Evil Dead Rise

Sam Raimi’s “Evil Dead” trilogy has always had a sick, evil quality to it. While the first film celebrated the strengths of an extreme, unforgettable cabin in the woods horror, the sequel used the same setting to embrace a strange, darkly comedic feel to raise the boundaries of a realm haunted by Deadites. Despite “Army of Darkness” moving away from the main setting that planted the franchise’s legacy, it gives charms of the slapstick type. It quickly moves towards a strong finish, with two endings (one theatrical and the other being the director’s cut) to choose from.

Debopriyaa Dutta said in her review, “When Fede Alvarez decided to reinvigorate the franchise in 2013 with his darkly grim, endlessly bleak The Evil Dead, it embraced an identity that was very different from Raimi’s films, despite having all the narrative markings that populate the original trilogy. This is not a criticism of Alvarez’s entry at all. Instead, the new reboot offered such a horrifyingly traumatic experience with no respite that it emerged as a cinematic experience that would be rather difficult to replicate. Fast forward to Lee Cronin’s newest entry in the franchise, Evil Dead Rise, a film that carves out a fun, promising, gnarly middle-ground where the nastiest Deadties are allowed to mutate and fester.”

“Evil Dead Rise,” released back in April, starts with a classic Raimi shot that was used in the first two “Evil Dead” films: the hectic fast shot that shows the undead traveling at supernatural speed from a first-person point of view. By immediately making it a fake-out, Cronin makes the tone of his film very clear. We are here to have an enjoyable bloodbath time seeing scalps rip open, the flesh bitten off, and even children become victims to some of the evilest people in the history of horror. This is sure to be a sickeningly enjoyable time.

The focus is changed from the cabin in the woods image to an L.A. apartment that is about to be demolished. Dutta said, “Something is unsettling about the space from the get-go, as the building seems to be on its last legs, somehow preternaturally aware of the horrors that are about to go down within it in a few hours.” Musician Beth (Lilly Sullivan) finds out that she’s pregnant, and this surprise makes her want to visit her sister Ellie (Alyssa Sutherland) and her three kids.

Despite being happy to see each other, Ellie and Beth appear to have some unknown tension between them. Dutta mentioned, “While Beth is frustrated that her sister does not take her career seriously and only deems her a “groupie,” Beth’s absence miffs Ellie, particularly during the difficult time of separation from her husband.” However, a more incredible, unimaginable source of horror is about to separate this family apart, no matter how much love they have for one another.

Dutta noted, “The Necronomicon Ex-Mortis, or The Book of the Dead, is the literal catalyst for the rise of evil in the Evil Dead franchise.” Cronin uses this story to get this film going. However, everything that happens after that is a completely new area.

Here, we have two sisters and three children thrown into this insanity, with Deadite Ellie haunting her children in a way we have never seen before in the franchise. There’s no mercy: nobody is safe, not even the children, and it does not matter whether fates are deserved or not.

Trapped inside the apartment, Beth must step up to protect the kids from their mother, who won’t stop before every one of them is dead (or undead). As you may have guessed, Ellie is gone, and Mommy is with the dead now. Dutta said, “What wears her face is a conniving, ruthless demon who will crawl through vents and chomp off necks without hesitation.”

Every Deadite in the franchise is unique. We have Deadite Cheryl mocking Ash Williams in “Evil Dead,” deliberately haunting Ash’s humanity to mock his empathy, while Deadite Mia of the reboot purges a large amount of blood and splits her tongue with a box-cutter before kissing a traumatized Natalie.

Dutta mentioned, “In Evil Dead Rise, Deadite Ellie is an unstoppable force: her body contorts like a marionette, she mocks and coos to her children to manipulate and terrorize them, and she’s ready to turn anyone who stands in her way. Sutherland is sublime in the role, as she brings an edge of menace to the character, alternating between darkly comedic scares and truly unsettling evil machinations.”

Dutta continued, “Evil Dead Rise sports a healthy amount of violence and gore, but I wouldn’t say it necessarily tops Mia slicing The Abomination in half with a chainsaw as blood rains on her sequence in The Evil Dead.” However, there is plenty you can expect, as the film raises the terror of a small space with the dangers given by everyday household objects, such as the bathtub, a gas stove, and a particularly dangerous cheese grater. Eyes are about to be gouged out, chainsaws are started, and mutated, combined amount of Deadites emerges as the final villain in this film of blood, guts, and gore.

Dutta said, “Cronin plays a cat-and-mouse game with the audience, cleverly staging shots that sufficiently elevate what could have been yet another underwhelming apartment horror where a loving family unit is torn asunder. The man loves split diopter shots, and all of them (there is a handful) are exceptionally well done. Body horror is used to induce pure, unadulterated fear while never forgetting to have fun with it.”

“Evil Dead Rise” makes an already-solid horror franchise even stronger and introduces new, evil nightmares to the spirit. As the blood spills, the fun seems to have only begun.

This is a welcome change to the franchise. It goes back to what made this franchise great. The remake was so horrible that this film will redeem the franchise for you. If there are going to be sequels to this, which looks like it will be, I will be happy. I think the way this film was done; it will scare people and you will be on the edge of the seat to see these people survive. See this on Max and you will love it, I promise.

Happy Halloween everyone. I hope everyone enjoyed my reviews this month. I hope everyone was safe tonight trick-or-treating, but make sure you didn’t get too much candy. I will see you next month with what I will review next.

Renfield

Get ready, because there’s yet another new take on Dracula. However, there is no need to brace yourself, because “Renfield,” which came out in April, feels surprisingly fresh.

Nicholas Hoult is the tortured protagonist and loyal servant to the Count, played by Nicolas Cage, who’s taking it up a whole lot with his solo brand of disturbed joy. Andrea Thompson said in his review, “Renfield leans right into the campy, homoerotic side of things; instead of leaving the hapless lunatic gibbering in an asylum, this Dracula took Renfield into high society and even gave him a taste of his power and strength as his familiar.”

