on a pair of friends that become enemies there should really be more of an emotional connection between them. Instead while both actors do their best for their role ultimately every decision either character makes is entirely done to drive the plot. None of it feels particularly natural. There’s very little emotional ambivalence and when they inevitably face off it doesn’t really feel like two life long friends that have gone past the point of no return.
Living Vampire or Dying Franchise?
The plot is itself simple and largely predictable. There is no more to it than what you would read in a synopsis. I would say there is nothing more to the movie than you see in the trailer, but actually there is more in the trailer! This is a bare bones story that has promise and had they found an angle to focus on or expand it could actually have been good. But alas, there is no such angle. The movie just ploughs through a series of events from start to end with almost no character growth, world building or plot complexities (outside of some obvious “twists”).
Ultimately what is there is absolutely fine. The actors performances were solid, the action sequences mostly work, there are a few cool visuals and there are no overbearing politics or modern clichés that made me especially dislike it The problem is there just isn’t much to the film at all. One day maybe there will be an Espinosa cut or at least some kind of explanation about why the end result appears so different to what was promised in that first trailer. That should make for an interesting story, in the meantime though this movie does not.
You must be logged in to post a comment.