Maybe it’s because I just saw Stranger Things and coming down from an IT high, but this film just seemed to miss the mark for me. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark follows the old folk tales we have heard before but great to see it get a filmic depiction of the cartoon series I remember as a kid called Freaky Stories, which I heard from a friend of a friend of mine was very enjoyable with little twisted tales like the woman had spiders in her beehive hair doo. This movie emulates these old folk tales with the fantastical contribution of monsters designed by Guillermo del Toro.
It felt as though this style would work better as a Netflix or Stan episodic series as elements didn’t know where they wanted to be. It definitely felt half-baked like they were still mixing the ingredients together.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark follows a group of kids living in the suburbs of USA in the mid 1960’s, while breaking and entering an old mansion they steal a book from a dead girl that causes all manner of spookiness to ensue.
Scary stories are written in the book as they appear to devour those who were there when the book was taken. Mischievous hijinks abound.
The Diagnosis:
The monsters were great but with a half-baked ensemble from the get go. It was difficult to get hooked. Take two episodes of Stranger Things with a glass of IT twice a day to wash out the taste.
Dr. Richard Lovegrove and Anesthesiologist Kelsi Williams
TheDead Don’t Die is a classic example of how marketing can abuse the cinema-going public into flocking to the cinema in anticipation of a certain type of movie based on its trailer, only to be completely underwhelmed. Packed with an awesome cast in Bill Murray, Adam Driver, Chloe Sevigny, Tilda Swinton, Tom Waits, and Danny Glover, to name but a few, we’re led to believe that the film would tap into a beating, bloody pulse, with rampaging zombies and killer comedy lines akin to Shaun of the Dead. In some ways, it felt like “they” were trying to market an independent, off-beat film and project it into mainstream culture to ride the coattails of a genre that is hot property right now. You could argue, that this is the job of a production distributor, and if they are comfortable with pulling in the punters and forego the negative backlash, then so be it. In this humble writers mind, it sets the movie in a bad light and the shadow that this may cast will be forever enveloped in darkness.
Those who are more familiar with director Jim Jarmusch’s work though, may have gone in with a more open mind and curious to see how he would weave a horror-themed element into his minimalist narrative. There’s a reason that big-hitter names are constantly drawn to his style of work as Jarmusch favours character development and eccentricity tends to be brought to the fore among a slow-yet-comedic pace. Movies such as Night on Earth, Dead Man, and Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai resonated with the cinema-going public in search of an alternate view on the celluloid screen. So, I was hopeful that TDDD would pep along and perhaps add something to the genre that would offer something fresh to the mix. Unfortunately the offering is stale and weak in comparison to Jarmusch’s early work and there is nothing new on the slab to satiate fans of the genre. It’s almost ironic that the look and feel of the movie is reminiscent of B-Movie horror films of the 50s, (possibly an area true to Jarmusch’s heart) in that TDDD is trapped in this time and place and feels content to sit in its world, unwilling to conform with modern trends and interests. Similarly, its leads Chief Cliff Robertson (Murray) and Officer Ronnie Peterson (Driver) are stuck in the middle-town sentiments, that they are the rest of the town are doomed to the post-apocalyptic zombie crisis that has fallen on them. In fact, it’s the bumbling hermit (Waits) who is content in living amongst the wild and restless that may outlast and outwit them all, which in of itself poses some interesting questions. Questions that by the films conclusion, most viewers would have lost interest.
The acting was strong and a stand out for me was Caleb Landry Jones (Get Out) as the gas station attendant and is fast becoming an actor to watch, but ultimately there wasn’t enough substance to grip my attention.
The Diagnosis:
For horror fans, this movie is D.O.A.
For Jarmusch fans, it’s full of nods and references, but it isn’t on par with his best movies. One for completists only.
Two years ago, I walked into an auditorium to sit down and watch It: Chapter 1 with some horror-loving friends, some of whom were devoted Stephen King fans eager to see what a modern adaptation would look like. I was admittedly a little apprehensive, as I had strong pangs of nostalgia from the 90s mini-series starring Tim Curry, which had its scares but was ultimately let down by its weak ending, which left room for improvement. Further reservations were also abound by my underwhelming reaction to Mama, Andy Muschietti’s directorial feature debut, but I was willing to forego any misgivings and not judge on a token outing from the director and I was also open to seeing Pennywise in the 21st Century and how he would relate to the current cinema-going audience.