True, there are cons like any addiction, where it hurts both Renfield and the people around him, and forces him into a relationship that’s dangerous as it is codependent. Thompson noted, “It’s also wickedly funny, with Cage absolutely selling the gaslighting nature of Dracula’s insistence that Renfield is the true monster, and that the one who openly craves innocent blood and world domination is the true victim.”

Renfield has already begun wanting something different for himself by the time he meets and saves the life of a committed moralistic cop Rebecca, played by Awkwafina. Unfortunately, encountering each other means the Lobo crime family she wants to take down, headed by matriarch Bellafrancesca (Shohreh Aghdashloo) and son Tedward (a standout Ben Schwartz), also encounters Dracula, and it’s a true meeting of the villains.

Thompson mentions, “Action-hungry audiences can count on getting their fix long before the final showdown, with limbs flying in a fashion that owes much to Sam Raimi, along with plenty of salutes to Dracula’s onscreen history, which have been seamlessly digitally altered to include Hoult and Cage in a contribution that will likely stand the test of time even as it embodies our current moment. Let the laughs and the darkly comedic bloodshed flow, because there’s no shortage of either in Renfield.”

Seeing this movie was a treat. I admit this is not very good, but I had fun watching it. This was an enjoyable action comedy that I would suggest everyone check out. I think you will have a hilariously good time seeing this. This was supposed to be on Peacock, but I think I missed the time it was on there. However, it is available to stream currently on Amazon Prime, so check it out there.

Next week I will be ending “Halloween Month 2023” with a sequel to a franchise that I surprisingly got afraid of while watching. Sorry for the late posting. I was so tired after work that I kept taking naps. 

Carrie (2013)

John Fink started his review by saying, “It’s been awhile since I’ve seen Brian De Palma’s Carrie, but I’m not sure a remake is necessary, even if it’s made by a filmmaker I greatly admire, despite her slow output. Kimberly Peirce arrived on the indie scene with her masterpiece Boys Don’t Cry in 1999, a confident, brilliant first feature. Eight years later she made the important Stop-Loss, a film that, like her debut, was a exploration of masculinity and another bold psychological study of landscape.”

The 2013 remake of “Carrie,” however, is nice, but unnecessary. Fink admitted, “It’s a mainstream film that has some interesting, original touches, yet isn’t quite the gender study remake I was hoping for from Peirce. I’d imagine with Sony and MGM as backers and a wide release there are only so many places where you can experiment without alienating your audience. When filmmaker Jennifer Montgomery made Deliver, an exceptional all-female remake of Deliverance, she did so with a small crew and a cast of her friends (all of which were experimental filmmakers) — unlike Carrie, that film will never screen at your local Regal Cinemas.”

That aside, the film is a lot better directed than your average horror remake. Is it fair to hold Peirce, whose first feature was groundbreaking, to a higher standard? Fink said, “While I don’t have that answer, on one hand I wish she were free to continue to make the kinds of film she wants to make. Arguably, we could apply the same standard to Karyn Kusama, who directed another groundbreaking film released a year after Boys Don’t Cry, Girlfight, yet she’s gone on to make Aeon Flux and Jennifer’s Body. As there are too few female directors working today and even fewer in horror, perhaps we can view Carrie and Jennifer’s Body as mainstream canvases for subversion.”

The basic story remains the same, coming from Stephen King’s book and De Palma’s story (in fact, De Palma’s original screenwriter, Lawrence D. Cohen, is co-credited). Carrie (Chloë Grace Moretz) is formerly home-schooled by a strict mother (Julianne Moore), unaware of herself and society, told via well-directed slow-motion shots. Unexpectedly, she gets her period in the shower during gym class and the video is recorded by her arch-enemy Chris, played by Portia Doubleday). Saved by her gym teacher, played by Judy Greer, she’s given the talk and sent home. As you may guess, Sue uploads the video in a cyber-bully twist. Gabriella Wilde and Ansel Elgort play Sue and Tommy, two kids who feel bad for Carrie, and the former agrees to stay home so the latter can take Carrie to prom. Everything already knows what happens next.

While the third act fails to get across what De Palma did so well, the attention to detail, including close-ups that try to affect the experiences of Carrie and her mother Margaret, is effective. Fink said, “The performances and casting are suitable – Moretz is one of the most daring young actresses working today in Hollywood, taking on roles that are, quite frankly, disturbing — but Carrie is half the film I’d hope Peirce would make of it. She’s clearly having fun making this story partly her own, but it does make one nostalgic for the golden age of independent cinema where anything could happen.” Undeniably, “Boys Don’t Cry” is still a significantly more interesting and horrifying film and one that no studio would even fathom to reboot.

As you may have already guessed, I think the original is far superior to this remake. What I didn’t like about this remake is how they focused on the kids getting their prom clothing, which was superfluous, and they made Carrie’s telekinesis in the remake look like something out of a comic book. The actors are fine, but Moretz and Moore don’t hold a candle to how amazing and believable Spacek and Laurie were in their roles. The original will leave an impact on you, but this one will make you think why you saw this. I would suggest not to see this on Max, as it is not worth seeing.

Look out Friday when I look at a comedy that I know has problems, but I enjoyed for the most part, in “Halloween Month 2023.”

 

Haunted Mansion

Tonight, on Disney+, I saw “Haunted Mansion,” which came out in July but on Disney+ at the beginning of the month. How is the second attempt at the famous Disney Park ride?

Sean P. Means said in his review, “With the box-office success of “Barbie,” Hollywood studios are once again looking to their existing intellectual property — the past books, movies, TV shows, video games, toys and other franchises — to save their financial skins.”

Means continued, “Before the suits get too excited, though, maybe they should look at Disney’s “Haunted Mansion” as a cautionary tale of what happens with bad IP happens to good people.”

