The Monster Squad

“The Monster Squad,” released in 1987, is really fun, it makes you wish you were a kid again. Even though you can never get your childhood back, you can find the joy in being able to appreciate the work that director Fred Dekker and co-writer Shane Black have brought to this horror comedy-adventure targeted at children.

The story is once every century there’s a chance to shift the balance between good and evil – provided if you can find an ancient amulet, a glowing jewel which controls that balance. Can you guess the amulet is in a rundown mansion on the edge of a usual American town? Count Dracula (Duncan Regehr) is so determined to find the amulet that he’s called on other beings – Frankenstein’s Monster (Tom Noonan), Wolfman (Carl Thibault), Gill-Man (Tom Woodruff Jr.) and the Mummy (Michael MacKay) – to help him out.

What Dracula doesn’t know is the Monster Squad, a group of adolescent boys who have formed a fan club that commemorates their favorite monsters. Not surprisingly, when Dracula starts causing trouble, the boys have to fight off evil, because obviously their parents don’t believe in monsters. “The Monster Squad” honors the imagination of children.

The squad is led by Sean, played by Andre Gower. His friends are played by little Michael Faustino, aggressive Robby Kiger, and obese but tough Brent Chalem. Somewhat older – the only one in the group who’s found girls – is cool Ryan Lambert, who joins the squad when he rescues Chalem from some schoolyard bullies, played by Jason Hervey.

Kevin Thomas said in his review, “These are great kids, likably real and not maddeningly precocious in the hard-dying tradition of movie brats.” Tagging along but not really welcome (until they obviously need her) is Sean’s little Phoebe, played by Ashley Bank, who befriends Frankenstein’s Monster, who this time around is innocuous.

Thomas said, “Although “The Monster Squad” has for economy been shot largely on sound stages and back lots, there’s been no stinting on special effects. Visual effects producer Richard Edlund, winner of four Oscars for the “Star Wars” trilogy and “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” has come up with such dazzlers as a vortex that sucks people into another dimension. Monster makeup effects supervisor Stan Winston (another Oscar winner with “Aliens” and “The Terminator” among his credits) is another strong contributor.” His monsters tribute the originals yet seem more individual and more expressive than is usual.

Among the adults are Stephen Macht as Sean’s father, a loving husband and parent but overworked as a cop, and Stan Shaw as Macht’s partner. However, the one human adult who really counts is played by veteran character actor Leonardo Cimino, cast as a lonely old man whom the boys call the Scary German Guy.

Actually, what they don’t realize is that he is a concentration camp survivor who knows about evil firsthand and, far from being scary, is actually willing to help the boys. Thomas credited, “In Cimino’s character the film makers score a point about the dangers of judging by appearances--and they afford a fine actor, so seemingly sinister with his heavy-lidded eyes, a welcome change of pace from his usual villains.”

Thomas continued, “Since “The Monster Squad” has been made in a hearty spirit of spooky make-believe, it seems unnecessary that some of its characters actually die before it’s over.” However, perhaps even more awkward is the film’s PG-13 rating, since it’s preteens for who the film is clearly targeting and that’s the only age group likely to find it scary.

I first heard about this film when James Rolfe reviewed it for Cinemassacre’s Monster Madness. Then, Nostalgia Critic reviewed this for Nostalgia-Ween a few years back. Recently, my brother was asking if I wanted to watch some dumb action film that was enjoyable to watch, and this was one of them. I suggested that we watch this film, so we found it on Pluto TV and we both ended up enjoying it a lot. We were impressed with how good the film looked for the time, especially the effects. It was very much a product of the 80s and it is something that everyone can see and enjoy watching around the Halloween time. Check it out on Pluto TV and enjoy yourselves with this fun 80s monster flick.

Happy Halloween online readers. I hope everyone enjoyed “Halloween Month 2024” as there were a list of films I selected to look at for this month. Stay tuned next month for the continuation of “Buddy Cop Month.”

Venom: The Last Dance

Tonight, I went and saw “Venom: The Last Dance,” which came out five days ago. How is this final installment in the trilogy?

James Berardinelli started his review by saying, “In 2018, an argument could have been made that a Venom-centric movie was sensible, preferably as a lead-in to the expected big-screen clash between the inky symbiont and his web-crawling nemesis, Spider-Man.” (The previous film that showed the two fighting was in Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man 3,” left most fans unimpressed and believing a redo was necessary.) However, in the days before COVID, comic book adaptations were very popular. By the time the first sequel, “Venom: Let There be Carnage,” was released in 2021, the Venom franchise had lost some of the spark (despite the domestic gross was almost identical to that of the original, the international box office was cut in half). Now, with the release of the supposed final sequel in the “trilogy,” there’s a feeling that this franchise is struggling to get to the end. And the anticipated fight with Spider-Man is still not to be seen.

Is this the last time for Tom Hardy’s Eddie Brock and his alter-ego symbiote? That is unknown. The movie gives mixed feelings, almost as if it’s enclosing its bets based on the box office. Hardy is probably done but the Venom character could easily return with or without Brock. As comic book readers will tell everyone, it is a separate being. The movie introduces a new villain, Knull, played by the director of the last film, motion-capture master Andy Serkis, who has very little to do by setting things in motion from deep in the Void, where he is trapped. It looks like Sony might be making him the next Thanos. Let’s see how that turns out.