It turns out that Warner Bros. marketing team tapped into the social platforms of the “connected” generation and elevated the dancing clown into the pop culture mainstream, thanks partly to the look that was generated by the production team and Bill Skarsgård respectively. Whilst the movie itself didn’t resonate with me the same way it appeared to with the younger demographic, as I found the film lacked in decent scares, resorting to jump scares and it didn’t shift into dark enough territory for me, and Pennywise never terrified or disturbed enough, so I was left wanting as a result. It did however tap into one of King’s strongest elements in his writing and that is in its young misfit characters that unite against a common enemy that was imperative for the movie to have any chance of impacting at all. Here, Bill, Beverly, Ben et al had such a strong connection, that we were willing to go along for the ride for good or ill.
Fast forward to today and the passing of time has seen some changes in the Surgeons team. Some have left for other ventures or simply shifted into a whole new reality, and on this occasion I found myself without my usual horror-loving fiends alongside me and would have to face Pennywise on my own, a juxtaposition to the comrade of adult characters in the film, who depend on one another to defeat Pennywise once and for all.
My expectations were considerably low this time around following the first movie, but I was pleasantly surprised by this second instalment. The scares were still absent, but the adventure packed scenario that The Losers were confronted with this time around were made for entertaining viewing, mainly thanks to Bill Hader (Richie) and James Ransome (Eddie) who churn out strong performances and in many ways overshadowed the more A-list actors, James McAvoy (Bill) and Jessica Chastain (Beverly) who could have just phoned it in and weren’t really able to add much depth to their characters despite the near 3 hour running time.
So if character development isn’t packed into the time frame, then what exactly fills the narrative? It has a fairly weighty narrative, and to Muschietti’s credit, he manages to sandwich in a fair amount of the original story or concept into his version with a few notable exceptions, and in doing so, I was happy to one again be taken along the journey to its CGI-filled conclusion. One that was questionable but still managed to tug at the heart-strings in the quest for victory.
The Diagnosis:
Pennywise still failed to scare despite Skarsgård’s unique portrayal and Chapter 2 feels content to rest on a more feel-good, fun ride to conclude the Loser’s Club’s adventures against the dancing clown. Horror fans will once again feel robbed of what could have been a dark and destroying creature that feeds on our greatest fears, but will be entertained nonetheless.
The ultimate test will be if it resonates with the audience for the production distributors to warrant another visit to Derry and spark an ongoing franchise into the mythology of Pennywise. Time will tell.
Saul Muerte
Losers comments
Like comedic relief, Bill Hader has the best lines, but it felt like the director was playing for laughs rather than decent scares.
IT chapter two is a fun romp sadly ending in just one more film about the fear devouring Macroverse entity who appears to cheerfully as a psychotic clown. Bill Skarsgard reprises the role as the young’uns return to Derry, Maine 27 years after thinking they had defeated IT. The adult cast all delivered stellar performances channeling their younger personas but Bill Hader’s Ritchie was a personal favourite. As a fan of the 80’s miniseries I personally liked the updated take on this terrifying journey.
Set among the forest of buildings that is New York, director Larry Fessenden retells one of horrors best written tales ever written by not only shifting the setting and the time period but the focus of the subject. One is reminded of the quote “An intelligent man knows Frankenstein wasn’t the monster. A wise man knows that Frankenstein was the monster?”.
Amidst a dusty warehouse apartment with a shonky makeshift lab we find Alex is struggling to bring his creation to life together with his partner, Polidori, (famous for writing “The Vampyr” in 1816 as part of a contest including Mary Shelley, Lord Byron, Percy Shelley).
The strong motif of PTSD plays throughout the film complimented by the cinematic angles and camera movements, as much of the film is achieved using POV shots, which made a far more honest portrayal of the beast, the monster … Adam. Though this film was shot on a budget, this is not at all apparent besides some tight shots during a roof top fight scene but it does not detract from this brilliantly eerie film.
Donald F. Glut takes on both writing and directing duties to oversee an adaptation of his collection of short stories, which serves as a ‘love song’ to Mary Shelley’s creation. It’s hard to believe that Shelley’s novel celebrated its bicentenary last year, and Glut certainly knows his subject, pouring into every crevice of his source material to pay homage to and draw out four stories.