This is Disney’s second attempt at making a feature-length comedy action movie based on the Disneyland attraction – and apparently, no one in Disney’s studios remembers the one from 2003, starring Eddie Murphy, which was terrible. (Means mentioned, “There was a Disney+ special in 2021, “Muppet Haunted Mansion,” which I’m willing to try someday because it’s the Muppets — and because it’s only 52 minutes long.”)

The mansion in this film is bought online by Gabbie (Rosario Dawson), a widowed New York doctor, who is relocating to New Orleans with her 9-year-old son Travis (Chase W. Dillon). However, after one night in their new house, they realize it’s haunted by a lot of ghosts – some scarier than others – and that the ghosts follow them if they leave.

Gabbie starts looking around for someone who can make the ghosts go away. First, she asks a priest, Father Kent, played by Owen Wilson, who may be not fit for the job. Father Kent finds Ben Matthias (LaKeith Stanfield), an astrophysicist who now does walking tours of haunted New Orleans landmarks – a job he took over from his wife, Alyssa (Charity Jordan), who dies just after the movie’s opening.

Ben has invented a camera that shoots spectral images that could, theoretically, get images of ghosts.

Because of Ben’s hesitance, and still mourning his loss, Gabbie and Father Kent find more people to help: Harriet (Tiffany Haddish), a psychic who knows a little about spells, and Professor Bruce Davis (Danny DeVito), a history professor who knows about New Orleans’ ghostly real estate problems. It’s through Harriet that the group meets Madame Leota (Jamie Lee Curtis), a disembodied head in a crystal ball who knows the spell that could end the haunting – and bring down the evil Hatbox Ghost (Jared Leto, under a lot of prosthetics and computer animation).

Means notes, “The screenplay, by Katie Dippold (“Ghostbusters: Answer the Call”), hits all the familiar touchstones of the Disneyland ride — the hitchhiking ghosts, the ghost-filled ballroom, the stretchy living room, and so on.” What’s missing is a plot that connects those ideas logically, or characters we should care about as they run through the story’s maneuvers.

Means mentions, “Meanwhile, director Justin Simien is hamstrung in his first major studio assignment, and brings none of the comic timing he showed in his indie debut, the 2014 college satire “Dear White People.” It doesn’t help that the actors don’t connect, and give the impression that they were randomly kidnapped from the same Hollywood clique and are being forced to finish the movie before they can see their families again.

The movie does end, in a dark array of computer effects. Means ended his review by saying, “Where “Haunted Mansion” fails to generate laughs, it does evoke feelings of terror — mostly the fear that Disney will trot out this IP again in 20 years.”

You would think that the second attempt would be better, after learning from their mistake of what made the first attempt so bad. However, this attempt turned out to be worse, if you can believe that. Don’t watch this film, as it will have you asking why this was made. However, there are some humanizing moments here, but they get quickly shattered by their funny remarks or other ridiculous things. Just avoid this film because this film is a waste of time. Not right for Halloween time.

Now that we got this out of the way, tune in tomorrow when I talk about the “Carrie” remake in “Halloween Month 2023.”

The Rage: Carrie 2

The film starts with a crazy woman, played by J. Smith-Cameron, painting her house red. She then slaps her daughter, played by Kayla Campbell, in the face with the oily brush. This causes the police to take away the crazy mother and the young girl, Rachel, taken to a foster home. When she grows up, Rachel (Emily Bergl) loathes her abusive adoptive parents (Kate Skinner and John Doe), dresses in dark gothic clothes, and is comforted only by her Basset Hound, Walter. At school, her best friend is Lisa, played by Mena Suvari, a similarly distant person who reveals on the bus that she lost her virginity to a guy that Rachel would be shocked about.

The next morning, Lisa jumps off the roof of the school onto a car windshield. Her suicide scares apparent boyfriend Eric Stark, played by Brad Taylor from “Home Improvement,” Zachary Ty Bryan, a popular member of the high school football team, the Bulldogs. He asks the leader Mark Bing, played by Dylan Bruno, to get some photographs from the local PhotoMat, where Rachel works, that show Eric and Lisa together. Lisa had the feeling that she meant something to Eric, but she was just one of a long list of girls that the football team used to form a game of scoring points based on the girls they slept with. Mike Massie said in his review, “As more elements of stress are introduced into Rachel’s life, her sanity begins to unravel. These components include popularity issues, unease around the jock she likes, Jesse Ryan (Jason London), and news that her real father was also the father of Carrie White, a girl who was blamed for burning down the old high school (using the same genetic recessive trait of telekinesis that Rachel also possesses – and of course, the scenario for 1976’s “Carrie”).”

Maybe the only funny part of “The Rage: Carrie 2,” released in 1999, that has any relevancy or connection with the original Stephen King cult classic of the 70s is the return of Amy Irving as Sue Snell, the only significant survivor from the previous film. Massie noted, “Laughably, she mentions her own mental trauma that resulted in prescribed time at Arkham Asylum, which, regardless of spelling, sounds entirely too similar to Batman’s renowned psychopath sanctuary.” Now, she’s a school counselor who identifies Rachel’s abilities and wants to take her to a lab at Princeton for treatment.

Massie noted, “This loose sequel, arriving a staggering 23 years after the success of Brian de Palma’s thriller, essentially dispenses with the horror and entertainment value of its predecessor, repeating a similar plotline with a new lead girl. Her torment is slightly more modernized, though the creativity is diminished to spoofing “Scream,” while flashbacks (from both inside and outside the movie) foreshadow the other sporadic recreations of the past.” Black and white shots are strangely inserted in the film, some from Rachel’s point of view and others apparently from an outside perspective. Massie ended his review by saying, “It’s as if the movie can’t play by its own rules of cinematographic stylization. Slow motion is misused, funky jazz music springs up at the most ridiculous moments, and the climax is infused with comically over-the-top, graphic violence. The goofiness is perpetuated by bad acting, silly facial expressions, and too many “American Pie” cast members, making this a most unnecessary recycling of a seminal horror masterwork.”