Narratively, the film is all mover the place. The setup is divided between Eddie, who is running from humans and aliens, and the people working at Area 51. The normal, gentle scientists, represented by Dr. Payne, played by Juno Temple, want to study Venom. The unreasonable, trigger-happy soldiers, represented by Rex Strickland, played by Chiwetel Ejiofor, want to kill him. Berardinelli admitted, “My hope is that Temple and Ejiofor were well-compensated for their work here because both are playing characters that could charitably be described as underwritten and underutilized.”

Meanwhile, deep in the Void, Knull wants out and has sent his pawn, called Xenophages, to locate the key that will allow him to escape his prison. This key, called a “Codex,” is conveniently found inside Eddie (as a result of his having been resurrected by Venom), and a Xenophage, having sensed him, is now on Earth causing damage. There’s a catch, however: the Xenophage can only locate the Codex when it is active (meaning when Venom comes out) so, as long as Eddie stays human, the Xenophage cannot see him. In order to keep his secrecy, he catches a ride with the hippies Martin (Rhys Ifans) and Nova Moon (Alanna Ubach) and their kids (Hala Finley and Dash McCloud), who happen to be on a vacation to find Area 51.

All this is build-up to the necessary huge CGI fight that fills up the final half-hour. Berardinelli said, “It relies so little on real actors doing real acting that it might as well be animated. It’s loud, chaotic, and not the least bit interesting. Perhaps recognizing there’s a problem with audience engagement, writer-turned-director Kelly Marcel (who wrote the other two Venom movies before taking the helm for this one) inserts a flashback montage that serves primarily as a reminder of how much younger Tom Hardy looked when he started on this franchise six years ago.”

There are a few nice distractions during the course of the twisting road trip that makes the outcome of “The Last Dance’s” first hour. There’s a nice fight on top of a flying jetliner, however it’s too short to leave much impact. Venom dances with Mrs. Chen, reprised by Peggy Lu, to a famous ABBA song. Also, there’s a sing-along in the hippy van with the Moon family. Sadly, the most memorable part of the first two “Venom” films – the conversation between Eddie and the symbiont – has been lessened this time around. It’s still there but it looks more like a necessary footnote than an element of the story.

When it comes to bringing Marvel characters and superhero elements to the big screen, Sony has had worse moments. Berardinelli ended his review by saying, “Although it would be difficult to anoint The Last Dance as the worst comic book movie of 2024 (it has to contend with another Sony dud, Madame Web, for that dubious distinction), it’s another indication that the time has come to shut down any and all attempts to expand the Spider-Man universe into anything that doesn’t directly involve Spider-Man. As for Venom, the potential inherent in the creature has been wasted and squandered over the course of three movies and this final installment is the worst offender of all. Even John Travolta circa 1977 couldn’t save The Last Dance.”

Overall, I think this film is ok. I don’t think this is bad, but I did find the action enjoyable and there are a lot of funny moments. However, I do see how it can be considered all over the place and that it doesn’t leave off with the indication that this is the last time we will see Venom. There is a mid-credits scene with Knull and a post-credits scene with a cockroach approaching the broken vial that had the Venom symbiote in it, but I don’t know if Sony is thinking of incorporating Venom in the MCU. We will have to wait and see. If you want to check it out in the theaters, it wouldn’t hurt. It’s your choice, but if you don’t, then there’s no big loss.

Thank you for reading this review tonight. Stay tuned tomorrow to see what I will end off “Halloween Month 2024” with.

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice

“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” which came out last month, is enjoyable insane and outrageous in a lot of ways, making it a nice sequel to the 1988 cult classic. Even though the original film was enjoyment, the sequel works hard to match its energy and greatly succeeds with a new story and standout performances. It manages to maintain the silly spirit of the original and, at around 100 minutes, gives so much entertainment, proving the 36-year wait was worth it. This time, the protagonist is Lydia and her daughter Astrid, and with funny dialogue, it keeps you laughing the entire time.

After Lydia’s father, Charles, passes away, the Deetz family moves back to Winter River. Now a widow, Lydia, reprised by Winona Ryder, has become a small celebrity as the host of a paranormal TV show. Life has changed so much. She now enjoys a friendly relationship with her stepmother, Delia, reprised by Catherine O’Hara. However, the memories of Beetlejuice, reprised by Michael Keaton, try to forcefully marry her still haunts her. Everything comes around for Lydia, and just like her own experience with her stepmother, it’s her turn to deal with her complicated relationship with her rebellious teenage daughter, Astrid, played by Jenna Ortega. Lydia’s worries increase when Astrid finds the model of the town in the attic and accidentally opens the afterlife portal with her boyfriend’s (Justin Theroux) help.

Michael Keaton is great once again, flawlessly reprising his famous role with remarkable spark. Like in the first film, he makes a late appearance, but his silliness and swagger are very captivating. It’s clear that he’s fully in control of the character. Winona Ryder and Jenns Ortega give strong performances as mother and daughter, but it’s Catherine O’Hara as Delia who has the spotlight. Abhishek Srivastava credited in his review, “Her self-obsession remains, but she has evolved with age.” Willem Dafoe as Wolf Jackson and Monica Bellucci as Dolores are perfectly cast in their roles.

Srivastava said, “Tim Burton’s film is skilfully designed to pull both die-hard fans of the original and a new millennial audience.” It stands strong enough to be enjoyed as a standalone movie. Michael Keaton and Winona Ryder reprise their roles with the same energy as before, adding depth with new characters like Lydia’s husband, Richard, played by Santiago Cabrera, and Beetlejuice’s former wife, Dolores. The film has all the classic elements – black-and-white striped suits, stop-motion sandworms, and scary ghosts. Mirroring the famous Harry Belafonte’s Day-O dinner scene from the original, there’s a similarly enjoyable scene inside a church. The film doesn’t only give laughs but also proves that even after all these years, Burton’s formula is still enjoyable.