Our first story, “My Creation, My Beloved” set in Bavaria, 1887, is probably the most faithful with a Frankenstein descendant, who is a cross between the scientist and deformed assistant, Igor, continues in his ancestors obsession for resurrection and beauty, only to be thwarted in his own lustful pursuit. Excellent performance here from Buddy Daniels Freedman as Dr Gregore Frankenstein.
The second tale, “Crawler from the Grave” feels like the most fun, and finds ourselves in Switzerland, 1910 and sees John Blyth Barrymore (Full Moon High) as Vincent, another Frankenstein descendant who is hunted down by a disembodied hand from the grave.
Our third story, “Madhouse of Death” felt the weakest of the quartet of tales in my humble opinion, but this could very well be down to taste. Set in Los Angeles, 1948, the story also serves as a salute to the golden era of Hollywood and the film noir detective films with Sam Malone et al, and for that I commend its approach. Essentially we see a detective take on more than he gambled when he uncovers an old house full of crazies and home to a gorilla.
The last tale ends strongly, and in many ways one after my own heart, as those who know me can attest, as it is the most closely associated with the Hammer Horror films that I grew up with as a kid. With “Dr. Karnstein’s Creation” set in Transylvania, 1957, we’re presented with a clever fusion between Frankenstein and the most infamous creature of the night, Dracula complete with torch wielding locals hellbent on turning the tables on the mad doctor who resides in the castle. Another fine performances in this section, notably from Jim Tavaré.
The Diagnosis:
You can tell that the creators are a lover of their subject and embellish Mary Shelley’s story for a modern generation whilst still staying faithful to its origins. Director/writer Glut carves up four fantastic stories that reawaken the macabre moments that made Frankenstein a household name in horror and celebrates 200 years, highlighting the reasons why this ageless tale will never die.
I have to say that I honestly don’t think I’ve had this much fun watching a movie at the cinemas for quite some time. Sure, this little movie does a lot to stretch the realms of believability, especially bearing in mind that there is supposed to be a category 5 hurricane bearing down on our father-daughter duo battling for survival, and some of the actions of the killer crocs also fall into question, but by the time this all unfolds I’m willing to forgo these discrepancies and this has a lot to do with the time and care taken into building character and history, so that your focus is on backing them against the odds.
The strength of the actors portraying the afore-mentioned father (Barry Pepper) and daughter (Kaya Scodelario) should also be acknowledged as they share the brunt of the on-screen time to portray the broken family dynamic that has formed between the two of them. Once inseparable as Hayley has been pursuing a swimming career, backed by her one-time coach, and father, Dave. Time and circumstances have allowed them to drift apart, but when crisis hits (in the form of that hurricane) Hayley ventures to find her father, who is failing to answer his phone. She soon discovers that he has had some kind of accident in the crawl space of the old family home, but that is the least of her worries, as Dave isn’t the only occupant lying under the house. Cue, giant croc.
The screenplay allows the usual pitfalls and obstacles that stand in their way to fight for survival to appear believable, and the bond between the two leads strengthens as they literally find themselves in the foundations of their relationship, to not only find common ground, but also build/fight their way out to the top come hell or highwater.
Hats off too to Alexandre Aja, who back in 2003 entered the horror genre with his hands firmly on the jugular with High Tension and then backed it up with the insane and gloriously over the top The Hills Have Eyes remake, before falling on the wayside with his outings since. Whether, it was working alongside Sam Raimi’s production team, Aja hits his stride once again in Crawl and positions himself as a director who can inject so much pain and torture in his characters that it’s a wonder that anyone can survive such an ordeal. The tension at times is intense and Aja, does enough to crank it to the max when it’s called for and dial it back to allow the characters and his audience to breathe.
The Diagnosis:
For its short running time of just under the 90 minute mark, Aja packs in enough grit, and determination, in this intense, blood-riddled battle for survival, that we can only enjoy the ride.
Like a cabin in the woods filled with a basement of evil paranormal beasties, this latest edition to The Conjuring universe features good ol’ 70s style babysitter shenanigans along with fresh new souls to welcome the return as, Annabelle Comes Home.
First time director, Gary Dauberman, is no stranger to the franchise having been screenwritter for Annabelle (2014), Annabelle: Creation (2017), and The Nun (2018) as well as the co-writer for the remake of Stephen King’s It (2017) and its upcoming sequel It Chapter Two (2019).