Why was there even a need to make a sequel to “Carrie?” Did anything in the film leave any indication that there will be a sequel? Did we need to know what happened to Sue after being traumatized at her senior prom? Nothing in this movie makes any sense. It makes you scratch your head asking what the people were on when making this. This is one of those unnecessary sequels that you should never see. I heard about this when Nostalgia Critic did his list of the best Stephen King movies. I cannot believe that I checked this out this month. Avoid seeing this on Max as you will hate every minute of it.

Sad to say, they made a remake of “Carrie,” which I will look at on Monday in the continuation of “Halloween Month 2023.”

Carrie (1976)

Brian De Palma’s adaptation of Stephen King’s novel of a young high school girl and social outcast with telekinesis is hands down the film that first saved the director the recognition that would see him become one of the most famous filmmakers of his generation. Categorized as a horror when it was released in 1976, the film undeniably inserted into the fast-growing superhero genre being the story of a telekinetic teenager but in 1976 we were still two years away from Christopher Reeve being Superman.

The film starts at Bates High School volleyball court where our teenage protagonist is intentionally ridiculed by her fellow students for losing the game for them. From there, we go to the girl's public showers where Carrie, to her shock, gets her first period not having any prior understanding of this part of herself, only to be heavily antagonized by all the girls. This is where we see the first short look at what separates Carrie from the rest of the high school students, her developing telekinetic abilities.

This young cast includes a young John Travolta who plays the selfish boyfriend of Carrie’s worst enemy, the evil snarky Chris Hargensen, played by Nancy Allen who would become one of De Palma’s regular (and his wife at one point). Sissy Spacek plays this role perfectly in such shaded innocence as the tortured Carrie. Spacek would separate herself from the rest of the cast during filming, working on her strange body language to perfect her performance as the painfully introverted teenager. Betty Buckley gives some well-needed sympathy as the caring Miss Collins who helps Carrie while inside hating the bullies who torture her. Seeing Buckley slap Allen was really satisfying and I replay that part over and over just to laugh.

The real horror of this film is the strictly religious Margaret White, played by the late Piper Laurie (who we sadly lost a few days ago), who gives a memorable performance as Carrie’s abusive mother. Everything about Laurie’s performance shows unease and discomfort. The motivations for her loathing of everything fleshly and her extreme radicalism are unclear but don’t need to be explained in any great detail. Does she feel like she needs to torment, force, and control her gentle and helpless daughter because she somehow knows and is afraid of Carrie’s secret? This question is never answered and it’s this potentially unmotivated insanity that makes her character all the more outrageous.

Skye Wingfield said in her review, “De Palma’s later trademark technical flourishes aren’t really in full effect here but his direction is still confident and assured. Frequent use of the split diopter, a favoured technique of the director, sits alongside some effective use of panning crane work and some lean editing – the film flies by at a brisk pace with no fat on the meat or sense of lagging. The slow motion lead up to the fateful bucket drop effectively ramps up the tension to suitably nail biting levels. This is amplified by Pino Donaggio’s score which, for the most part, is perfectly suited with a sense of melancholy but in places is hardly subtle with the on-the-nose use of the same harsh strings that Hitchcock used in Psycho’s infamous shower scene, used here to accompany Carrie’s telekinetic outbursts.”

When one of Chris’s friends, Sue (Amy Irving) convinces her boyfriend, Tommy (William Katt) to ask Carrie to the prom, everything is set in place that will at first authorize Carrie but will also give Chris the chance to show just how much she loathes Carrie. Wingfield mentioned, “It’s a cruel piece of subterfuge to see her veil of shyness temporarily lifted at the prom as she experiences a brief moment of joy before Chris’ evil prank is sprung upon Carrie as she is anointed prom queen. But it’s Carrie who has a swift and brutal revenge as her pent up rage is unleashed in a flurry of telekinetic fury.” The pure wide-eyed strength of Spacek’s performance here is very satisfying however some of her victims are those who really cared for Carrie, and this only serves to add to the tragedy.

The film’s most satisfying moment comes when Carrie confronts her mother for the final time and finds revenge in a few well-placed kitchen knives. The image of Margaret White pinned in a crucifixion pose is a satisfyingly fitting end for her character.

Wingfield said, “Carrie is often marked out as a horror film but it doesn’t conform to many of the standard horror conventions nor is it really very frightening save for the hand coming up through the ground which ends the film with a suitably effective jolt shock. The film’s themes of teen angst, religious fanaticism and telekinesis meld well into a cohesive whole that, at the time of its release, was refreshingly unique. Carrie’s influence carried through to the director’s subsequent 1978 film The Fury and Carrie author Stephen King’s own Firestarter in 1984. Even today, films such as Josh Trank’s 2012 film, Chronicle bear some striking similarities to De Palma’s film.”

“Carrie” remains a great film in the vast De Palma filmography. Wingfield admitted, “It isn’t the director’s best film in my opinion but it has aged well and features great performances from Spacek and Laurie as well as some enduring and iconic imagery.” This isn’t easy to watch because of the amount of sympathy the film gives toward Carrie whose life is an ongoing cycle of suffering but that’s definitely what adds to the overall discomfort the film creates and therefore part of its appeal as a virtual horror/thriller. De Palma’s film has carried these 47 years well and for those wanting to become familiar with the great director’s filmography, this is as good a starting point as any. Wingfield ended her review by saying, “Carrie earns my very firm recommendation as a classic of the horror genre.”