After talks of this movie for years, we get a sequel that is heavy on nostalgia. If you were a fan of the original, then you should definitely see this sequel in theaters. You will enjoy it a lot. It’s not as good as the original, but that is to be expected with a majority of sequels. However, this fits in with the Halloween time, so check it out.

Stay tuned later in the week for more reviews in “Halloween Month 2024.”

Stephen King's It

Tonight, on Max, I finished watching the 1990 miniseries, “IT,” something I have been wanting to watch for a long time. When I found it on Max, I watched it while exercising, seeing the runtime. Now, I will let everyone know what I thought about it.

This ABC miniseries based on Stephen King’s best-seller about an entity that can turn itself into a person’s worst nightmare.

The story starts with a little girl (Chelan Simmons) mysteriously murdered in the small town of Derry, Maine, which gets the town librarian Mike Hanlon (Ray Campbell from “Sister, Sister,” Tim Reid) remembering back in 1960, when he and six other kids destroyed It, a frightful entity that 30 years ago murdered several children of the town. “There is something terribly wrong in Derry, and you know it,” Hanlon tells the police chief, played by Terence Kelly.

Now Hanlon calls up the six others who as kids (the late Jonathan Brandis, Brandon Crane, Adam Faraizl, Seth Green, Ben Heller, Emily Perkins, Marlon Taylor) weren’t too popular yet came together to beat It. While Hanlon calls the others, night one of “It” is shown in flashback, showing how the entity worked.

Miles Beller said in his review, “What we learn is that the youngsters’ battle is literally an underground war, waged below the city, in its drains and sewers, a struggle culminating in the alleged defeat of It, which has made itself incarnate as a fanged circus clown called Pennywise.”

However, while the children have banished It, they pledge to regroup if “It” ever shows up again.

In the second night of “It,” we have the adults reuniting as a new cases of murders occur in Derry, Hanlon calling screenwriter-horror novelist Bill Denbrough (Richard Thomas), Atlanta businessman Stan Uris (Richard Masur), noted architect Ben Hanscom (John Ritter from “Three’s Company”), famous comedian Richie Tozier (Harry Anderson), successful designer Beverly Marsh (Annette O’Toole), and owner of a limo service company Eddie Kaspbrak (Dennis Christopher).

Now finally and definitively defeat the fearsome entity, surviving group members have to regroup themselves with one another, defeat their own fears and return to the dark, rotten tunnels of doubt and terror where Pennywise, played by Tim Curry, awaits. “I am your worst dream come true…I am eternal.”

Beller noted, “A horror sci-fi miniseries these days is as rare as moon rocks, as far and few between as known inhabited planets. And make no mistake, It is a humdinger, one big kicky ride thanks to the charismatic acting of Curry as savage, sneering malevolence.” On top of that, the acting from Reid, Anderson, Christopher, Ritter, Thomas, O’Toole, and Masur make for some of the pros in “It.”

Tommy Lee Wallace directed this miniseries, and Lawrence D. Cohen wrote the script, and Cohen and director Wallace did a decent job on the film, which looked good for the time.

Richard Leiterman was the director of photography and Robert F. Shugrue and David Blangsted were the editors, who all did a decent job.

This ABC miniseries did give some good moments, like the children actors are pretty good and Tim Curry being a lot of fun, but some of the adults were bad. The plot can come off as confusing and convoluted, you may say it is melodramatic, and you might see some Stephen King stereotypes that get old and tiring. Especially with the overuse of balloons, as if they were trying to make that scary, but it failed. Now you might think that I don’t like this movie after reading this, but no. I thought this film to be decent. It’s not terrible, but just alright. The final showdown may come off as a disappointment for viewers, which I can understand.

If you want to check this out on Max, you may, but be forewarned, this is a three-hour movie. You will have to watch it in parts. I don’t think anyone can sit through a three-hour movie in one sitting. You will need to take breaks. This is a movie to watch around Halloween time, but I don’t know how many people will love or hate it, as this is a mixed bag of a miniseries. Just watch it and see for yourself. However, I don't recommend it for those who have a fear of clowns.

Look out for a few more reviews coming at you this month.

Candyman (2021)

“Candyman,” released in 2021, has a violent horror social commentary shown by impressive newcomer Nia DaCosta. She directed and co-wrote the screenplay with Jordan Peele and Win Rosenfeld. The sequel is worth it to the 1992 original, making for a great double feature.

A ghost story has haunted Chicago’s Cabrini Green for many years. Daniel Robitaille, a brief cameo by Tony Todd, is the real name of the urban legend that scares the residents. Say his name five times in a mirror and he will appear, but it will be the last thing his prey sees. The renovation of Cabrini Green has made for an updated Cabrini Green.

Anthony McCoy (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) is an artist who lives with his girlfriend Brianna (Teyonah Parris). When he is told about the legend of Candyman, he becomes inspired to include it into his art. However, Anthony soon finds out that the scary stories of the supernatural are very true. He tries to balance his art career, a relationship, and the fear brought on by the Candyman.

Jeff Nelson said in his review, “Candyman directly links to the first installment and doubles down on the social commentary. Gentrification is a major theme that runs throughout the film. As a result, Cabrini Green looks very different from how it did in the first film. The urban legend of Candyman sticks in the minds of the longtime residents, but his story is only one of many horrors of injustice that have taken place in these streets.”

