anthonygiancola24 Reviews

Emily (2022)

Great Lead Performance in an Ok Movie

[6/10 · 19 March 2023]

There is one scene, about twenty five minutes into this movie that is better than the rest of the film altogether. The scene, which comes almost out of nowhere, is a set piece directly out of a gothic horror novel. Much like the ones written by Emily Bronte. It is the one scene where the movie really takes advantage of the loose bio-fiction format, and leans fully into a horror film.

It's so good, that the rest of the film almost suffers because of it. Again, this happens relatively early on, and is so exhilarating a sequence that nothing else tops it.

As a debut, this does announce Frances O'Connor as one to watch, and I truly believe if given the opportunity, she will become a master of the craft in a few short years.

Emma Mackey looks so much like Margot Robbie at points that it is almost distracting, but she has a much different energy. Everyone in the film does a good job, but there's no mistaking whose show it is.

All I really need to carry me through a movie is good direction and a solid lead actor, and this movie has both. Not great or anything, but I was really interested the whole way through.

The Boonies (2021)

These 10/10 Reviews are Plants

[2/10 · 28 July 2022]

Do not trust these 10 Star reviews, I guarantee you these people are friends or family members of the people who made this film. I'm sorry you made a bad financial investment, but you should've spent some of that money on better actors.

Who is this Matt Schultz putz? Oh my gosh what a bad actor. Bad BAD actor.

House of Gucci (2021)

Not Perfect, but grossly entertaining

[7/10 · 15 December 2021]

The cast are phenomenal. You can make fun of the accents all you want, but at least they tried instead of just doing British accents as sub ins for everything. I think the major issue is that each actor has a voice so well defined that it's jarring to hear them doing something so broadly different. Adam Driver is on another level from any of his contemporaries. He's charming, shy, powerful, weak, fragile yet unshakeable. He can so easily play hero or villain and always delivers. Lady Gaga is good in the movie, and she has a lot to play, but I'd be lying if I said this was a real home run. There's a little bit of Ally in her that I just assume is inexperience. Where she really comes alive are in her scenes with Driver. They have such unique chemistry that reads as very manipulative and toxic, but also somewhat genuine. The scenes where she has to cry become less and less genuine in a very compelling way. It's not said enough how good Jeremy Irons is, and for his short time on screen I'm still thinking about his performance, and Al Pacino has entered something of a career renaissance. The movie is sort of dragged out, it could probably lose about 20 minutes, but there really is an easy fix for that. Cut everything to do with Jared Leto. I'm not even joking, before Jared Leto's first scene I had no problems with this movie. I've got no hate towards Jared Leto as a whole, but ever since he won an Oscar, he's been putting on these horrendous displays of vanity and ego. He is done up in so much makeup with this awful hairpiece, and he looks like a MadTv character. His accent is the only one in the cast that goes full Mario, with every single word being given the most Italian accent you've ever heard. He is the Jar Jar Binks of this movie, whenever he's on screen it is lowest common denominator jokes and absolute farce. There are a couple of scenes where he's ok, and those are the scenes where he just talks to people normally, but for the majority of the film he is this glaring, catastrophic, presence who draws attention to himself. There are some pacing issues, the film jumps around a bit, and certain events are glossed over until the epilogue. Although none of that distracted from my overall enjoyment of the film. Like All the Money in the World, Ridley Scott knows how to balance absurdist one percenter satire and crime thriller in a way that really hits the sweet spot for me.

Old (2021)

Literally what else do you expect?

[8/10 · 2 August 2021]

This is par for the course M. Night Shyamalan, right on par with Signs or The Village. The awkward dialogue and method of acting are deliberate, and I really don't get why people are getting so heated about a movie that is actually pretty good. He's never changed his style, it's just been applied to more easily digestible genres before this (like the psycho thriller of Split, or the found footage weirdness of The Visit), but when all is said and all is done, Shyamalan has his own version of reality you either need to buy into before the film begins or you won't enjoy it.

It's not perfect though, I actually think the ending goes on for ten minutes too long, and while I like his bizarre framing, sometimes it could give me a bit of a headache, but apart from that I think this is a good thriller with good performances and enough intrigue to keep me hooked. I'll probably see it again while it's in theaters.

Shadow in the Cloud (2020)

It's Cartoon Logic, but I like that

[7/10 · 13 February 2021]

Shadow in the Cloud is an action film directed by Roseanne Liang and starring Chloe Grace Moretz as WWII pilot Maude Garrett, who is transporting a top secret package aboard the Fool's Errand (funny name), a B-17 fighter plane. The crew, all men, are sexist pigs who don't think Maude has any business being on board, and stow her in the second gunner seat. However, also aboard the plane is a gremlin that wants to dismantle the plane and steal the package Maude has brought with her.

The first 30-40 minutes of this movie were really great. The dialogue is flying, there is a ton of mystery, and one incredibly disturbing moment during a fight scene. Then, about halfway through, we learn what is in the package that Maude has with her. This is the moment where the film either loses you or wins you over. For me, I stayed with it, and it did pay off in the long run. However, I would be lying if I said I liked the second half more than the first. There is this seemingly endless action climax that just began to tire me out, and the actual ending just kind of meh'd itself out for me.

(Side tangent: if you look at other reviews, there are so many people butthurt at the historical inaccuracy of this movie that has a Gremlin in it, and I have to laugh at them.)

For the most part, we are locked in the turret with Maude, and Chloe Grace Moretz is really doing the Lord's work here because she has to play out scenes of dialogue with disembodied voices and react off of an imaginary creature. I do not envy her at all in this part, but she's honestly kind of giving the performance of her career. I mean I've never been the biggest fan, but she's kind of undeniable in this film.

Maude is a very fun character to follow, and Roseanne Liang has a very unique perspective to share as a filmmaker. It's evident that this film had something of a lower budget, but the way Liang stylizes the budget restraints makes it all look and feel like a pulpy comic strip. It's just go go go, and the best parts of the climax are because of the way Liang shoots the films.