Annabelle Comes Home keeps audiences on the edge of their seats with an awesome sound design, some nice fake outs, creepy reveals, great gimmicks – providing you can look past a continuity error when one of the game pieces suddenly changes colour from red to green.
The dust may have settled since the Child’s Play remake was released but the elephant is still clearly standing in the room. This is definitely not a Child’s Play movie.
The vague premise is still there, but there’s no Damballa VooDoo chant, and no rebirth of notorious serial killer, Charles Lee Ray hell bent on stealing a child’s soul and be reborn again.
What’s more, there’s no Brad Dourif providing his nuanced vocal contributions that have become so synonymous with the Chucky character since he was first introduced to movie going audiences back in 1988.
As a horror fan who lived and breathed the golden slasher era of the 80s, it admittedly was hard to come into this modern interpretation without applying my own prejudices and even with the inclusion of the new hope, Mark Hamill to provide the voice, it somehow didn’t feel right to me and whilst I’m fairly open to creating new avenues in a well-established franchise, I struggled to connect with the producers and director’s interpretation this time around. It was as if the personality had been completely stripped out of it and ironically enough the soul of the movie was no longer present. The Damballa failed to inject a new Chucky into the horror mainstream.
With that aside, what are we actually left with? A bitter employee who deliberately sabotages a Chucky doll, in order to bring down the toy company who treated him so poorly, and does so by disabling the Asimov Law that robots can not harm humans. Cue anarchy and bloody mayhem as our new Chucky learns how to be human, including its darkest traits. With no filter, Chucky goes on a rampage in order to be Andy’s best friend.
Speaking of Andy, actor Gabriel Bateman (Annabelle, Lights Out) more than holds his own as the lead protagonist and we do emote with his plight. It’s just a shame that tonally the movie doesn’t go dark enough for us to feel that he is ever in immediate danger. Nor does it inject any decent humour as the franchise has become known for despite the odd moments from Chucky and Detective Mike on occasion. I also would have loved for the creatives to allow Aubrey Plaza who plays Andy’s mum to instal her usual dry, deadpan wit into the proceedings to spice things up a bit.
The death scenes themselves were a little subpar too, whilst Shane’s skinned face moment was kinda cool, you can’t go past this glorious lawn mower death scene in the horror genre in my opinion.
And the whole Mike’s mum trapped in the car thing was just dumb.
By the time all this unfolds we get the climax at the shopping mall, when the Chucky dolls come out in a frenzy (and the bear dolls were kinda fun, but ultimately lacklustre), to orchestrate a face/off (No pun intended, sorry Shane) between Chucky and Andy in order to save his Mum… blah blah blah.
The Diagnosis:
No creator Don Mancini and it shows.
No Brad Dourif and it shows.
No dark and twisted humour to keep the horror fans satiated.
Just a soulless attempt bring the franchise to a modern audience with a vague attempt at commenting on the social media / connected world that we currently reside in and the dangers that lurk within.
It would seem that in a post MeToo age, to make a
statement about a female centric film (regardless of its genre) is to generate
discussion of a lively nature from both sides of the sex divide. From feminists with their shields permanently
on high-alert to whiney little men pissed at the thought of having to give up a
place at the table – it seems there’s not a stance that can’t get attacked.
So, if that’s the case, this review would like to get a few things out of the way before proceeding. Wonder Woman SUUUUCKED. Based purely on storytelling that is trying to at least present something new (as well as good) it is a poorly written film – just listen to some of the dialogue, especially during the boss fight. The (now) disgraced Joss Whedon wrote a version that is easily accessible and INFINITELY better. I won’t go so far as to say it’s a better feminist take that is the Gal Gadot version (although it is, because it doesn’t disrespect WW by offering her substandard scenes and cringeworthy dialogue) but it is certainly a more compelling, wittier and all round better told adventure.
And sexual politics aside that’s what we strive to focus on here at SoH; the story. (And before you go making assumptions, The Ghostbusters remake is good. Really good. Don’t listen to the haters with their invalid “painting eyes on the Mona Lisa” bullshit. Look at it objectively as a story. It is well told and entertaining. Female cast or no female cast – end of).
Anyway… where were we? Oh yes Greta. A film set in New York with 2 female protagonists and a single female supporting cast. It’s not that there are no men in it. There’s a dad and a private eye who are dudes, and they have stuff to do, but really the meaty stuff is for the ladies.