Nelson continued, “In turn, DaCosta’s story takes Candyman’s mythos to the next level.” The racist attacks on members of the community are the real fear. Candyman is still a very scary slasher, but there’s also focus on those who made him who he became. He’s to be feared, but the hatred and violence targeted towards people of color is the actual constant threat.

However, DaCosta is still making a slasher movie. There’s a body count with different levels of violence throughout the movie. Nelson noted, “Candyman hooks, rips, and disembowels his victims, but most of it isn’t shown directly. There are plenty of goopy gore effects, although DaCosta approaches the carnage through other human senses. The audio depicts most of the violence, as she crafts a variety of ways to deliver violence that isn’t gratuitous.” “Candyman” isn’t about the violence, but rather a look at who it’s being done to and why.

DaCosta has proven herself to be one to watch. She visually captures the story in a way that is completely unique and consistently worth it for the eyes. There are few nice mirror tricks that make for memorable moments. Robert A.A. Lowe’s score is amazing, as it perfectly captures the essence of both the character and the movie of “Candyman.”

Nelson said, “However, the movie lacks many scares, but rather holds a mirror up to society. It references an abundance of horror tropes, which are generally for comedic effect. The body horror element feels like an abandoned piece of the plot that isn’t entirely addressed. The third act takes a strange turn that doesn’t fit tonally fit with the rest of the movie, although it does manage to drive its point home.”

Aside from some flaws, “Candyman” is a good sequel to the 1992 original. It’s well-paced and it builds on the franchise’s mythology in a great way. Nelson said, “Some of the social commentary is a bit heavy-handed, although it’s further proof that the horror genre is a wonderful vehicle for dissecting complex social issues.” DaCosta worked on “The Marvels,” but we’ll see if she returns to horror in the future.

This is the only good sequel in the franchise. If you saw the first one, skip the other two and go straight to this one. You will be satisfied when seeing this. It will make you remember what made the first movie so scary and worth seeing. This is currently streaming on Prime so you can check it out on there. I was scared when I saw this, especially with the murders and with the bees. Aside from the bees possibly being CGI, it was a scary moment. Check it out and be scared.

Thank you for joining in on “Candyman Month.” I hope all of you enjoyed it, but we’re not done with “Halloween Month.” There will be a few more reviews coming up, so stay tuned. Sorry for the late posting. I ended up falling asleep because I was so tired after coming home from work.

Alien: Romulus

The seventh installment in the Alien franchise, “Alien: Romulus,” released back in August, is directed by Fede Alvarez as a horror story in outer space. Dennis Schwartz noted in his review, “Though competently made, it’s not offering anything new in the alien world– preferring to play it safe.” However, to its credit is a throwback to the great original 1979 film and the superior sequel, “Aliens.” Schwartz said, “Its CGIs are marvelous, even if it’s dialogue is only serviceable and its supporting characters are only thinly developed. Alvarez co-writes the sci-fi thriller with Rodo Sayagues Mendez as if stuck in the past and not willing to get unstuck.”

The broken space colonist, Rain (Cailee Spaeny), who is a young adult, lives on an unfriendly corporate owned mining colony planet with no sunlight, with her friendly android “special needs” bad pun telling brother Andy (David Jonsson). Her ex-boyfriend Tyler (Archie Renaux) and his sister Kay (Isabela Merced) are escaping from this corporate prison with the rebel space colonists Bjorn (Spike Fearn) and his girlfriend pilot Navarro (Aileen Wu), to a more livable and brighter planet, Yvaga, and invite her to go with them on the year-long flight. However, before leaving, they must fly to an abandoned space station that has flown above their planet to steal its hyper-sleep chambers, needed to secure the flight to Yvaga. However, they encounter the evil Xenomorph aliens and creatures known as facehuggers, and everything becomes a nightmare.

In a highlight, with jump scares, the group is chased through the space station’s corridors by a group of jumping facehuggers (scary creatures we have seen in previous installments).

The movie has amazing visuals and continues enough shock and surprise violent scenes to be entertaining. Schwartz noted at the end of his review, “But the franchise has lost some of its power to move the story forward–which is a sign it should probably call it a day (even if it won’t). It ends with a fight for survival between the evil corporate created aliens and its sympathetic but bland human heroine.”

I think this movie is a welcome return to what made the franchise so great in the first place. After a series of bad or mediocre installments, this film is amazing, and is up there with the first two films. The only problem I had, which is probably the theater’s fault, was that I couldn’t really hear what was said at certain times. Still, I really got into this. Check it out if it’s still playing in theaters as this film really fits the Halloween month.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned Friday for the conclusion of “Candyman Month.”

Candyman 3: Day of the Dead

Caroline McKeever (Donna E’Errico) has been haunted by some nightmares recently, where she’s stalked by the famous slasher villain known as Candyman – or Daniel Robaitaille (Tony Todd), her great great grandfather, a tall black man, historically damaged and murdered for having a relationship with a white woman (during the Civil War times), now called in supernatural form by saying his name five times into a mirror. Mike Massie said in his review, “Curiously, his arrival isn’t utilized as a means of vengeance, like Pumpkinhead; instead he tends to torment his caller, demand their soul in the afterlife, and cruelly frame them for his inevitable slaying spree.” “Sweets to the sweet.”

With the Day of the Dead festival coming (a nice thematic continuation from the last film’s Mardi Gras setting), Caroline prepares for a show of her artwork at Miguel Velasco’s (Mark Adair-Rios) art gallery near Boyle Heights in Los Angeles. The subject is, you guessed it, Candyman. Caroline wants to honor the real man, a talented painter, but Miguel only wants to utilize the urban legends, advertising the violent news of torture and death to get larger audiences of potential customers. He even hires an actor, David de la Paz, played by Nick Corri, to scare guests at the beginning.

