Reviews by Movie Maniac

Kevin Smith has become something of a mythic figure. He can, after all, almost single-handedly be credited for bringing geek culture to the mainstream and making it fashionable. Along with Tarantino and Rodriguez, Smith ushered in the era of the independent artist and tore at the clay feet of the industry forever altering the landscape. This can never be taken away from him. However, unlike his peers, Smith never really evolved in his craft.

For a good while that wasn't even a problem. Fans, myself included, adored the slew of movies he churned out, warts and all. We weren't there for his technical prowess (which he still has the barest minimum) or his artistic vision. No, we were there for the melodramatics of youth, the referential and pop culture heavy dialogue that balanced between the witty and the outright vulgar, seeing the banal brought to vibrant and well-meaning life, and, of course, to see what Jay and Silent Bob, that lovable duo of slacker stoners, were up to now. in short, he made us love the characters and shared universe he created for them.

That shared universe (the Askewniverse, properly) was the one he finally left behind in 2001 after going out with a huge, over-the-top, and fan service heavy flick called "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back". It was a big thank you to the fans that supported him for years and, though juvenile and ridiculous, a helluva crowd-pleasing, good time. And so, Kevin Smith set out to make more pedestrian fare....

Only to quickly discover that it was rather forgettable. So he returned to the Askewniverse with "Clerks II" which, surprisingly, showed that he may have learned some lessons and could now apply them to his universe of films. It also showed promise that he could ever so slightly mature his characters and maybe bring them along with his audience as they aged. Alas, after this outing he returned to mainstream film-making with a couple of movies that are best forgotten (Cop Out and Zack and Miri Make a Porno).

Bereft of any wit, originality, charm, or humor, these movies made many question his ability to stretch out beyond the world he knew best. The response actually made him temporarily retire before returning with legitimately good thriller that played quite far from his standard fare that people took notice. Since then he's made more questionable, albeit at least somewhat original material.

So, it was inevitable in some people's eyes and, after a close call with death, he decided to make "Jay and Silent Bob Reboot", a self-aware and meta indictment of Hollywood that would allow him to gather the gang back together again to do what they do best.

Alas, they did their worst.

"Jay and Silent Bob Reboot" is an abject failure. It is a film so stringently unfunny that I literally questioned whether my perception and love of Smith's previous Askewniverse material was legit or just a sweet memory. That sounds a bit like an exaggeration but it sadly was not. I literally sat aghast and watched scene after scene unspool before me evoking nary a hint of laughter or even a desire to laugh. So silent was my viewing that I looked over at my brother and saw the look in his face that surely reflected the one that struck mine, a perverse mix of confusion, anger, disappointment, and disgust. We went in with almost no expectations and still were dragged to the bowers of disappointment. If anything Smith was at full advantage to please given his less than stellar output as of late but from the outset something feels wrong.

Let's get something out of the way that's always been an issue with Smith films in some way or another. On a technical level Jay and SB Reboot is an ugly looking film. Make no mistake it's not hindered by low quality picture, instead the picture has a very rich yet terribly unbecoming color palette that makes everyone look their absolute worst. Ever wanted to see every nook and cranny in a person? Well, this one might do it for you then. Yes, the movie lingers somewhere between downright cheap looking and cinematic but never achieves either one. That can be forgivable though. What isn't is the editing which is something to marvel at...for all the wrong reasons.

We come for the laughs and though familiar ideas and themes crop up, the comic timing is so off in this movie that it actually becomes the most consistent thing in the movie to spot the moment when something COULD have been funny. Sadly, it is so perceptibly "fixable" with editing. In comedy every moment counts and milliseconds are precious, here they tick by like hours as if the editor (Smith himself) where telling you "this is when you laugh". Except you don't.

This brings us to another glaring issue in the film, the gimmick of being a meta reboot. Given the current climate in Hollywood this could have been a great opportunity for satire or an outright indictment of the state of affairs in the industry, instead, we get a boat load of rehashed jokes (which in the process are robbed of their original charm) and entire plot structures. The film tries to pass this off as clever but it's so transparently lazy that it a quickly becomes tiresome. Of course it doesn't end at rehashing jokes. How about endless cameos and callbacks to the mythos of the askewniverse? Hey, remember that scene that made you laugh years ago? Let's do that again only worse and then pat ourselves in the back by remind you that this is supposed to be self-aware. As for the cameos, some are so cheap and utterly useless (I'm looking at you Matt Damon as Loki) that they only serve to underline how much unnecessary fodder is shoehorned into this mess.