I don’t know why this would be categorized in the horror genre. This film was not scary at all. As I mentioned before, this is one of the saddest films I have ever seen. I felt so bad for Carrie, who is a completely normal kid who is wrongfully abused and ridiculed by everyone around her. Spacek was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress, and Laurie for Best Supporting Actress. To see Tommy and Miss Collins have genuine feelings for Carrie was great. The prom made it look like Carrie was going to finally get the respect that she needed, but just seeing it build up to another prank was just wrong. All she needed was love and acceptance from everyone, but she never got it. However, the prom scene is the most memorable, and those who have not seen this movie know about that part. It’s like witnessing all your inner rage just explode on screen after being pushed to the edge. Let this be a lesson to everyone to not pick on the quiet kid, or any of your classmates in general. Still, after seeing the film, you can’t blame Carrie for doing what she did. I first heard about this film from James Rolfe and the Nostalgia Critic. After seeing Nostalgia Critic mention this film, I had to go and see it for myself. Unfortunately, I saw it On Demand, which was censored for TV, so I didn’t see the nudity and the swearing was censored. If you have a Max account, see this on there, it’s a must. You only need to see it once, then never again because it will stay with you forever. If you cry while watching this film, I won’t be surprised. I didn't, but I was really sad at the cruelty Carrie went through. This film has the line, “They're all going to laugh at you.”

Strangely, this film had a sequel, which made you think why they would do that. Let’s see how that was on Friday when we continue “Halloween Month 2023.”

Spy Kids: Armageddon

Tonight, I checked out “Spy Kids: Armageddon,” which came out on Netflix last month. As all of you may remember, I have not been a fan of the past couple of sequels. How is this one compared to the previous ones?

It’s been almost fifteen years since there was a new “Spy Kids” sequel and one of the last times Robert Rodriguez released a film theatrically (he’s been releasing them on Netflix). Sadly, these days Robert Rodriguez seems more focused on making low-budget kids available entertainment more than anything else, and “Spy Kids: Armageddon” lets him accomplish both of those. Not only is he able to continue his streak of average family films, but he also gets to resurrect his long quiet action franchise for a new generation.

And the results are particularly a mixed film.

Siblings Patty (Everly Carganilla) and Tony Torrez (Connor Esterson) are the children of Nora (Gina Rodriguez) and Terrence (Zachary Levi), two of the world’s greatest secret agents. After they unknowingly help powerful game developer Rey Kingston, played by Billy Magnussen, unleash a worldwide computer virus that gives him control of all technology, Patty and Tony train to become spies themselves to save their now-captured parents, as well as rescue the world from living under Rey’s unending video game.

Felix Vasquez said in his review, “It’s pretty clear by now that Rodriguez isn’t making his movies for all audiences, as he’s aiming mainly for the streaming audiences between the ages of 8-11. And it shows as he co-writes the movie with his son Racer Rodriguez. That’s both a pro and a con, as while Rodriguez has insight in to the younger mind set, the movie often sounds like it was written by a twelve year old. The dialogue is often stagnant and you can just feel the actors trying to force out clumsy interplay and attempts to muster up tension. As I mentioned, so much of “Spy Kids: Armageddon” is a mixed bag. There’s so much to like about the movie, but there’s also so much that keeps it from reaching the bar that the original trio of movies set.”

Vasquez continued, “So much of the plot feels old hat and recycled from previous films. We’ve seen so much of these plot elements and spy gags before and to a better degree with the goofy weaponry—correction: “Gadgets,” as well as the obligatory robot sidekick. There’s also the villain who is a rotten master gamer, which we pretty much saw in “Spy Kids 3D.” Despite Magnussen's threatening in his way, Stallone just did it better. Also, Rodriguez is a fan of the same boring story. It’s always a rich family that takes on a bad guy who is usually a grumpy, juvenile man who is always evil because of some past grudge toward the spy family or just kids in general.

Vasquez pointed out, “Rodriguez has yet to explore the out of the ordinary family. There are families out there with one parent, mixed race parents, interfaith parents, and often kids can be raised by their aunts and uncles, or grandparents. I’d love to see Rodriguez spotlight a family where the kids realize that their grandfather who raised them is a world famous spy like James Bond or something. The whole sense of self awareness is also completely gone, in favor of more sugary wholesomeness that does everything to evade any sense of danger.” The original film had Danny Trejo training the kids, and now it is computers.

Vasquez ended his review by saying, “That said, the special effects are neat, and I enjoyed a lot of the goofy monsters and robots that Rodriguez hurls at us at almost lightning fast speeds. His monsters and villains tend to be pretty inventive all things considered. It’s pretty obvious “Spy Kids: Armageddon” just isn’t meant for me, but in the end it’s not Rodriguez’s worst film. I just wish he’d retire the formula and start thinking of introducing different kinds of families he can expose his young audience to. It’s a big world out there.”

As you may have guessed, this isn’t as good as the first movie. However, compared to some of the sequels in the franchise, this one is better. However, that’s not to say that this is a good movie. This is just an average sequel. Not good, but not bad, just ok. I don’t think it would hurt to see this, but you might already be able to guess the plot points and cliches early on. Especially when the resolution at the end makes you just say, “Well, of course.” However, I still like the training montages and the action scenes. Even though the story is borrowed heavily from the first and third movies, it still won’t hurt to see it. Check it out and see it for yourself.

Thank you for reading my blog tonight. Stay tuned tomorrow for the continuation of “Halloween Month 2023.”

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

As a companion work to “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” Francis Ford Coppola custom-made (as producer) “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein,” released in 1994, and offered the directing job to lead actor Kenneth Branagh. Peter Canavese said in his review, “By making somewhat of a Wellesian splash on stage and film, Branagh had gained popularity as the premiere film interpreter of Shakespeare in the late eighties and early nineties. In addition to films of Henry V and Much Ado About Nothing, Branagh had, by 1994, put out an ambitious, gregarious neo-noir called Dead Again, and so the thought of the director tackling a classic thriller made sense.” Even though Branagh’s film “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” was met with anger, its over-the-top Gothic majesty was a bold and not entirely unsuccessful attempt to bring back Shelley’s original story.