The rest of the cast are all putting in a grade A effort, but other than Nick Robinson as Beckell, none of their characters really match the effort they're putting in. I mean not to belabor the point too much, but later in the film Maude encounters one of the crew and I audibly went "who the hell is this?" as I must have completely missed his introduction. The other hindrance being that other than one scene in the beginning, for the bulk of the film all the men are only heard over the comm system which made it a little hard for me to distinguish who was who.

The last thing I want to talk about is the writing credit, and only because I think it's interesting. Max Landis wrote this script, and the project was in development before he was at the center of a metoo moment. I'm not going to get into it, but there are articles about the accusations if interested. There were no legal charges brought against Landis, but the studio wanted to avoid any bad press. So initially, Landis' name was completely scrubbed from the film, then it was back, and finally he and Roseanne Liang shared co-writing credit. Liang and Moretz disavowed Landis and claimed that the script was rewritten several times and was completely distanced from him.

Well, that's a big fat lie lol.

See, one of the notable things about Landis as a screenwriter is that (unlike many other screenwriters) most of his scripts are easily accessible online. Sometimes he even posts them himself. So as a little experiment I decided to compare the script to the film and...I don't know why Roseanne Liang gets a writing credit. Maybe it was just for PR, but I think it's really funny.

There are two noticeably big changes to the script, and both I think were really funny. Not good, not bad, but I chuckled. Other than giving Moretz a British accent and rearranging the ending, the dialogue is almost verbatim from the script with a couple of cuts made for time. There were literally two lines of dialogue that appeared in the film that was not in the script.

This is to take nothing away of Liang's work directing the film. The script is kind of a monstrosity to behold, and the way she made sense of the somewhat aimless stage directions is really impressive. I'm only bringing it up because I like to compare original scripts to the eventual film, and this one has a bit of a complex history behind it.

Spree (2020)

Why Does this Have such a Low Rating?

[10/10 · 13 February 2021]

When I first heard of Spree, I had a general idea of what it was going to be like. Joe Keery plays Kurt, a fame hungry rideshare driver who wants to go viral, so he decides to go on a killing spree and stream it live. For about ten or fifteen minutes, I thought I knew where this film was going, but something changes when he picks up Jessie Adams (Sasheer Zamata), a burgeoning comedian with a large following online. From that scene on, the movie kept surprising me with every new turn. Found footage is usually played out for me, but one thing this movie does with that form that's really fun is it answers the question of "who edited the footage". Kurt is filming everything intentionally, and even the moments that seem convenient I just let go because the movie's tone creates a world where people filming constantly makes sense.

What ties it all together is Joe Keery, which if for nothing else, is the reason to see this movie. He's been pretty good in some not great things, but here he finally gets a role that gets to show off everything he can do. What makes Kurt such a fascinating character is that he doesn't fit the mold of movie psychopath. He's endlessly positive, always hustling, begging, desperate for approval. At once endearing and disturbing, charming and repulsive, pitiful and deplorable.

I think this movie can be easily misunderstood if taken on face value, but in truth this film uses absurdism (my favorite philosophy of art) to tremendous effect. It's everything I want in a horror comedy, I was constantly stressed out while simultaneously laughing. Much like it's spiritual predecessor American Psycho, I think it's a film that will only be critically re-evaluated more and more as the years go on and we move away from the internet age. A lot of criticism levied at the film seems to come from a place that takes it literally, but it's clearly an abstraction. It's a brutal satire with some haunting real world implications, whether anyone wants to acknowledge them or not.

Promising Young Woman (2020)

Not for Everyone, but there's a lot of fun to be had

[7/10 · 13 February 2021]

Promising Young Woman is a film that I admire for its ambition more so than its execution. Clearly aping the style of 70s exploitation thrillers, Promising Young Woman tells the story of Cassie, a 30 year old woman working at a coffee shop, living with her parents, who doubles as a vigilante of sorts. At night, she goes out and plays drunk to lure predatory men to take her back to their apartment. Once there, she flips the switch and lectures them about consent, scaring them to check their behavior.

As I said, this is clearly aping the style of films like Death Wish, both in visual style and story., while also serving as a commentary on those types of films. The film feels like it doesn't fully have the budget to accomplish what it really wants at times, and pulls its punches a lot. The moments that really work are the moments where it leans into its genre full heartedly and has fun with the tropes. Carey Mulligan is incredible as Cassie, and surprisingly Bo Burnham is pretty convincing as Ryan. The supporting cast ranges, but Alfred Molina and Allison Brie are standouts to me.

The tone is inconsistent, and the film works best when it plays it straight down the barrel. Each scene has an almost mini twist which at first is really entertaining, but it begins to make the pay off a little less impactful as it goes on. The scenes where the guys (Christopher Mintz-Plasse is the worst offender of this) overact and play their jokes up really deflate the final joke of the film.

I feel like the reaction to the film (and maybe the intention behind making it as well) are going to be more the opposite of what I enjoyed from the film. The character of Cassie gets a lot of big, preachy, moments where she gets to spout some topical buzz words and while Carey Mulligan elevates that material, it doesn't change the fact that they have all the nuance and subtlety of your best middle school debate team.

With that said, Emerald Fennell is a very clever writer. Cassie embodies a righteous fury, but most of the characters are right about her. She is kind of a loser. She's 30 years old, still working at a coffee shop, living with her parents, and having no friends. Her obsession with revenge is ruining her life, and maybe it would be best for everyone if she moved on. The movie actually seems to be headed towards a strangely nuanced resolution, but then... I'm not going to spoil the ending because honestly, the real fun of the movie is letting it unravel in front of you, but there are two final twists of the knife. One of them I went with because it was needed to satisfy the genre. The other was a bit pitchy for me, dog.