It’s not Bechdel immune, as the young female lead in it –
Frances, played by Chloe Grace Moretz –
talks about her father with her best mate Erica (Maika Monroe) pretty early on, but this is after the opening of the
film which has Frances finding a green handbag on the subway during her work
commute (she is a waitress at a high class restaurant).
Opening up the bag she finds that it belongs to an
elderly French lady named Greta, and being the good-natured soul that she is,
Frances knocks on Greta’s door to return it.
Out of gratitude the older lady invites her in and soon
an unlikely friendship is struck.
Unlikely not because of their different ages, but because this is one of
the few parts of the film that definitely feels forced. The character of Frances has recently lost
her mother, but even that fact seems clumsily written as Greta soon becomes a
surrogate maternal figure to the happy-to-please Frances.
But early on things get flipped when one day whilst
having dinner in Greta’s house Frances finds in a cupboard (in another clunkily
written scene) a number of identical green handbags each with a different young
woman’s name written on them, and each with the EXACT same contents. It’s soon clear that Greta orchestrates these
encounters, and that her interest in younger women lies in psychotic-ville
territory.
From there what ensues is the usual cat ‘n’ mouse
shenanigans associated with this sort of thriller – some executed well, others
not.
Greta herself is admirably performed by veteran Isabelle Huppert – although as can
almost happen every time with these sort of parts – she occasionally spills
over into farce, as does the direction and the writing (seriously, leaving
multiple handbags on the subway with your identity in there to entrap women? As
schemes go it’s about as water tight as a colander trying to sieve lava). And one
melodramatic moment involving Greta turning up to Frances’ work will hit you
flush on the nose.
Yet despite all that you do want to see how it ends, and
there are enough twisty moments (no matter how clumsy) to keep you engaged.
Especially the twisty twist, which is both predictable in
nature, and admirable for the sheer fact it exists.
The Diagnosis:
At the end of the day, Greta is a female centric horror/thriller, but is it any good? Well – as may have previously been mentioned – that depends on the quality of the story. End of.
Taking place within the universe of The Conjuring, The Curse of the Weeping Woman (or The Curse of La Llorona internationally) is the first feature
length work from director Michael Chaves. With strong casting choices
throughout, what would be an otherwise typical film for the genre was
transformed into a well-balanced, well-paced and thoroughly enjoyable experience.
Based upon the Mexican folk story ‘La
Llorona’, or The Weeping Woman, who drowned her two sons in an act of revenge
when jilted by her husband for a younger bride, La Llorona (Marisol Ramirez)
was cursed to roam the Earth searching for children to replace those she lost.
It is said that there is no escape from her once you hear her weeping and feel
her tears against your skin.
Thus we find Anna (Linda Cardellini), a
case worker and single mother to two children following the death of her
husband, when Patricia (played by Patricia Velasquez who was Anck-Su-Namun in The Mummy Franchise… The Brendan Fraser Mummy Franchise… The good one) curses
Cardellini’s children to be the next in La Llorona’s sights, leading her kids
to get the fright of their short lives in a great little car sequence. Strong
performances by Chris (Roman Christou) and his sister Sam (Jaynee-Lynne
Kinchen) who deliver noteworthy scenes throughout the film.
Many innovative effects make an appearance
with a fun sequence near the pool involving an umbrella, using simple masking
techniques that would make Georges Méliès proud, but in the critical eye of our
4k resolution era may come off a little cheesy, yet I find myself applauding
the filmmakers for allowing creative risks to be taken. Another moment that
stays with you is an eerie bathroom scene will see you bathing using the buddy
system.
The pace of the film takes a turn when Anna
seeks out the assistance of former priest Rafael Olvera (Raymond Cruz) who
completely steals the show with his dry wit and deadpan delivery that make you
want to come back for more.
With cinematography by Hollywood royalty Michael
Burgess and James Wan in the producer’s seat you know you’re in for a good
time. Paying homage to recurring themes within the universe to connect stories
in a way that can only advance its reach while at the same time terrifying
audiences.
The Diagnosis:
Not quite scary enough to provoke cardiac
arrest but enjoyable, particularly with a deadpan dose of Raymond Cruz.
Surgeon Richard Lovegrove & Anesthesiologist Kelsi Williams
Surgeons of Horror 