Canavese noted, “Branagh's is the rare film version of Shelley's 1818 novel to preserve most of its shape and content.” Starting with a Shelley quotation about the story’s attempt to delve into “the mysterious fears of our nature,” Branagh’s version moves on to the novel’s framing device involving Captain Robert Walton, played by Aidan Quinn, an obsessive explorer “the dawn of the Nineteenth Century” who risks the lives of his team during an expedition to the North Pole. Freezing, Walton finds Dr. Victor Frankenstein, played by an occasionally overripe Branagh, who asks Walton, “Do you share my madness?” Canavese said, “Frankenstein means the obsessive pursuit of greatness and fame, a theme developed in the cautionary tale he tells Walton about hubris and an uncontained "lust for knowledge." Traumatized by the apparent unfairness of death, young Frankenstein resolves to unlock the secrets of life so that he can bring back close ones who have passed. The definitive story of a man playing God, the Father, Frankenstein details the experiment that goes wrong because of the end product of his creation of “The Creature,” played by Robert De Niro (intense and effective).

Canavese mentioned, “Branagh wisely preserves the post-Shelley tradition of having Frankenstein create his creature from spare human parts stitched together and shot through with electricity; Shelley's vague description of the monster's creation wouldn't do on film, and the rooting in pseudo-science underlines the story's critique of humanity's unchecked technological advance during the Industrial Revolution.” The screenplay by Steph Lady and Frank Darabont (who said this was the best script he ever wrote but the worst movie he ever saw) showcases Frankenstein’s household background in Geneva (with his father, played by Ian Holm) and his influential years spent alongside his girlfriend, Elizabeth, well played by Helena Bonham Carter. Frankenstein goes off to the University of Ingolstadt med school (motto: “Knowledge is power only through God”), where the great Robert Hardy and John Cleese compete for Victor’s work, at least where it is about medical morality and ethics. It is also here that Victor makes friends with loyal Henry Clerval, played by Tom Hulce.

Canavese noted, “Tragedy, scientific fervor, and self-aggrandizing drive lead Victor to piece together the Creature, whose spare parts derive from a great mind and an crazed homicidal malcontent (also De Niro). Truly the sum of his parts, The Creature has a poetic soul yearning to understand its existence—what he is and why he was created—but also a volatile killer instinct.” “You gave me these emotions. But you didn’t tell me how to use them,” he tells Frankenstein. “Who am I?” As in the novel, The Creature studies a human family and, despite the generosity of a kind blind man, played by Richard Briers, quickly becomes a victim of disrespect and abuse. Recognizing that Victor has punished him to a tragic life in the shadows, The Creature demands but one thing of his creator: a bride. Canavese said, “In following this train of thought beyond the source novel, the film compounds the tragedy by extrapolating the consequences of "father" and "son"'s shared desire for a lifelong mate.”

Canavese continued, “Branagh's ambitious take succeeds as a cautionary tale about true monstrosity: hubris and man's inhumanity to man. But one man's operatic style is another man's unintentionally comical excess, and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein certainly tempts fate with its dizzying camerawork (the cinematography's by Roger Pratt, who shot Brazil), heart-pounding energy (a tip of the hat to composer Patrick Doyle), and theatrical, grand-scale sets (thank production designer Tim Harvey) and costumes (James Acheson).” Still, if the worst one can say about the film is that it tries too hard, that isn’t all that bad. After all, it is, arguably, the famous Gothic horror story and Branagh and team are smart enough to put in every bit of its intense, durable importance (Canavese noted, “literally sticky in the case of the amniotic fluid Frankenstein uses as a birthing solution”). Truly it can be said of Branagh’s version, “It’s alive. It's alive!”

You could probably have mixed feelings about this film, which I understand. I had heard about this movie for quite some time and I was thinking of seeing it. Then, I think, last year I saw this film on Hulu. If you have a premium subscription, you can see this on Hulu. This is a good movie to see as it does stick to the book for the most part. Don’t listen to all the bashing critics gave it. Just see it and judge for yourself, as I think it is worth seeing. I did read the book when I was in college, so this does capture the madness. However, it would be debatable if this or the made-for-television film got the book right. Both are good in their way.

Next Monday I will be looking at a Stephen King adaptation that I didn’t find scary but sad. I think you know which one I’m talking about. All will be revealed on Monday in the continuation of “Halloween Month 2023.”

Frankenstein (1993)

Ten years ago, James Rolfe did a review of a made-for-television film, “Frankenstein.” He mentioned it premiered on TNT on June 13, 1993. That same month, TNT was running “MonsterVision” every Saturday night, and they showed “Frankenstein” as an encore showing. I remember reading Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, and this film is very close to the book and is a contender for one of the adaptations that is closest to the book. However, like all novel adaptations, this one does have many differences.

Patrick Bergin plays Victor Frankenstein, who ranges his acting ability when playing this role. During the cholera epidemic, he tells his friend, Dr. Clerval, played by Lambert Wilson, that he has discovered the meaning of life in his laboratory. Much to the doubt of Clerval, Frankenstein creates the monster, who he believes after running tests, will be like him, minus his flaws. The novel doesn’t describe how Frankenstein creates his monster and it is left vague. However, in this adaptation, Frankenstein creates his monster through a cloning device in a tank of water. Unlike the novel where Frankenstein is repelled by his creation and abandons the monster, this film, once again, shows the monster running from the lab after breaking out of the tank of water.

Randy Quaid plays Frankenstein’s monster, who is somebody that you do feel sympathy for. However, as a result of cloning the monster, Frankenstein and the monster are connected, like E.T. and Elliott. Whenever one gets hurt, the other feels it. When the monster is near, Frankenstein senses it. I think this is a nice idea the filmmakers had thought of for this adaptation. If you have seen the 1931 “Frankenstein” movie and remember the part where the monster accidentally drowns a little girl, in this adaptation, the monster saves a little girl from drowning, only to get shot at by the parents.