“Believe in me!” After Caroline is insisted on repeating “Candyman” into a mirror five times, she expectedly walks down a dark alley alone, going into an abandoned subway where a figure of the real Candyman appears. Shortly thereafter, murders start happening – and since the victims are all related in some way to Caroline, she becomes the main suspect, pointed at by aggressive, racist Detective Samuel Kraft, played by Wade Andrew Williams.

“That’s it. I’m gettin’ you some help.” In the 1999 sequel to the franchise, “Candyman 3: Day of the Dead,” practically every form of creativity is gone. Massie noted, “No longer are there any deeper subtexts, thought-provoking moral quandaries, amusing motivations for character interactions, or the moving music by Philip Glass. Instead, this film is merely a low-budget, pre-sold-concept slasher, fueled by violence and nudity (D’Errico appears bra-less during the majority of the runtime). The acting is mediocre, the creativity of death scenes and carnage is negligible, the special blood effects are generally unconvincing, and the bees are mostly CG (mixed with a few live, stunt bees). It also resorts heavily to cheap jump scares, plenty of screaming and crying, and poorly lit locales with flickering lights (whether they’re hallways or bathrooms or bars).”

You can tell from the beginning that the story doesn’t drive this sequel. It’s so repetitive in ideas and imagery that, like the last film, it’s as much a remake as it is a sequel. The characters may have changed, but they’re all counterparts. Massie said, “correspondingly, the locations have shifted, but they represent the same hunting grounds and arenas for hook-handed attacks seen many times before (slashed throats and gored torsos are the favorites here). This tedious exercise in unvarying repetition continuously struggles to justify its own existence.” Telling the same story repeatedly just doesn’t work at all in entertainment value. As if it’s not a difficult task to beat the original 1992 horror masterpiece. By the end, nothing new is given. Massie ended his review by saying, “Candyman’s capabilities and the solution to his curse are as ambiguous and ham-handed as ever, while the protagonists are equally as bland and uninspiring.”

As everyone can guess, this is easily the worst in the franchise. Why did they feel the need to keep making sequels to this and not make worthy sequels that followed the way the first one ended? This film was just a torture to watch and nothing was good in it at all. Don’t make the mistake to watch this on Max like I did because you will regret ever streaming this cinematic garbage.

Now that we have gotten these two horrible sequels out of the way, next week we’ll be finishing “Candyman Month” with the last film that actually redeemed the franchise.

The Exorcist: Believer

Despite almost fifty years have passed since “The Exorcist” was released theatrically, it still is there in our memories. Every year, this famous film comes up in conversation, trending topics, or on top of a recently-watched list on streaming platforms – especially during Halloween. Adapted from William Peter Blatty’s best-seller, “The Exorcist” dominated the box office, earned 10 Academy Award nominations, and is the first horror film to be nominated for Best Picture. Kit Stone said in her review, “We still discuss the visceral reactions of first-time viewers of the film: people fainting in the aisles, becoming nauseated and being shocked by the on-screen terror. What wasn’t intended to be the epic horror it became is now a mainstay in horror curriculum.” Now, trying to build on and continue the legacy, director David Gordon Green tries to continue the franchise with “The Exorcist: Believer,” released in 2023.

Lesli Odom, Jr. stars as photographer Victor, a single dad who lost his pregnant wife, played by Tracey Graves, in an earthquake in Haiti thirteen years ago. His daughter Angela (Lidya Jewett) survived, and now with the help of her friend Katherine (Olivia O’Neill), wants to try to get in touch with her late mother through a séance in the woods. The girls are missing for three days and appear with no memory of what took place over that period, which to them was only a few hours.

Stone mentioned, “The film’s pacing and narrative up to this point are impeccable. Many horror movies hastily bridge to the sinister parts, occasionally leaving potential storylines unexplored. This film’s beginning, detailing the girls’ disappearance and the resulting parental despair, masterfully sets the stage for their eventual return. However, this is where the film stumbles: after reaching this high point, it stagnates instead of intensifying.”

Angela and Katherine are tested at the local hospital, and it doesn’t take long for their behavior to show that something uncertain has happened. Angela attacks her father, and Katherine has a meltdown in the middle of Sunday service. Victor, along with Katherine’s parents, Miranda (Jennifer Nettles) and Tony (Norbert Leo Butz), don’t know how to help their daughters. Victor’s neighbor Paula (Ann Dowd), who also works at the hospital as a nurse, believes that he contacts someone with experience in this area: Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn).

Stone said, “As the possession acrobatics begin, we anticipate things escalating, culminating in a final attempt to exorcise the spirits from the girls. However, the film’s pacing feels less like an ‘ebb and flow’ and more like an ‘ebb and slow,’ leaving certain narrative elements wanting.”

One element that seemed out of place was the language used during the exorcism and the ritual’s execution. The film’s inclusive approach was expected, given the modern cultural landscape. However, it felt as if there was a purposeful effort to keep God at a distance, despite such a presence is essential to possession horror films.

The absence of the old and young priests we expect in these films was famous. Stone said, “Despite this fresh take, the narrative didn’t sufficiently delve into the spiritual aspects to align with the story. Expanding the world is fine if the worldbuilding is comprehensive. Asking audiences to detach from the source material in a film intended to broaden the existing franchise is arduous.” Certain risks taken in a movie that hurts the story of “The Exorcist” and the possession subgenre have to be done without mistake.