But what about the original stuff? Well, get ready for dad humor and puns. Lots and lots of puns. Also, strap in for a dead upon arrival running gag with emojis. Sigh. Equally guilty of dragging down the humor is the dependence on vulgarity. Nothing wrong with a dick and fart movie, that's why we loved "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" but there is everything wrong with thinking that vulgarity for vulgariy's sake is funny when it's not attached to anything remotely resembling actual humor.

And that's the main issue with this movie, it puts so much focus on bad jokes and callbacks to better movies that it loses sight of why we gave a crap about the jokes in the first place in the other Askewniverse movies....the heart and the characters. This movie has a story arc for Jay that could of saved it from being a complete failure. It wouldn't of excused the black hole of humor in its dead center BUT it would of given it a reason to exist. Jay, the irreverent stoner, is given a legitimately good character growth arc about fatherhood that the movie seems intent on putting in the backseat in favor of a shitty joke, cameo, or callback. It's an absolute shame that Smith failed to see why this needed to be front and center, though I can only assume he thought it was. it's a woefully anemic plotline despite it being the core one. The tragedy of the movie is that it HAD a heart but it ignored for cheap humor.

There are moments when you can see what could of been shine through. Jason Mewes legitimately puts his all into playing Jay but when everyone is coasting or in there for a seconds long cameo it's not enough to save the day. Ben Affleck's cameo return as Holden shows you how focusing on the heart of the movie would of done wonders for it but alas it's a fleeting moment in the literal sea of lame punchlines.

One final thing, "Jay and SIlent Bob Reboot" has a serious problem with pandering to a modern audience. Kevin Smith has clung tenaciously to his youth for years. It's his bread and butter, but the truth is he's an aging man and recent efforts like "Yoga Hosers" only show how desperately he wants to show modern kids that he's hip to them too. This movie is sickeningly self-congratulatory in how it embraces PC culture. Nothing wrong with inclusivity and diversity at all but constantly virtue signaling isn't a great foundation for hilarity. In fact, it contradicts what we know about the core characters as a whole. I will grant the movie that there is a scene or two where Jay comes into the realization of how outdated his thinking is that somewhat work but, as with much in this movie, it's not enough to excuse or save anything. In fact, it plays it safe in a movie that desperately needed to be out of the box to matter.

"Jay and SIlent Bob Reboot", like most reboots, is unnecessary and fails to capture the spirit of what made those old Jay and SB movies great. Some people clinging to their fond memories will defend it by saying that "that was the point" but, no, the point was to make a funny movie that ALSO said something about the industry and took us on a journey that made a beloved character grow. We don't get that. All we get is low quality copies of old gags utterly robbed of their sense of humor, bad editing, lazy writing, useless cameos, and, worse of all, a movie that favors all that over the one thing that could of made it worthwhile...heart. The movie is like a selfish lover, it coasts on love and goodwill and gives nothing in return.

"Jay and Silent Bob Reboot" will have a lot of apologists but I can not be one. I did not care for anything in it, it has no redeeming factors, and literally didn't make me laugh, internally or otherwise, once. As much as I love the Askewniverse this movie is an abomination. 0/10.

The found footage sub-genre made a considerable splash in the late 90's when it returned to the big screen with The Blair Witch Project and subsequently took the world by storm. By providing a simple narrative under the pretense of realism and backing it up with a formidable mythos, the movie left a indelible impression in viewer's minds which showed much could be done with little. Naturally, this meant that the slew of impersonators were not far behind. Oft maligned, the sub-genre has subsisted almost entirely on the fact that it is relatively cheap to produce and can almost always guarantee a return.

I'll be the first to admit that far too many examples exist that seemingly warrant the shunning of this cinematic style but I've always championed it because it's a gimmick that, when employed adequately, can be uniquely effective. In fact, the instances of found footage films with merit are exceptional. Movies like The Sacrament, Phoenix Forgotten, The Den, The Taking of Deborah Logan, [REC], The Poughkeepsie Tapes, and As Above, So Below have demonstrated that something truly special can be wrought with this approach. As a result of my experiences with these films, I've always welcomed the viewing of found footage with an open mind. So I went into my viewing of Apocalyptic (aka Apocalypse Cult), maybe all the more open to being surprised given that it was tackling a subject that has always fascinated me.