John Mills plays De Lacey, the blind man who befriends the monster, allows him to stay in his cottage, and teaches him everything he needs to know. That is until the monster is being tracked by people for a reward and De Lacey tells the monster to run away.

One thing this film includes, which most adaptations do not, is that the monster kills Frankenstein’s brother, William, played by Timothy Stark. His girlfriend, Justine, played by Jacinta Mulcahy, is so traumatized due to being a witness to what happened, that she commits suicide. Frankenstein tracks down the monster, only for the monster to tell Frankenstein to create a bride for him.

This is all during when Frankenstein is having a great time loving Elizabeth, played by Fiona Gillies, and proposes to her. Frankenstein uses Elizabeth to clone the bride, but it puts her in so much pain that he aborts the creation, causing the monster to get enraged, crash through the ceiling, and destroy the lab. This is where the connection doesn’t seem to work because everything the monster does in the lab does not affect Frankenstein.

When the monster kills Elizabeth on Frankenstein’s wedding night, it causes Frankenstein to go on an act of revenge against his creation and chases him to the North Pole.

For a made-for-television movie, this is some intense material. However, this is not that bad. I seriously think it faithfully brings the pages to the novel on screen, and the main actors ham it up, acting like they want to win awards for their roles.

I’m surprised at how underrated this film is. No one seems to talk about this compared to other Frankenstein adaptations. Maybe it is because the next year, “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” was theatrically released, and that became the more popular version. That film was produced by Francis Ford Coppola and had very famous actors playing the roles. The 1993 “Frankenstein” movie seemed to have been completely forgotten by those who may have watched it, unless there are those, like James Rolfe, who remember it.

I had never heard of this film before James Rolfe reviewed it and I was curious about it that I wanted to watch it. However, I could not find it anywhere. I think this is one of those films that was only released on VHS and was never re-released on DVD or Blu-Ray. However, you can purchase it on YouTube or Amazon Prime. The film never got the recognition it deserved so hopefully I was able to raise awareness on it. If you have a YouTube or an Amazon Prime and want to watch any adaptations of Frankenstein, don’t skip over the 1993 made-for-television film. See it and realize what you have been missing. I bought this film on Prime and watched it while exercising, so I give it a recommendation.

However, how is “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” To find out what I thought about it, stay tuned Friday to find out in the continuation of “Halloween Month 2023.”

Bram Stoker's Dracula

Welcome back everyone to my annual “Halloween Month.” This year, I will probably be posting a review at the beginning and end of the week, like a few years back. Let’s not waste any time because we got some excitement planned.

Think of the outrageous ego of the vampire. He thinks himself so important that he is willing to live forever, even under the lifeless circumstances forced by his condition. Avoiding the sun, sleeping in coffins, feared by everyone, he nurses his dislikes. In “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” the 1992 film by Francis Ford Coppola, the vampire rages at heaven and vows to wait forever for the return of the woman he loves. It does not come to his thoughts that after the first two or three centuries he might not seem at all attractive to her.

The film is inspired by the original Bram Stoker novel, despite the author’s name being in the title for another reason (Another studio owns the rights to Dracula). It starts, as it should, with the tragic story of Vlad the Impaler, who went off to fight the Crusades and returned to find that his beloved wife, hearing he was dead, had committed suicide. Roger Ebert said in his review, “And not just killed herself, but hurled herself from a parapet to a stony doom far below, in one of the many spectacular shots which are the best part of this movie.”

Vlad cannot see the justice in his fate. Ebert mentioned, “He has marched all the way to the Holy Land on God's business, only to have God play this sort of a trick on him. (Vlad is apparently not a student of the Book of Job.) He embraces Satan and vampirism, and the action moves forward to the late Victorian Age, when mankind is first beginning to embrace the gizmos (phonographs, cameras, the telegraph, motion pictures) that will dispel the silence of the nights through which he has waited fearfully for centuries.”

Ebert continued, “Coppola's plot, from a screenplay by James V. Hart, exists precisely between London, where this modern age is just dawning, and Transylvania, which still sleeps unhealthily in the past.” We meet a young attorney, played by Keanu Reeves, who has been asked to go to Dracula’s castle to arrange certain real estate transactions. The previous person who was sent on this task ran into some sort of difficulties…health or something…everything is vague…

Reeves’ carriage, driven by a man whose hands are claws, races at the edges of heights until he is finally discharged in the darkness to be met and taken to Dracula’s castle. There, everything is more or less as we expect it, only much more so. Count Dracula (Gary Oldman) waits here as he has for centuries for the return of his dead bride, and when he sees a photograph of Reeves’ fiancée, Mina Murray (Winona Ryder), he knows his wait has been rewarded at last. She lives again.

Back in London, we meet other characters, including the fearless vampire killer Professor Abraham Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins), and Lucy Westenra (Sadie Frost), a free spirit who has three suitors and is Mina’s best friend. Ebert said, “When Dracula appears in town, Van Helsing's antenna start to quiver.” Then the movie starts a party of visual corruption, where what people do is not nearly as dishonored as how they look while they do them.

Coppola directs with all the stops out, and the actors perform as if afraid they will not be heard on the other televisions of the world. Ebert noted, “The sets are grand opera run riot - Gothic extravaganza intercut with the Victorian London of gaslights and fogbound streets, rogues in top hats and bad girls in bustiers.” Keanu Reeves, as a serious young man of the future, hardly knows what he’s up against with Count Dracula, and neither do we since Dracula happily changes form – from a century-looking geriatric to a presentable young man to a cat and a bat and a wolf.