Near the end of the film, Dowd’s character gives a semi-monologue highlighting strength, flexibility, and persistence. Yet, this sentiment is not endured. What strength did we see? The film’s second half doesn’t have substance. The narrative doesn’t give us enough opportunities to resonate with the story or characters, so the emotional impact was weak when disclosures extended.

“The Exorcist: Believer” has a few problems that can’t be ignored. David Gordon Green shows his talent with great scenes and even a few jump scares. Unfortunately, any good feel that the first half of the film left was taken by inconsistent pacing, unfinished creation of the environment, and a splitting conclusion that might make some drawing away from the franchise completely.

This is another bad entry in the franchise. It may not be bad as some of the others, but it is still pretty bad. It’s like the magic that they try to recreate from the original always seems to be attempted, but it fails. Maybe because that was only something that can be done once and you can’t capture lighting in a bottle twice. They were trying to make another trilogy, but now everything has been scrapped, which is a good thing. I think I saw this on Peacock, but it is currently streaming on Prime. Don’t see it because you will not like it, I assure you.

Look out this Friday for the continuation of “Candyman Month.”

Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh

We now come to the 1995 bad Bill Condon sequel to one of the scariest horror movies ever made. “Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh” has more of the tragic horror icon with a hook for a hand. Once a slave who was lynched for having an affair with a white woman, he appears for murder every time someone says his name five times in a mirror.

A direct sequel to the first film, a local author (Michael Culkin) is murdered by Candyman (Tony Todd) in a bar bathroom, and his attacker, Ethan Tennant (William O’Leary), the son of a Candyman victim (Michael Bergeron) is blamed. His sister, Annie Tarrant, played by Kelly Rowan, is a normal school teacher in New Orleans who is insistent that he didn’t commit the murder, but Ethan just wants to take the blame for Candyman. Felix Vasquez said in his review, “Convinced otherwise, she begins investigating, despite his objections, and unfolds a humongous mystery that I wish were interesting.” For some reason, more of the originals of Candyman are revealed, as he’s given a tragic story, as well as a reason for being called from the mirror. You would think he’d only really murder the people that call him from the mirror but sure enough he just needs to be called by anyone at any time even playfully.

Vasquez said, “The Cenobites needed a puzzle solved.” Demons needed a book to be read. Deadites needed an incantation. But you could be somewhere, say his name five times, and sure enough he’ll appear and murder viciously. There’s just something that explains the character where he can come around to kill you at any time. Sure enough, despite being warned about the Candyman, and knowing about the mysterious hook-based murders, Annie begins putting herself in danger. She finds changes to the Candyman, she enters into dark isolated mansions, and all just because of a guess. Even when it becomes evident that the Candyman is real, Kelly Rowan’s performance is fine, but the rest of the movie drags with a slow pacing that completely removes any mystery that the writer tries to invoke.

Vasquez admitted, “Granted Tony Todd’s performance is fantastic as always, but rather than uncover Annie’s past, I just wanted the movie to get to the darn point, and figure out what Candyman wanted with her and her mother (Veronica Cartwright).”

I cannot believe that they would make a sequel that would be so awful. The way they ended the first movie, I would have been happy with the direction it could have gone in, but they threw that out the window. This sequel is just terrible. Currently, it is streaming on Max, but do not make the mistake of seeing it because you will be questioning the movie every minute. If you loved the first movie, then don’t see this one at all.

Next week we will be continuing the torture by looking at a worse sequel in “Candyman Month.”

Joker: Folie á Deux

Today I went and saw “Joker: Folie á Deux,” which came out four days ago. I was surprised to see that they were making a sequel to “Joker,” as I thought that film stood well on its own. However, when I saw the trailers, I thought it was going to be good. Did it hold up to the expectations of the trailer?

Two years have passed since Arthur Fleck, reprised by Joaquin Phoenix, put on the clown make-up, murdered several people, and became a folk hero to the broken people of Gotham City. He’s allowed witness to none of these rebellions he’s supposedly inspired, having spent the short-term period behind bars in the dilapidated Arkham Asylum. With his trail coming up and the district attorney, Harvey Dent, played by Harry Lawton, insisting on the death penalty, there is little bit of hope. That is, until he sees Lee, played by Lady Gaga, who has a song in her heard and stars in her eyes.

Kayleigh Donaldson said in her review, “Director Todd Phillips had sold 2019’s Joker as a one-off experiment for Warner Bros. and DC to allow their tightly controlled superhero franchise the chance to shake things up in an ‘artsy’ manner. But, after grossing $1 billion worldwide, winning two Oscars, and taking home the top prize at the Venice Film Festival, there was no way the studio was going to leave it there. Joker: Folie a Deux comes to us with a reported $200 million budget, but also far more tepid reviews. Audiences don’t seem as thrilled with the prospect of a musical drama twisted romance courtroom tale. That’s not their Joker, at least that’s what I’ve seen his die-hard fans proclaiming on social media.” They’re not wrong there. What proves most fascinating about “Folie á Deux” is how it tells those supporters to screw off.

Donaldson admitted, “Folie a Deux is a very mean movie, and I say that as a compliment. The biggest issue with the first film was that Phillips was too timid to make it as nihilistic as he believed it to be. The bleak perspective of a story about a mentally ill loner being elevated to god status through violence was diluted by his enamoured perspective for that idea of the anti-hero.” He believed a little too much what Arthur was selling, and so did his fans. That inspired some really overdone address about the film being ‘dangerous’ that it never deserved. “Folie á Deux” comes far closer to diving into complete anarchy.