So it's a mixed bag. I feel like the first two thirds of the film are better than the final act. Some of the performances are really good, but some of them are cartoonish and boorish. The film has a lot of visual style, but doesn't have the resources to fully execute that vision. The script is good, but not as nuanced as it might have needed to be. I mean, what I will say is that it has provoked more thought in me than most other films of 2020, and for better or worse it is one of the more complete films of that year as well.

Masters of Horror: Pick Me Up (2006) Season 1, Episode 11

Slowwww Going, Lame Ending, but Two Really Good Performances

[7/10 · 13 February 2021]

Pick Me Up is the eleventh episode of Masters of Horror, directed by Larry Cohen (The Stuff) and written by David Schow, adapted from his own short story. It details a turf war between two serial killers played by Michael Moriarty and Warren Kole, and plays a lot like a western horror. Which is really cool and a change of pace for this series.

This film is a really odd addition to the Masters of Horror series because I actually think that this at times is the scariest episodes. Or rather, the opening sequence has at least thirty seconds that truly unnerved me. A lot of that rests on the shoulders of Moriarty and Kole, both of whom are different types of unsettling as their respective serial killers. Moriarty is especially good, basically playing the American version of the killer from Wolf Creek, charming then terrifying in a matter of seconds. Kole has a different type of charm to him, but in a way that matches his character. I actually really like that the two killers are so far apart in age, so their victims and MO compliment their ages.

The third major character is Stacia, a woman who finds herself caught in the middle between the two of them unwittingly. She's played by Fairuza Balk, who does as much as she can with the little she has to do. The very little, in all honesty. She seems to be being set up as a major player, but then mostly ends up as just another victim.

There are a few scenes that are really gross out disturbing (a motel room scene that has no warning seems to go on forever) left me with a pit in my stomach. It does have this overall sense of dread, and darkness that the film is clearly going for. I mean, it does run into the Masters of Horror problem where the budget makes the whole thing look like a 90s movie that was lost to the ages, but Brian Pearson (the film's cinematographer) manages to pull off a very dark, nihilistic feel to everything. Except there is this one shot that is clearly very old stock footage of the woods that looks SOOOO BAD in comparison to the rest of the film.

It's pacing is pretty slow, there's very little forward momentum, and the ending beat is so lame. The editing is also an issue, there are a few cuts that really stick out as bad and improperly timed. Also, the music just doesn't want to shut up. It's always on, and constantly changing so I could never get used to it. There are so many lone guitar riffs that just go on and on.

So, on the whole, it's a pretty good episode, but I would say only above average for the series.

Masters of Horror: Sick Girl (2006) Season 1, Episode 10

Bonkers, but really fun

[7/10 · 13 February 2021]

Sick Girl is the tenth episode of Masters of Horror and is directed by Lucky McKee (a director I have zero familiarity with) and written by Sean Hood. This is one of the most bizarre stories the series has told this far. It follows Ida Teeter (Angela Bettis) who studies bugs. She struggles to maintain a relationship due to her strange fascination with bugs, and one day gets a big praying mantis looking bug that- Oh My God, I feel like I'm going insane even describing it.

And, I'm not going to lie. I kind of love the first half of this short. It's not scary at all, but it is ridiculously funny to me. Angela Bettis is giving this bizarrely mannered performance that is just so weird and charming, and Ida is a very endearing character. The first scene we see her in, she's talking about how her girlfriend dumped her because she's too obsessed with bugs. Like...WHAT? The acting is not very good per se, but it is very "Masters of Horror" I have noticed that with rare exception, the performances in these films have been very over the top, and you either accept it as the style or you don't. Jesse Hlubik as Max Grubb has really charming chemistry with Bettis, and their scenes do have this super likable energy. Same thing with Erin Brown as Misty, the romance is rushed, but I buy it cause it's just so sweet and bizarre. There's a romantic montage of them eating bugs together, how can I not just giggle.

My favorite performance is Chandra Berg as Betty or "The Ladybug" because she's really not good (she's a little kid), but damn is she committed to whatever it is she's doing. She also reminds me of what I was like as a kid, so I'm partial.

This reminded me a lot of the movie "Idle Hands" because it doesn't really work as a horror movie, because of how broad everything is played, but it is pretty charming. It's not without its faults though, there's this annoying mid 2000s, MTV music video filter over the Bug POV shots that are really irritating to my eyes, and with the tone it's going for, there's a rate of diminishing returns. Sometimes the intentional hokeyness can lose its charm.

And the overall problem I'm noticing with this series is that the show is called "Masters of Horror", but more than half of these films have fallen into broad comedy and satire. I'm a fan of horror comedy, too, but it takes a deft hand to execute it really well. This isn't quite Eli Roth levels of annoying, but it gets there. Especially when close to the end, we get this super dramatic turn with the landlady and it's like, where did this come from? It's also slow as hell, we hit the halfway point and so little has actually happened that I found myself skipping ahead a few seconds just to feel something. That's not a good sign.

So, on the whole, I did enjoy just how weird this film was, but it kind of falls just short of the mark of being great.

Masters of Horror: The Fair Haired Child (2006) Season 1, Episode 9

A Surprisingly Well Crafted Film

[8/10 · 13 February 2021]

The Fair-Haired Child is the ninth episode of Masters of Horror, written by Matt Greenburg and directed by William Malone, and boy howdy have we already run out of "Masters"? No disrespect intended towards William Malone, but it's hard to follow Tobe Hooper, John Carpenter, Joe Dante, and Dario Argento. I mean, come on: Wes Craven, Sam Raimi, and David Cronenberg said no? They didn't have ten days free to shoot an episode? You know, maybe they were, maybe they just didn't have any interest or time, but it's just such a sad downward spiral of names. They probably should have scattered the bigger names throughout, rather than front loading the whole series with them. Because here's the thing, the main attraction that I felt when I wanted to watch this series was seeing these huge name directors work on a smaller scale with the restrictions of mid 2000s tv. My interest was already waning before because of the similar problems each episode (with the exception of Cigarette Burns) had with their characterization and production, but I don't know how much longer I'll be able to hold on after we are officially out of the legends part of the season.