The premise was intriguing. Some documentarians stumble across whispers of a reclusive religious commune deep in the Australian wilds and decide to follow the lead in favor of the more vanilla project they were originally involved in. Soon they find themselves amid the wide-eyed and content denizens of a cult that follows one man who claims to be the living embodiment of a god. Shades of the ominous creep in and our intrepid reporters soon find themselves increasingly at odds with the goings on.

With a fertile setup and a legitimate reason for the found footage angle to be employed, the movie showed much promise. The capable acting of the two leads and the ladies that made up the bulk of the cult served to lull me into a sense of confidence. For all intents in purposes I felt like I was in for an intriguing experience.

That is until the cult leader made his presence known.

Oh boy, what an absolute deflating moment. Unlike better films in a similar vein, like The Sacrament, the pivotal casting of a man that is supposed to have suckered people into believing he was akin to a god was utterly botched here. Make no mistake, David McCrae certainly LOOKS the part with his eerie Marshall Applewhite-like appearance, bald head, beady eyes, and unsettling grin but that's where it all begins and ends. To say his acting is atrocious might be a bit of an exaggeration but it is definitely not even close to serviceable. Every, single line he delivers as if he were just waiting for the moment to read it out, at times even flubbing his cue. It's actually distractingly transparent how he pales in comparison to his fellow cast members because instead of reacting he is merely reciting. To top it all off he exudes not an iota of the charisma or presence that is historically synonymous with cult leaders. You actually find yourself wondering why anyone would follow this creep with the personality of beef jerky.

From this point forward the movie begins to lose any momentum it had built up. The illusion of immersion begins to crumble not only because of it's lackluster villain but because the movie hits all too familiar hallmarks of cult activity and behavior as if checking off a list. The only standout performances come from some of the actresses that compose the commune which do a wonderful job of communicating their devotion to their leader while never sacrificing the idea of individual personalities. The two main characters that got us there to begin with quickly go from credible to downright incredulous as the loyalty to their craft begins to chip away at the realm of logic.

It also seems like the idea of dialogue is abandoned at some point and people are just playing it by ear. This is most notable when groups interact and annoyingly overt if the cult leader is in the mix. You'll catch smiles where there shouldn't be any, people stepping on each other's lines, and a noticeable decrease in the already lacking quality of dialogue.

Another glaring issue with this film is how closely it sticks to the structure of the aforementioned modern classic The Blair Witch Project. With a bigger cast and different subject matter you'd think this would be easy to hide but it only becomes more evident as it steams ahead into its predictable end. Oh, and, trust me, things get predictable.

Not only do we find that they've cribbed the structure and pacing of Blair Witch but they've also taken elements from Red State and The Sacrament, movies that had come out not long before it did and did a far better job with similar material. That's not to say that they couldn't have still made something amazing but they seemed content to just let it be "close enough".

Much like Blair Witch we get a shock ending here that hearkens to the mythos established in the film. It serves as the one moment that might elicit a sense of excitement were it not for how horrifyingly daft it is. Suffice it to say, that despite getting an edited document of the events,we are expected to believe that (SPOILER) the Apocalypse came. Maddeningly idiotic.

Apocalyptic starts off well but quickly devolves into utter nonsense and, most egregiously, lays the weight of it's aura on the incapable hands of a subpar actor. This is a prime example of why found footage films are derided by many. Avoid at all costs. I give Apocalyptic a 1/10.

"Joker" is undeniably the first outright masterpiece in its particular subgenre. While there is not much in terms of competition for absolute greatness as far as other superhero comic based movies go, "Joker" manages to not only legitimize and justify the existence of its ilk but also raises the bar so impossibly high that meeting the standard it has set might be too much of a task to overcome for those in its wake. It is only fitting that the film that most closely achieved this previously also featured the clown prince of crime as its antagonist, that being Nolan's "The Dark Knight".

"The Dark Knight" stood out because not only was it a good comic book movie but it was a legitimately great crime film with Heath Ledger's inscrutable Joker keeping the story tightly wound and the audience enraptured. To say that Ledger's Joker has deservedly earned its stripes as one of the standout performances of the last few decades is an understatement. The film would of worked without him, for sure, but it is because of him that most people remember it fondly. So long was the shadow he cast that the subsequent entry in that series, though fantastic, felt underwhelming in comparison.