Arthur’s lawyer, played by Catherine Keener, has made her defense on the idea of him having a ‘split personality,’ one that turns into ‘Joker’ when triggered by the traumatic memories of his abusive childhood. Donaldson said, “To make that case, and do so for a camera-packed trial that’s being broadcast live, she has to sell him to the masses as a pathetic mess with no control over himself. It’s not untrue either, but standing by that defence disempowers Arthur, and his conflict over that is intriguing. If he gives the braying crowds what they want, isn’t there some dignity in that? But Arthur is not his own creation, and the act he puts on in his own defence (allowed by the most lenient judge in all of Gotham, apparently) is cringe-inducing.” He’s not funny, he’s not charismatic, and he’s not the clown prince of crime. However, none of that matters more than the imagination built up by those who want him to be more. Donaldson admitted, “To make that case, and do so for a camera-packed trial that’s being broadcast live, she has to sell him to the masses as a pathetic mess with no control over himself. It’s not untrue either, but standing by that defence disempowers Arthur, and his conflict over that is intriguing. If he gives the braying crowds what they want, isn’t there some dignity in that? But Arthur is not his own creation, and the act he puts on in his own defence (allowed by the most lenient judge in all of Gotham, apparently) is cringe-inducing. Why would you want to be those jerks? Something tells me that DC won’t sell as many Joker Halloween costumes this year.”

However, there are positive aspects here. Honestly, there are many things appreciate: the Looney Tunes animated opening given by the legendary Sylvain Chomet. Donaldson noted, “Laurence Sher’s cinematography, blending ’70s grime with golden age musical sheen.” Steve Coogan playing a creepy TV host who he clearly based on Piers Morgan. Brendan Gleeson as a cruel prison guard who thinks he’s Sinatra. Finally, a really disappointing ending. Phoenix and Gaga have a weird and disorganized chemistry that makes sense as the creation of total fantasy, and both of them can dance nonstop. Leigh Gill returns from the first film and steals the show.

Just like everyone else has been saying, this is boring. Donaldson said, “Phillips has somehow managed to take the idea of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest crossed with Pennies from Heaven and sap it of its verve and movement.” The musical segments aren’t directed right, with many of them shot in close-up. It’s too long but the important moments of realization are rushed. Gaga’s character is not there for a lot of the second half, even though she’s necessary for the story to work. We don’t see anything outside of the prison or get an idea of the amount of Arthur’s support. Just like the first film, the problem stays the director. Donaldson said, “He’s not up to the task, not nervy or skilled enough to match his own ambition. Folie a Deux cries out for someone who knows how to shoot choreography, a filmmaker with a knack for bone-dry dark humour and a foot within the realms of the unreal.” You can see every way this movie’s supposed to work and it doesn’t do any of that. By the end, you’re frustrated more than anything else.

In many ways, “Joker: Folie á Deux” is a better film than the last. It’s at least more willing to disrupt expectations. Yet the weaknesses can’t be brushed aside and Phillips cannot help but blame himself. Donaldson ended her review by admitting, “Believe it or not, dude, but I was rooting for you.”

As everyone knows, I really loved the first movie. That was one of the darkest look at a DC character I had ever seen. I wasn’t expecting it and I thought it was well done. However, the sequel just ended up being a disappointment. All of the good stuff was in the trailers, and even those segments ended up fooling you. I fell asleep at one point for a little bit because it was that boring. The direction the film went in ended up being a disappointment. This is one of the most boring sequels I have seen in a long time. Don’t go to the theaters to see this because it will not make you happy.

Thank you for joining in on this review. In the meantime, I have to recover from this boring film and I’ll see everyone this Friday for the continuation of “Candyman Month.”

Insidious: The Red Door

With this year’s “Halloween Month,” I am thinking of doing something similar to what I did a few years ago. Since I said that Friday’s will be “Candyman Month,” I will post a review on a new horror movie on Mondays. This Monday will be “Insidious: The Red Door,” released in 2023.

With only a few exceptions like “Halloween,” “Nightmare on Elm Street,” “The Conjuring,” “Friday the 13^th,” and so many more, rarely do horror franchises manage to keep a strong and consistent amount of success for more than a few sequels. The pattern looks like tow or maybe three major hits, then a huge downward dive into garbage.

Frank Wilkins said in his review, “Another outlier, though it sagged a wee bit in its middle installments, was the Insidious franchise which bucked the trend of grotesque horror porn in favor of paranormal creeps and crawls which have haunted our dreams since 2008. And no, not even the bold stroke of reuniting the original cast for Insidious: The Red Door, is enough to deliver a satisfying experience.”

About fifteen minutes into the movie, it is evident there’s something missing from this new sequel. This is the first “Insidious” film not written by Leigh Whannell, and you can see that. Despite having the look of an engaging storyline, and the return of Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, and Andrew Astor, the film uses too many boring clichés and weak scares. The result is a boring and forgettable sequel for everyone.

The failure of this film isn’t completely all on director Patrick Wilson. Wilkins notes, “This is Wilson’s first time in the director’s chair and though he does well enough, he often struggles with the film’s haphazard pacing, and poorly executed transitions that leave us grasping to follow the story’s intentions.”

Scott Teems writes the story and Whannel gets a small amount of credit. When we last saw the Lambert family at the end of “Chapter 2,” astral projectors, Josh (Patrick Wilson) and Dalton (Ty Simpkins) were still recovering from so many journeys into The Further, a type of purgatory dimension filled with tortured spirits of the dead.

Kidnapped by a demon and rescued by his dad, Dalton watched Josh become possessed by a ghost which made him go insane through the house, trying to kill the entire family. Dalton went back into The Further trying to rescue Josh.