With that said, (I'm so sorry William Malone), Fair-Haired Child is a pretty good episode! Not great, and coming off of Cigarette Burns it's got a tough act to follow, but a really solid piece of horror fiction that is creepy, and unique from the other episodes. The story follows Tara (Lindsay Pulsipher) who is kidnapped by a couple (Lori Petty and William Samples) and is held captive in their basement alongside a boy named Johnny (Jesse Haddock). The thing about this episode which separates itse.f from the others is that everyone is given very sympathetic reasons for doing what they're doing. The parents have a completely logical (to them at least) reason for what they're doing. Told through these truly haunting black and white sequences, you're given a true look into their tragedy that led them here.

Lindsay Pulsipher as Tara is pretty good, she doesn't have much to do other than play victim, but she does that incredibly well. The real showcase performances though are Lori Petty and William Samples. They both get pretty hammy, but Petty especially plays off the snap in her psyche that happened to put these events in place.

The Fair Haired Child, the monster that eventually appears, is a unique enough design, and moves with this eerie almost stop motion quality that makes it an effective creature.

If I had one main gripe with the film, it's that the emotional resolution at the end feels somewhat hollow. Maybe it's that I just wanted something different, but it does seem to end in a very cheap, everything wraps up neatly, way. Still, I was sort of dreading this episode, since I was so familiar with the filmmaker's work, and was pleasantly surprised.

Masters of Horror: John Carpenter's Cigarette Burns (2005) Season 1, Episode 8

Carpenter's Lost Film

[9/10 · 13 February 2021]

Cigarette Burns is the eighth episode in The Masters of Horror series, written by Drew McWeeny and Scott Swan and directed by John Carpenter. The music for the film, which is awesome, was composed by Carpenter's son Cody, with who, he would later collaborate on his "Lost Themes" albums. The film stars a pre-Walking Dead Norman Reedus as a rare-films collector and Udo Kier as a man who hires him to track down a film that, legend tells, caused a murderous riot to break out at its only showing.

This is the best episode of the show thus far. Its only other competitor is Dreams in the Witch House, which is a completely different type of horror. It's got two genuine stars at its center with Kier and Reedus, that helps. It has a truly original and unique story completely to itself, and John Carpenter is the man behind the camera. There's this myth with Carpenter that he lost his magic touch after They lived or In The Mouth of Madness, but I don't think that's fair to say. Ghosts of Mars is the only movie I would say he's directed that is truly unwatchable. It's moreso that he just got complacent with the material he directed. I mean, listen to this dude in interviews, he clearly doesn't have that fire and passion he once did. With compelling material, like this, he can still hammer out a banger.

Norman Reedus is the grounding force for the movie, and really carries it on his back. He really is an engaging presence to have on screen. And hey, eight episodes in and we finally have another female character with some depth and pathos! Yeah, Gwynyth Walsh turns up to drop some science on this fool as we head into the third act, and she's great.

It actually does have a fair bit in common with "In the Mouths of Madness" in so much as it is an every man being sucked into a grand conspiracy which is died around a reclusive artist and his powerful final work. Even though it's the same length as the other episodes, it feels like it goes so much deeper than every other episode. There's a real horror, and dread to the proceedings that began to turn my stomach as it unfolded. Also, this is just a really fresh mythos with this film, and I really dig it.

Masters of Horror: Deer Woman (2005) Season 1, Episode 7

Paint By Numbers, but a Good One

[7/10 · 13 February 2021]

Deer Woman is the seventh episode of Masters of Horror, and is directed by John Landis, and written by his son Max Landis. John shares a cowriting credit because apparently Max refused to rewrite the ending and add a scene where the Deer Woman seduced a guy, so John did it anyways, which is pretty funny to me.

Can we talk for a minute about John Landis being included in this group of the "Masters of Horror" at all? I mean, I love An American Werewolf in London too, but other than that and a handful of others (a segment in Twilight Zone the Movie, Innocent Blood, and Burke and Hare) only one of which wasn't a horror comedy, how does he fit in this group? Most of the other directors either exclusively have made horror movies, or have only done other genres a handful of times. He just sticks out like a sore thumb, especially when sandwiched between Joe Dante and John Carpenter, two guys who actually are masters of the genre.

But I'm picking nits at this point, Deer Woman is a pretty straight forward monster movie. It's got all the hallmarks, a series of murders being investigated by a strung out detective, mistaking it for animal attacks, so on and so forth. This was Max Landis's first credit as a screenwriter, and it is a very by the numbers script. It's not bad, it's just very generic.

There are a couple of fun character moments that show some personality. The main detective gets a long monologue near the end of the film that is delivered wonderfully, and adds much needed personal connection to the character. I love the scene with old woman and her dog giving a witness statement, there's a dream sequence with a fake deer head that is so intentionally corny and awful that I can't help but love it, but for the most part, the story just plays the hits, and moves along.

The most unique element is, maybe obviously, the Deer Woman herself. Ascribed from Indigenous mythology, the Deer Woman is a half woman half deer siren who lures men to their death. She doesn't really have a motivation for doing so, but due to her half woman appearance, she is a more threatening monster than say a werewolf since she could feasibly go out and kill at any point.

(Oh and this character, which is supposed to be an Indigenous woman? Played by a Brazilian woman, thanks for playing!)

The problem is, and sing it with me if you know the words: she is the main female character and she has nothing to do. Damn, at this point it's comical at how few fully realized women have been in this series. I understand that the Deer Woman targets men, so having a lot of possible victims is good for the meat counter, but... I don't know then maybe shouldn't the character who takes her on be a woman? You know since she would be less likely to be targeted by the Deer Woman personally? I mean, there's the character of Dana who seems pretty interesting, but she's pretty much relegated to a couple of scenes where she just sort of exposits information.