The cast and crew of "Joker" had an unenviable task at hand when tackling the character as the subject of his own film. Not only where they no longer under the relative safety of Nolan's timeline they were literally standing alone outside of any established comic universe continuity. In many ways, it was later revealed, the studio left them out to live or die on their merit.

Undertaken by a director most renown for puerile and irreverent comedies, on the surface it would seem that the deck was further stacked against the production. However, Todd Phillips had turned a page in his film career that showed much promise. Promise he first made good on by casting the exceptional Joaquin Phoenix in the titular role. Phoenix has one of the most consistently solid careers in Hollywood, never failing to deliver high quality work. So skilled is he at his craft that sometimes entire projects live and die on his performance should their quality as a narrative be found lacking. His immersive, method-style of acting guarantees, at the very least, an engaging performance in any film he's in.

Admittedly, the idea of an actor of Phoenix's stature taking on a role that many had considered the final chapter to already be written on was an exciting prospect. The question is, did he manage to walk out of Ledger's looming shadow? The answer is a resounding yes. Dare I say, he not only walked out of it with relative ease but left it in the dust. Phoenix gives us a Joker (here named Arthur Fleck) so multi-dimensionally complex that we are taken by surprise by his ever-developing character even when though he never leaves our sight. At times it is painful to watch him, at others hypnotic, and, yes, even downright shocking or invigorating. Even if "Joker" hadn't worked as a film, Phoenix's portrayal would have made an indelible impression. Thankfully, the material is up to par with his excellence.

It goes without saying that anyone familiar with 1970's cinema will be unable to deny that the film borrows heavily from two of Martin Scorsese's classic films, "Taxi Driver" and "King of Comedy". In fact, Scorsese at one point was attached to direct this film and it is VERY clear that his imprint remained. Some cinephiles might find the homage a bit heavy-handed but those familiar with comic books know that restructuring stories and narratives into new and old molds alike is a relatively common practice used, primarily, to emphasize characters or, yes, redefine them. This is exactly what this movie does and to great effect. Most importantly, "Joker" manages to transcend its inspirations while, like them, leaving a unnerving stain on the soul that opens the viewer's eyes to their surroundings.

It is only suitable that Robert DeNiro, the star of those aforementioned Scorsese flicks, plays an important supporting role in this film. Indeed, like "Taxi Driver" before it "Joker" is the story of a mentally troubled social outcast trying desperately to find his place, any place, in the midst of a deplorable city buckling under urban decay mostly fed by the class divide. Like, Robert De Niro's Travis Bickle he is rebuked at every turn. DeNiro's Robert Rupkin in "King of Comedy" is a highly delusional comedian who is likewise rebuffed for all his efforts to succeed in a business he is clearly ill-suited for and finally finds a way to make his way into the spotlight. Phoenix's Arthur Fleck is much the same and, like those legendary characters, he finds answers, purpose, and respite in sudden shocking violence.

Much hubbub was made of the effects "Joker" might have on an impressionable public, especially given the current zeitgeist. "Taxi Driver" notoriously inspired an assassination and "King of Comedy" was met with caution because it was thought it might inspire more of the same. Scorsese managed to make sympathetic characters of psychopaths. Coupled with the vague endings of those two films it lead to gross misinterpretations of his art by many. "Joker" will only be misunderstood by the most simple-minded - perhaps a danger in itself - because it holds a mirror up to the viewer and asks them to look at the world around them, at the monsters we inadvertently create. "Joker" also presents a world ready to tip over into madness at the merest nudge, a particularly prescient glimpse at our current society. In this way the Joker is not glorified but made into a disturbing portrait of the potential of the everyman.

"Joker" is a morose, glum affair. Tragic at times, nerve-rendingly chilling at others. The tone and atmosphere brings with it a unshakable griminess and inevitability. It is this inevitability where fans of the comics will be most rewarded. The Joker has always been a conundrum. Accounts of his origins are multitude and here we get one that touches on several hallmarks of the character in various incarnations, tying him into the Bat-Mythos in a stunningly satisfying way. We know where Arthur Fleck has to end up and that is perhaps the greatest tragedy. How we get there is one of the great gifts the movie gives to readers, young and old. When these moments come the comic book fan in me shook with excitement and trembled at the possibilities opened up by the expertly delivered nods to the source material and the setups laid out. It would be a shame not to expand upon the timeline that "Joker" sets up so masterfully.