In the latest sequel, we see Dalton and Josh trying to get on with their lives. Josh is now divorced from Renai (Rose Byrne) and Dalton goes to an east coast art school where an aggressive art teacher (Hiam Abbass) encourages Dalton to explore the connection with light and dark so he can develop his own type of art. Dalton makes a big mistake to take that literally. There are some really dark things that are inside Dalton’s psyche since being hypnotized to forget what happened to the Lambert family ten years ago.

These are themes which become the main themes look at by Teems’ script. The value of family, dealing with trauma, understanding the relationship between light, dark, and balance are all aspects that were seen in the first film. Unfortunately, those aspects don’t work in this new sequel.

Another problem with “Insidious: The Red Door” is the lack of scary moments through the duration of film. Wilkins pointed out, “The original Insidious film was celebrated for its ability to generate genuine terror and tension, but The Red Door falls way short. Whenever the soundtrack goes silent, that’s when something is going to jump out. Wilson, as a director, clearly hasn’t yet perfected the art of effective atmosphere and well-timed jump scares. Loud noises and shock value aren’t enough.”

Sadly, “Insidious: The Red Door” doesn’t hold a candle to the previous films. With a difficult story, weak scares, underdeveloped characters, poor performances, boring cinematography, and a disappointing conclusion, this film fails on just about every level. Everyone can guess that this film is a forgettable entry to a series that already was going downhill. It’s time to stop with this franchise.

If everyone remembers, I thought the first two entries were hilariously bad, but afterwards the franchise just kept getting worse. This one is no exception. I seriously don’t know what they were thinking with this awful sequel. Please do us a favor and stop with this franchise. This is a terrible franchise and I don’t understand why they feel like they should keep making sequels to this. Just stop already!! This is streaming on Netflix so don’t make the mistake of seeing this awful sequel.

Look out this Friday for the continuation of “Candyman Month.”

Candyman (1992)

For this year’s “Halloween Month,” I will be looking at a franchise that I first heard from James Rolfe when he did “Monster Madness” a few years back, the “Candyman” franchise. Let’s get started with the first in the franchise, “Candyman,” released in 1992.

Budd Wilkins started his review by saying, “One of the most significant alterations that writer-director Bernard Rose made to Clive Barker’s short story “The Forbidden” when adapting it for the screen was the switch in setting from a council estate in Thatcher-era Liverpool to the Cabrini-Green housing project in early-1990s Chicago. This brings thorny issues of both class and race into sharp focus.” Rose also changes the protagonist’s location of academic review from the study of graffiti to the sources of urban legends. “Candyman” thus clearly becomes a horror story about the power and fascination of horror stories.

Wilkins said, “Rose adopts a slow-burn approach, taking us through the researches of grad student Helen Lyle (Virginia Madsen) into the titular hook-handed bogeyman, who can only be summoned by repeating his name five times in front of a mirror.” An early look of the Candyman legend – but not of the man himself – turns out to be a story being told to Helen by one of her informants, played by Ria Pavia. Another 40 minutes go by before Candyman, played by Tony Todd, makes his first appearance. Wilkins notes, “This deliberately incremental approach may put off viewers more accustomed to contemporary techniques in pacing and editing, but it definitely pays dividends when it comes to establishing an atmosphere of mounting dread.”

A tip from a university janitor (Sarina C. Grant) takes Helen and her research partner (Kasi Lemmons) to the Cabrini-Green projects, the location of all the real urban horrors. Rose is known to trace some of the sources to poverty, the curse of drugs, and isolation from the surrounding society. Several murders are connected to the Candyman, but it’s not until Helen is attacked by a drug dealer calling himself the Candyman (Terrence Riggins) that the police (Gilbert Lewis) take action.

In an interesting side note, it’s shown that the apartment Helen shares with her professor husband (Xander Berkeley), was originally meant for a housing project identical in layout to Cabrini-Green. However, there weren’t the same public boundaries that separated it from Chicago’s rich Gold Coast, so it was changed into condos instead. Wilkins said, “This doubling between structures is just one instance of literal or figurative mirroring that runs throughout the film.” Here going through the looking glass takes you into the area of lore and legend.

Wilkins speculates, “One way of reading this gratifyingly ambiguous film would have it that there’s no Candyman at all—that his horrors are all taking place inside Helen’s increasingly disordered mind. Sudden shifts in time and location could well represent fugue states. Murder weapons have a peculiar way of finding themselves in Helen’s hands. Even the scene where the Candyman intercedes to free Helen from her restraints in the psychiatrist’s office could simply be a delusion on her part, where she somehow manages to struggle free from shoddily fastened cuffs. The film thus teeters on the threshold between what literary critic Tsvetan Todorov calls the uncanny and the marvelous, the illusory and the actually occurring.” This gives a whole new meaning to the writing on the wall in the final scene: “It was always you, Helen.”

I have to agree with James when he says that “Candyman” is a legitimately scary movie. All of the murders that Candyman does make you really scared and cringe, especially with the bees involved. Also, when you see everything that happens to Helen, you feel really sad for her. Because at first, everyone is on her side and wants to help her, but when Candyman starts murdering everyone around her and everyone that was once on her side turn against her, you feel sad at how quickly everyone changes sides. I give this movie a high recommendation. If you haven’t seen it, watch it on Peacock. This film really fits the Halloween season.

Next week, we will be looking at the first sequel in the franchise in “Candyman Month.” Sorry for the late posting. I didn’t notice that I had fallen asleep from being so tired from work.