What are the good things in this episode? Honestly none of it is really bad, and taken as a stand alone film, it's a fun way to spend an hour. It's all just very standard issue, and watching it in sequence with the rest of the episodes reduces the impact of the film on its own. I enjoyed watching it, even if I knew what was going to happen, sometimes even to the minute.

Masters of Horror: Homecoming (2005) Season 1, Episode 6

No Skeleton Zombies? Boo

[7/10 · 13 February 2021]

Homecoming, directed by Joe Dante, and adapted from Dale Bailey's short story "Death & Suffrage" by Sam Hamm (the scribe behind Monkeybone and Batman Returns, so we're in for a treat). Oh, and it's dealing directly with the Iraq War YAYYYYYYYYY. The usual "Masters of Horror" problems are abound here. The effects are pretty cheap, it tries to do a lot with a short amount of time, and the women characters are awful. I mean, once again, we got this woman whose sole job is to have sex with the main guy, and die.

I give the film credit for having a unique motive for the zombies, having a motive at all beyond eating people is pretty original. I mean, come on, the zombies coming back to vote is even more hilarious in 2021. The performances are all pretty expressive. Every scene with Robert Picardo is pretty entertaining. He has this way of being so artificial, that it goes right back around to being authentic.

There is this VoiceOver in the film, that is literally just telling the audience what we are about to see happen, or have already seen happened. It's pretty useless, and seems to be included for fear of the audience not getting the point. It pretty much ruins the emotional core of the movie, which is already somewhat muddled for me by the fact that it is directly removed from the central conflict. As a horror movie, also, it is pretty lame. There isn't really many moments of tension or dread in the whole movie. It tries a couple of times, but I think I'm way too desensitized to zombies at this point.

I guess parts of me want to give this one a bit of a pass since it is mostly played for broad satire. The satire is pretty funny, and it does a good job of getting its message across in a way that doesn't feel condescending or thoughtless. One thing that is weirdly unaddressed by a movie that is obsessed with political maneuvering, is that no one argues that the zombies shouldn't be allowed to have a vote since they're technically dead. I mean, that is 100% the real world ramifications of Zombies coming back to vote, but whatever.

Masters of Horror: Jenifer (2005) Season 1, Episode 4

Solid Episode

[7/10 · 13 February 2021]

The Fourth episode of Masters of Horror is Jenifer, directed by Dario Argento (Suspiria) and written by and starring Steven Weber as Frank Spivey. Frank is a cop who one day shoots and kills a man attempting to butcher a young woman (Carrie Fleming) named Jenifer. The man tells Spivey that he "doesn't know what she is" before dying, and Jenifer - horridly disfigured - comes to live with Spivey and his family, who are repulsed by her appearance.

Steven Weber brings some much lacking star power to the series, and is a great fit as Frank. Carrie Fleming as Jenifer is an interesting performance. It is a very primal character, acting much more like an animal than anything human. It does run into a strange issue that I've been noticing with this series as it goes on, which is the strange over sexualization of its female characters. You know, with the exception of Bree Turner in the first episode (and even with that there's some contentious stuff towards the end of that) it is difficult to find a woman who is anything more than walking sex or some sort of succubus in this series.

Dario Argento directed this episode, and thus far he is the most stylized of the directors. The others have all had their distinct style, obviously, but Argento manages to pull off some big spectacle with relatively little time and money. He has always known how to play with lighting and angles to most optimize the aesthetic. The effects are gloriously cheesy, but Argento presents them in such a manner that you can either laugh at them or be disturbed by them, and either response is valid.

I can't say I like this more than Dreams in Witch House because that is more my style of horror, but this is definitely my second favorite episode of the series thus far.

Oh, also, the original score for this episode? Definitely earned it that extra half star.

Masters of Horror: Dance of the Dead (2005) Season 1, Episode 3

Not bad, just not very memorable

[6/10 · 13 February 2021]

The third episode of Masters of Horror, Dance of the Dead, is based on a short story by Richard Matheson, adapted by his son Richard Christian Matheson, and directed by Tobe Hooper. It is set in an alternate timeline future where the world has been ravaged by World War III, and biological weapon strikes by these strikes called "Bliss". (Hilariously, timeline wise, this takes place in 2018, and woo boy is that a surreal idea) The death toll is rising, with some cities entirely being wiped out. The story follows Peggy (Jessica Lowndes, in her acting debut!) whose friends were killed by Blizzard at her seventh birthday party, and Jak (the always electric Jonathan Tucker) a biker and drug addict.

This is the weirdest story of the show so far since it doesn't neatly fall into a sub-genre, and isn't necessarily horrific. It's something of a family drama and a romance. As such, there isn't a whole lot of forward momentum driving the episode forward. What's worse is that there's this annoying editing trick that they keep implementing that speeds up the footage for a couple of seconds, and cuts all over the place. Once again, I am reminded of the "mid-2000s"ness of it all. The film does pick up significantly about halfway through when they get to the Doom Room.

The Doom Room, a heavy metal bar with an MC played by Robert Englund. It's a really inventive space, where most of the unnerving ideas are presented, and obviously Englund is a joy to watch as he hams it up like a beast. It is a nihilistic piece of science fiction horror that is more disturbing in theory than it is in execution. Still, there is a twist at the end that genuinely turned my stomach with the implications of it, and the whole idea of the drug that re-animates the corpses is an unsettling concept.

It didn't fully work for me, but it's never bad to watch Jonathan Tucker work, and there is at least one sequence of true horror.

Masters of Horror: Dreams in the Witch-House (2005) Season 1, Episode 2

One of the Best of the Series

[8/10 · 13 February 2021]

The second episode of Masters of Horror is Dreams in the Witch House, directed by Stuart Gordon (Re-Animator) and is adapted from HP Lovecraft's short story of the same name by Gordon and Dennis Paoli. The story follows Ezra Godden as Walter Gillman, a college student renting out a cheap room in an old house. The other tenants and the landlord are increasingly bizarre, and there are strange occurrences that happen at night. Sounds from nowhere, unexplainable lights, a rat with a human face.