Make no mistake, this is more of legitimate film than a comic book movie but it rests comfortably on both sides of the line. "Joker" is a descent into the world of a truly damaged man trying to find purpose in a world that has forgotten him. Likewise, it is a document of that man's terrifying self-realization. Comic fans will see the birth of chaos, casual fans will see how one man can, by no desire of his own, change the tides. In many ways, "Joker" feels like a real world horror movie unspooling before your eyes.

"Joker" is a masterpiece on many levels. Characters and narrative have been expounded upon above but we must also mention the pervasively ominous score and the brilliantly curated soundtrack selections. Gorgeously lit, "Joker" is riddled with iconic images that stick to your mind long after you've finished watching it. Hell, the entire thing makes you want to take a shower after your done and, you know what? That's testament to its effectiveness. If either DC or the MCU find a way to reach this standard I'll be shocked because "Joker" stands head and shoulders above any other offerings in the genre. More importantly, it stands on its own merits as a film unbound to any genre. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!! 10/10

Ti West has made somewhat of a name for himself as a purveyor of excellent slow-burn horror cinema over the years. Though he has on occasion ventured outside of those genre constraints it seems that he always finds his strength in the embrace of the macabre. With "The Sacrament" West mixes his trademark methodical pacing with a faux documentary device to give us a peek into one of the world's most horrifying events.

Little is done to pull the wool over the viewer's eyes and hide the parallels to the Jonestown Massacre. Quite the contrary, it revels in tapping into familiar touchstones of the near mythological status of that tragedy. Though it is never outright beholden to the truth, the film manages to foment a steadily increasing sense of impending doom by sheer nature of audience expectation. It does this so expertly that one could argue that the film is rigged to work solely by what we, the audience, already know happened in a historical context. Exchanges, characters, dialogue, and visual cues carry with them the shadow of dread even at their most unassuming. We all know where this ends and, like the antagonist, we are paranoid of everything because of it.

Ah yes, the antagonist. A film is only as good as its villain and this one seeks to capture the essence of one of the most controversial figures of the 70's. Jim Jones, for all his demons, was a charismatic man that shepherded hundreds into a divergent faith, forward unto new horizons, and eventually toward death. He was also a man who believed his own brand of the gospel and saw opposition to that at every turn. He was a hypnotic and persuasive speaker whose honey-coated tongue could, at a turn, dart like that of a serpent. He was seen as savior by some and as a devil by others. These, as you can imagine, are big shoes to fill cinematically.

Casting Gene Jones as "Father", this film's analog of Jim Jones, was the keystone to this story. Despite his frail exterior, Father carries himself with towering confidence. His first appearance onscreen is met with a sense of awe not only from his congregation but from the audience. The conversation that follows shifts from warm and disarming to icily ominous. The change is affected with such fluid ease that it's almost imperceptible until you're in the thick of an insinuated threat. Indeed, Father is presented as a cunning manipulator but one you can see people fawning over without protest. His influence and presence is felt pervasively even when he's not onscreen and, perhaps most disturbingly, he always feels genuine in what he says. In Father's eyes he is a hero, his people are his family, and anyone that dares change that dynamic is a foe.

The terror hits hard and viscerally when it does come. Like Jim Jones, Father's deeds beg for answers that those outside of his influential grasp can't ever fully comprehend. In truth, no supernatural boogeyman can come close to the horrors of real life. Adding to this sense of realism is the aforementioned faux documentary device the film employs. Framed as a document culled from the footage of an immersive documentary, the film appropriately sets out to take the viewer into the thick of it with its almost meta approach. The results are credible because the setup is credible. The character motivations allow for the oft-maligned device to work in favor of the film's intention, to make you a front-line witness to the lives of people living with unbound devotion and, conversely, fearful doubt towards a singular man.

"The Sacrament" is an underappreciated film. It virtually quakes with an underlying menace throughout. It is subtle, it sneaks up on you, and then it rears its ugly head up before biting you savagely but, unlike most films, you went into this one knowing you were going to get bitten...and how...and by who. Yet there you are, dreading the horrors that are visited upon the weak-minded. Gene Jones as Father alone is worth watching "The Sacrament" but, thankfully, the film as a whole rises up to the task. Far be it for me to wish good tidings on a cult but I do hope that the cult following for this film grows as the years go on. Highly recommended. 8.5/10

Rob Zombie has proven to be quite the divisive figure in horror circles. While he quickly ingratiated himself with his initial two offerings (House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects), things quickly took a turn for the worst with his grossly misguided attempts at re-imagining the classic Halloween series. While it would later be revealed that studio meddling had much to do with that, it was also undeniable that Zombie's go-to tropes, cliches, and limitations were just as responsible. And so, he seemed destined to never be able to shake the crushing blow of criticism as subsequent efforts became increasingly hard to fund and were met with lukewarm to downright negative reception.

