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.”