Unlike the first episode, which I felt was very of its time, this episode is almost the opposite. It is steeped in Lovecraftian atmosphere and late 80s nihilism. It plays everything straight down the barrel, no winking or asides. I mean, any film that unironically presents a rat with a human face on it has my heart. Also, what can I say, I am a sucker for a haunted house. Give it to us creaky and drafty, and they shoot nearly every possible angle of the house.

I've often said that Lovecraft's stories are difficult to adapt to screen because so much comes from what's unseen as much as what is seen. Stuart Gordon though, both in this and Re-Animator, figures out a way to present Lovecraft's bizarre imagery in ways that don't feel lame and schtick. The way he accomplishes this is by shifting focus from the horror onto the characters.

Walter Gillman is not an incredibly complex character, but he is safe hands to be in for this story. He's a well-meaning guy, thrown into an extraordinary circumstance. Ezra Godden is given a lot of strange, complex dialogue that he manages to pull off effectively. Each scare is set up as a set piece around his desires and fears, which empathetically allows the audience to be put more directly into the scare. He gets to play the spiral into madness that inevitably follows every Lovecraft story, and manages his own flair while doing so.

The supporting cast is also wonderful, Jay Brazeau is delightfully cheap as the landlord Mr. Dombrowski, Campbell Lane is eerie and unnerving as Masurewicz, and Chelah Horsdal as Frances is terrific. She in particular has a lot asked of her, playing a couple scenes with really strange circumstances. All the actors have to pull off this science fiction babble in such a way that it all makes sense to me. It is a slow burn, and the effects are dated, but it takes itself seriously, and goes for the throat whenever it can. I know it's only the second episode of the series, but this is the bar that the rest of the episodes will have to meet for me.

Masters of Horror: Incident on and Off a Mountain Road (2005) Season 1, Episode 1

A good start for a series

[6/10 · 13 February 2021]

Incident On and Off a Mountain Road is the first episode of Masters of Horror, and is directed by Don Coscareli (he of Phantasm/The Beastmaster fame). The film follows Bree Turner as Ellen, a woman driving down a long highway to some truly emolicious early 2000s alternative when she is run off the road. Also on (and off) the highway tonight is a serial killer named Moonface (played by John DeSantis), who is pursuing her. Through flashbacks, we see that Ellen was trained by her survivalist husband.

The look of the film really bugged me, it wasn't terrible, but it did plant me firmly in 2005. There's a certain level of cheapness that comes with the episode that they try to disguise as best they can. It is an interesting time capsule of a show that was made in the mid 2000s. I mean, this was when Wolf Creek and Hostel were the new hotness, and torture porn was the way the horror genre was working for a time. As such, there's a lot of shaky cam chase scenes, dramatic music, and flashes of light in the dark to hide the restraints of the budget. You could put this side by side with something like Wrong Turn, and be very confused as to which is which.

With that said, this film has some good things going for it. The film doesn't really have time to waste, so it goes right into the chase pretty much as soon as the film begins, but it makes time for us to get to know our main victim pretty effectively. Bree Turner is incredibly charming, and likable, as Ellen. She's a great final girl because you get to watch her learn how to get out of each situation. The best types of cat and mouse chases are the ones where the mouse gets one up on the cat. Which happens a couple times here, in ways that are creative and exciting. She even sets up Home Alone style traps in the woods, I mean come on that's just fun.

The makeup on John DeSantis is really good, I mean yeah you can tell it's a latex mask, but it's still really well done. The flashbacks are interspersed in a way that help build the tension of the main story rather than detract from it. Ethan Embry is pretty hammy as Bruce, but in an enjoyable way. Angus Scrimm has a part as Buddy, and he is ham right off the bone, but brings some much needed humor to the proceedings.

The film's climax is kind of a "gotcha" ending with a cruel twist and a dark resolution, but hey, that's horror for you. It's one of those endings, though, where it initially makes so much sense that I couldn't believe I didn't see it coming, but as it went on longer got into "ok, enough" territory.

Still, as an opener to a horror series that is really trying hard to push the envelope of what was seen on TV at the time, it's a good effort.

Malcolm & Marie (2021)

It's Fine

[6/10 · 13 February 2021]

Malcolm & Marie is the newest film from Sam Levinson, produced during Quarantine, and starring John David Washington and Zendaya. It takes place over the course of one night and details a fight between Malcolm, an up and coming filmmaker, and his girlfriend Marie. The argument stems from Malcolm forgetting to thank Marie in his speech before his film's premiere.

It's an excuse to showcase John David Washington and Zendaya as performers. Two performers who I have lukewarm feelings about to begin with. Both are good in the film, but the acting is very stage-y. It all does feel like a play, but after like ten minutes, I just accepted the style. They work well together and have pretty fun chemistry. In fact, both are so good, they almost distract me from the glaring weaknesses of the script.

I will say that for the first part of the film, I was really digging it. The low-fi aesthetics with the quick snappy dialogue really put me in the mood. The main issue of this film is that it is a one location, two character, movie. Neither the location, nor the issue between the characters are dynamic enough to sustain the momentum the film is going for. What really sucks is, since there is a restriction of time and space, we don't get to see anything of this relationship outside of this one hour. Not saying that you need that, but it might help let us in to the argument a bit more.

Taken as a whole, Malcolm & Marie is an interesting experiment that I don't think fully pays off, but there are some strong elements. I think this subject matter deserves a better film, and maybe one day we'll get it, but for now? This is fine.