Ebert noted, “Vampire movies, which run in the face of all scientific logic, are always heavily laden with pseudo-science. Hopkins lectures learnedly on the nosferatu, yet himself seems capable of teleportation and other tricks not in the physics books.” Ryder’s character finds herself being under the terrible spell of the vampire’s need. Many women are enthralled when a man says he has been waiting his entire life for them. However, if he has been waiting four centuries? Ebert noted, “The one thing the movie lacks is headlong narrative energy and coherence.” There is no story we can follow well enough to care about.

There is a chronology of events, as the characters travel back and forth from London to Transylvania, and rendezvous in bedrooms and graveyards. However, Coppola seems more worried about sight and set pieces than with storytelling. Ebert noted, “The movie is particularly operatic in the way it prefers climaxes to continuity.”

Ebert admitted, “Faced with narrative confusions and dead ends (why does Dracula want to buy those London properties in such specific locations?), I enjoyed the movie simply for the way it looked and felt.” Production designers Dante Ferreti and Thomas Sanders have outdone themselves. The cinematographer, Michael Ballhaus, gets into the spirit so completely that he always seems to light with shadows.

Oldman, Ryder, and Hopkins breathe with enthusiasm. Ebert ended his review by admitting, “The movie is an exercise in feverish excess, and for that if for little else, I enjoyed it.”

So many shots, if not all of them, look like something you would want to post all over your walls. It looks amazing and seems to fit with the time. The movie falls the novel closer than a lot of other adaptations since it is told as a series of vignettes, much like the novel tells the story in diary entries and point-of-views from the different characters. Even though the look of Dracula is silly and funny looking, this film is one to be seen. I saw it on Netflix when I was exercising, but you can currently watch this for free on Pluto TV. Check it out if you haven’t because this is one adaptation that you shouldn’t skip over.

Look out on Monday when I review another novel adaptation in “Halloween Month 2023.”

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem

Tonight, on Paramount+, I checked out the new “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem,” which came out theatrically in August and on Paramount+ in the middle of September, and I will all the dudes know how this movie is.

Since their creation over 40 years ago, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles have seen their brand of hilarious, family-targeted action all over six feature films (in three separate timelines) and countless television, comic books, and video games. Despite everything, and each respective creative honoring their spin, the younger, more appropriately teenaged years of the four have rarely been given the main focus.

Peter Gray said in his review, “For Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem, director/co-writer Jeff Rowe (The Mitchells vs. The Machines) and producers and co-writers Seth Rogen (Superbad) and Evan Goldberg (This Is The End) have embraced this adolescent mentality, with both the film’s humour, coming-of-age narrative, and exciting, unorthodox animation all expressing this very temperament; the almost scrapbook-like look of the animated renderings bringing to mind the aesthetic of the recent Spider-Verse films.”

When the film starts, we’re thrown into the action almost immediately, and mainly it looks like “Mutant Mayhem” will hit the ground running, barely giving us enough time to catch up. Thankfully, once Leonardo (Nicholas Cantu), the leader, Donatello (Micah Abbey), the tech expert, Michelangelo (Shamon Brown Jr.), the comic relief, and Raphael (Brady Noon), the hothead of the group, return home from their latest escapade – which includes forgetting their grocery chore to catch a late-night viewing at an outdoor movie theater (the live-action inclusion of “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” making for a nice visual touch) – the film takes a moment to slow down, introducing us to their father figure, Splinter (Jackie Chan) and let us in on their mutated history as animals that were all enhanced by the same chemical ooze.

Splinter doesn’t want the turtles roaming around the city due to his rancor of the human race – we’re told in a flashback regarding how he was treated when he first found the Turtles – so when they befriend high school reporter April O’Neill, voiced by Ayo Edebiri, they know they have to keep this a secret. April's not entirely scared when looking at them is one thing – her being an outcast at school means she’s sympathetic to their feelings – but the rest of the population making nice is another, but the Turtles believe that if they can publicly stop the actions of the criminal mastermind currently wreaking havoc in the city, then the adoration they want will come as their reward.

The criminal mastermind is Superfly, voiced by Ice Cube, a mutant fly who, as Gray describes, “proves to not quite be as shoo-able as the Turtles envisioned.” Not only is Superfly a threatening presence, but his motley crew of fellow mutated animal allies – which includes Bebop (Seth Rogen), Rocksteady (John Cena), Leatherhead (Rose Byrne), Mondo Gecko (Paul Rudd), and Genghis Frog (Hannibal Buress) – are equally as dangerous as they are tempting for Leonardo, Donatello, Michelangelo, and Raphael to consider joining a group that they can relate to.

The idea of the Turtles trying to find their place in society is a relatable story for the teen audience “Mutant Mayhem” is mainly targeting, but it will easily sit with any age group as it speaks to one’s confidence and learning who your group is. Gray noted, “It’s also to the film’s benefit that the Turtles themselves are voiced by teenaged talent, allowing each character to individually shine through believable banter; to call their chemistry organic would be putting it lightly.”

Gray continued, “Furthering its colouring-outside-the-lines personality with a 90s-leaning soundtrack (a fight sequence to the tune of Blackstreet’s “No Diggity” is a highlight), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem is an exciting take on the familiar.” Though occasionally dark and improving a sense of humor that the older crowd will appreciate, Rogen and crew have still intelligently made an action film that speaks to so many ages, without sacrificing any of its truth in the process: it’s so good that we don’t even mind it submits to the now-usual mid-credit sequel tease because, if this is anything to go by, further sequels under these creatives will be welcomed with a loud “Shell yeah!”

All I can say dudes that it has been a while since I have gotten into a TMNT movie. This one should be seen by everyone if they have a Paramount+. I think everyone will like it, and critics have been calling this the best TMNT film. I might agree with them since I enjoyed the action, the serious moments, and the comedy made me laugh every time. See this film to know what I mean. Maya Rudolph is in here voicing another villain.

Thank you for joining in on this really righteous review. Stay tuned this Friday to see what I will review for this year’s “Halloween Month.”