But I have to ask: what has happened to Sam Levinson? The provocateur, the rebel, the absurdist. The guy who made the truly bonkers pop-satire Assassination Nation, and staged that breathtakingly gorgeous carnival sequence in the fourth episode of Euphoria? Why has he been replaced by this stoic, self serious, drama mama, just bleeding my time with these emo dirges? It's almost as if Levinson refuses to acknowledge his own artifice, trying to trick you into thinking that his characters are deeper and more complex than they are.

Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (2019)

It all was Always Leading to This, wasn't it?

[9/10 · 9 August 2019]

Once Upon A Time... in Hollywood, is the 9th (and presumably penultimate) film from Quentin Tarantino and at this point in his career, you kind of know what you're expecting. A cast filled to the brim with character actors, and modern day movie stars, a 60s LA Rock soundtrack, and more movie references than you can shake a stick at. And while, yes on the one hand, you get exactly what you'd expect, it's delivered in a way that he hasn't even attempted since Jackie Brown.

There is not much story to speak of: Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a former television star now suffering a mid-life/career slump after a failed forays into movies. His only comforts are his best friend and long-time stuntman Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), who in many respects has it worse than Rick due to an incident involving the death of his wife some years before, and the fantasy that his next door neighbors Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and Roman Polanski will invite him over one night and relaunch his career.

Before the inevitable third act blood-fest, the film is ostensibly a hangout movie, following Rick, Cliff, and Sharon throughout a day in 1969 LA. The scenes are more of a vehicle for Tarantino to get in all his favorite parts about pre-70s LA into one film. KHJ radio, cineramas, and old TV Procedurals.

It feels almost redundant to go through every Name in this movie, but all I can say is, I can only imagine half the budget went to paying their quotes. But I feel the need to call special attention to Al Pacino as Marvin Schwarz, Julia Butters as a child actress on Lancer, and Dakota Fanning as Squeaky, none of whom are in the film for more than ten minutes each, but give some of the most committed performances of the cast. Another standout is Margaret Qualley as Pussycat, who goes from alluring to annoying to downright repulsive by the end of her stint with Brad Pitt.

There are the obvious cameos like Timothy Olyphant's James Stacy, Mike Moh's Bruce Lee, and Nicholas Hammond's Sam Wanamaker (sporting a beautiful white turtle neck) that pop up every now and again. This is coupled with the cameos of Tarantino's favorites from back in the day (play I Spy and try to spot Clu Gulager, Bruce Dern, Ramón Franco, James Remar, and Rebecca Gayheart...to name a few) all come together to round out a spectacular ensemble cast.

But the focus is kept where it should be: on Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt, who are at the top of their game. They are committed, they are here for it, and are so damn fun to watch. The mood is infectious and by the end of it you want to buy a pack of smokes and hit the road with a pal. Brad Pitt specifically plays the most fully realized character, and the anchor of the film. The scene when he finally arrives on Spahn Movie Ranch is Tarantino at his best, amping up the tension every passing second.

This really is Pitt's movie, he's as cool as Steve McQueen, as breezy as John Wayne, and as hard to hit as Bruce Lee. He is comfortable with himself, and where he is in life. He is unburdened by the same delusions of grandeur that his best friend Rick is. All he wants out of life is to maybe get back to working as a stuntman, but if that's impossible, a life spent with his best friend and dog isn't a bad alternative.

There is a moment where Kurt Russel reveals to the audience that Pitt "killed his wife", though it is not confirmed either way what validity that statement has. It's an aside, one of those unsolved Hollywood mysteries like: How did Natalie Wood actually drown? Even with this information, though, you are resolute in liking Cliff Booth.

The film is not without its faults: the most major one being Rick Dalton. Not Leonardo DiCaprio's performance, which most certainly elevates it, but the character as written. He has a lot in common with Vincent Vega from Pulp Fiction, is he really cool? Or is the actor playing him cool? That is to say that Dalton's struggle is well established, and DiCaprio is committed to the role, but not as much time is given to him as a person as say Pitt's Cliff Booth.

Sharon Tate serves as more of an egregore, an embodiment of free-living 60s, where you picked up hitch-hikers and watched movies with your shoes off. It's clear what she represents to Tarantino: the living symbols of the Hollywood that is coming to an end. However, many will be put off by her lack of dialogue, even though it doesn't hinder her performance in any way: most audiences are hardwired to associate dialogue with character development.

I also can't help but feel that Jane and John Q. Public will be bored by the film, especially the two hour build-up to the forty minute punchline. Not to mention that with an increase of streaming services and Marvel movies, moving exposition ahead of atmosphere, the long strings of silence will undoubtedly unsettle many viewers.

Finally, let's talk about that punchline: If you don't know anything about Sharon Tate, Charles Manson, Tex Watson, and the Manson Family... I'm afraid this ending might be lost on you.

But all of these are minor nitpicks in the grand scheme. One can hardly complain when a filmmaker like Tarantino works at this level. He is the last filmmaker who makes films like this, and will probably be the last one for a very very long time. I can't imagine a young filmmaker in today's political climate pulling off what Tarantino pulls off.

A film that empowers it's female characters while also fetishizing them. A film that glorifies white macho men while also showing how pathetic they can be. A film which views the system it is presently working in as both meaningless and the only thing that really matters. An ending that is both the most feel good moment of the year, and the most dower ending of the year when reminded of the reality.

It really is the film that sums up Tarantino as a filmmaker the best. Self-indulgent, derivative, and flawed, but you've gotta look past all of it and see the gigantic heart behind it.

Hold the Dark (2018)

Kind of a Let Down, but that Shootout... WOW

[6/10 · 26 May 2019]

Jeremy Saulnier is an increasingly curious filmmaker. His first film "Murder Party" is a unique dark comedy that I think really set the tone for his career. He's always made movies that go against convention. Blue Ruin is a revenge film with no catharsis. Green Room is a horror movie where who lives and dies is almost arbitrary, and Hold the Dark is a mystery where the mystery and the resolution is unclear.

The movie is stunningly bleak, the performances are all top notch, and there's a midpoint shootout that is harrowing to watch.

I guess when it comes down to it, I just don't find the dialogue here very compelling, or any of the characters either. Which I guess is the point, and it's very well done, but after Saulnier's last three films ,this one didn't meet my expectations.

Outlaw King (2018)

I'm glad I watched it. I won't watch it again.

[6/10 · 26 May 2019]

Chris Pine is an actor that doesn't ever get enough credit or respect. He's always turned in magnificent performances, even in movies that are lackluster. That's kind of the case here. Every performance in the movie is exciting to watch and layered.

The action set pieces are pretty good as well, and the battles are on par with other medieval battles put to screen. For me, the real problem lie in the fact that this is a two hour movie. Apparently the original cut was something like four hours long, and I really wish they had just released the whole affair as a four part miniseries.

As it stands, Outlaw King is a drive-by recounting of Robert The Bruce, with a strong cast and slick production value. Check it out if you're curious, it is worth a watch.

Assassination Nation (2018)

One of the Best of The Year

[9/10 · 24 December 2018]

WOW. I was speechless during the entire runtime for this movie. From start to finish it just would not let me go, and I wouldn't have it any other way. It's absurdity serves only to highlight the shockingly truth to the subject matter. I'm not going to act like this is a movie that's for everyone. It isn't. If you see the trailer and think it's not going to interest you, or make you angry, then...yeah don't watch it.

But if you're curious, or liked the trailer, then definitely check this film out. Sam Levinson is on my radar forever.

The Shape of Water (2017)

Yeah it's Ok.

[6/10 · 20 July 2018]

So, I see more and more a lot of people dismiss this film because of its politics, pacing, or the fish sex. I think that all these really come from people expecting everything to be explained and believable and no "dream logic" allowed. Which is a problem of another sort, but just in case you were confused by some of the more vitriolic comments, that's where that's from.

The movie itself is...ok. It's not great, it's not terrible. If you're wondering how the film won best picture, it's because of an arbitrary point system the academy has that every year since it's installment has resulted in mediocre movies winning best picture.

My biggest problem with the movie is that everything feels on autopilot. The story is autopilot (it's any number of fairy tales), the characters are autopilot (meek woman, doe eyed monster, crazy scientist), and all the actors are on autopilot.

Octavia Spencer is playing the same character she always plays, Michael Shannon is playing the same character he always plays, Richard Jenkins is playing the same character he always plays, even Doug Jones is the one underneath all the makeup.

The only one who seems to escape this is Sally Hawkins who is legitimately great, but that's nothing new.

There's nothing standout or special about the movie, it's pretty standard. Not a bad time to be had if you're curious, but don't expect an earth shattering experience.

The Room (2003)

The voice of innocence whispers in our ears...

[10/10 · 10 June 2018]

Is it really possible that this luminous masterpiece is a first feature film? It is as though Mozart had started his career in composition with one of his mature symphonies. What is totally special about 'The Room' is the visual control that Tommy Wiseau applies to the story, and his use of fabulous music to embed his amazing images in our mind. The 'Talented Mr. Ripley'-ish story could have been turgid, but Wiseau turns it into a mythic journey.

At the heart of Wiseau's method is the fabulous use of repetition in his work with the character Greg. "What's going on here?". This has been characteristic of each of Wiseau's films. Here it totally sucks the viewer into the story and is just about, the high-point of 2000s cinema.

Alongside this, Wiseau uses some of the most haunting music in existence. Whether it is Kitra Williams or Clint Jun Gamboa, Wiseau transports us with fabulous romantic imagery that perfectly balances it.

I started on this comment determined not to use the word 'poetry', but I just can't avoid it. With nearly all filmmakers, including very great ones, the style that they present is very much prose - great prose, perhaps, but firmly rooted on the ground. With Wiseau, we are taken, emotionally, to the stars by the lyric magnificence of the totality of his vision.

It is said that Welles learned cinema by watching John Ford's 'Stagecoach' before embarking on 'Citizen Kane'. Every young filmmaker should watch this amazing masterpiece again and again and again and inform their work with Wiseau's matchless sense of true cinema.

Take Me to the River (2015)

Matt Sobel is more impressed with himself than I was.

[6/10 · 22 June 2016]

I always prefer to give a film the benefit of the doubt going into it. When I saw the trailer, I thought I knew exactly what was going to happen and didn't need to see it. But I was still curious and decided "you don't know, you could be wrong. Go see it and find out." So, I saw it. And I can safely say I predicted beat for beat what was going to happen.

Now, that is not to say predictability is a bad thing. But this movie seems hellbent on surprising you. Every reveal is treated as a mind blowing revelation, when you've probably already figured it out twenty minutes back. And the movie becomes sterile if you know what's happening. As the film reached its close, I found myself thinking "this can't be the solution, no they're going to pull he rug out from under us. The other shoe has to drop."

But sadly it all ends as you thought it would. Which wouldn't be bad, except the line of dialogue which reveals the "big twist" of the movie comes, and I'm not exaggerating, less than ten minutes in.

There are many good aspects to the movie, and I must praise those when I see them. The cinematography is gorgeous for the budget the movie has, if it isn't at all too reminiscent of TV in Sobel's point and shoot method. The lack of a score calls to mind No Country For Old Men and definitely creates the atmosphere of mystery and suspense Sobel wants to capture. There is one music cue at the end of the movie I find a little out of place tonally, and admittedly laughed when it occurred, but that's a minor complaint.

Where the movie really stands tall is on the shoulders of its actors. Logan Miller, the films lead, once again shines and shows great promise as a young actor as the young gay son of Robin Weigret and Richard Schiff (who both turn in stellar performances). Josh Hamilton makes a thrilling turn as the shifty uncle and father of Molly, the girl with whom the plot revolves around. The other standout in the movie is the young Ursula Parker as Molly, where she shows a naturalism and charm without being an annoying child actor.

Matt Sobel has the capacity to make a great movie, but sadly Take Me To The River isn't it.