Admittedly, I am a man who is always rooting for Zombie to prevail but his abhorrent dialogue choices and signature "Zombie-isms" seem to stifle any significant growth. What can't be denied the man is his particular eye for striking visuals, his uncanny grasp on the marriage of music and imagery, his dedication to the genre, and his rabidly loyal, albeit niche, following. What also can't be denied is that, at least at one point, he crafted a genuinely fantastic piece of reverent (even in its utter irreverence of the norm) horror cinema.

Indeed, even notable critics like Roger Ebert tipped their hat to what Zombie achieved in "The Devil's Rejects". Not only did he change the tone established in the film preceding (and linked to) it successfully but he also hearkened back to a bygone era of exploitation filmmaking with stunning pitch-perfection. From the gritty, sun-bleached aesthetic to the unflinching violence to the over the top scenarios and dark humor to the incredible feat of making utterly sadistic characters perplexingly likable despite their heinous deeds, "The Devil's Rejects" carved its own place in the mind of even the most skeptical of Zombie's abilities. It only seem natural then to revisit his most famous and beloved Rejects if he were to get his credentials back.

"3 From Hell" is that long-awaited return to his movie roots and on that many were keeping a keen eye on to make their final judgment on Zombie. The verdict? Well, like all things Zombie nowadays, it's complex.

The film somewhat anti-climatically reveals that the Firefly family as we last saw them (shot near to death) just merely survived a hail of bullets. One feels this is a lost opportunity for some fresh blood to be injected into the formula but it is as it is. We are quickly caught up with a faux news report/documentary on the death of Captain Spaulding (the late, great Sid Haig), the escape of Otis Driftwood (with the help of his deus ex machina brother "Foxy"), and the continued incarceration of Baby FIrefly (Sheri Moon Zombie) who has been driven beyond any realm of sanity.

While this setup just oozes with a gorgeous replication of that unique exploitation film feeling and look (down to tones of shockumentaries, women's prison films, and road flicks) it soon becomes evident that Zombie is treading familiar ground. The plot beats are almost identical to "The Devil's Rejects".

In Rejects we had two of the Firefly clan on the run waiting at a motel for the third member of their group, during which time they take a tightly knit group of people hostage, engage in mischief, murder, and mayhem before and after their partner arrives, and then head on the run again only to ultimately end up in a place run by a defacto "overlord" where they are turned into someone who wants them dead and a face off ensues. In "3 From Hell" two of the clan hold a closely knit group hostage to force them to bring the third member to them during which time they engage in mischief, mayhem, and murder before and after their partner arrives, and then they go on the run ultimately ending up in a small Mexican town run by some defacto "mayor" who turns them into someone who is hunting them down and, yes, a faceoff ensues. See the problem? It is an unshakable realization and soon parallels are impossible to ignore.

There is also a couple of nearly laughably bad sequences during the first half of the movie that will leave you rolling your eyes or shaking your head. One involves Baby having visions of a cat-lady in the vents of her prison cell. While her madness is alluded to (as is her association to "cats", in a manner of speaking) the scene just comes of as this abrupt and ludicrous aside. The other is a scene involving Clint Howard as a clown that happens across the psychopaths. It is neither tense or amusing and it only serves to befuddle and take you out of the goings on...all for a worthless throwaway callback.

Another thing noticeably missing is the spark of life and humor that Sid Haig's Captain Spaulding brought to the unhinged affairs in previous installments. He is sorely missed here and, honestly, it takes a bit for the remaining actors and their new comrade Foxy (played by Richard Brake) to feel fully "themselves". Ironically, their best scenes are separate from each other. Haig was really the glue that brought these divergent and devious minds together so well on screen. For the brief moment he does appear onscreen he is bereft of energy and oomph to even carry the few lines he has. You can tell the man was sickly even then and understand why he had to be written out. None of the crude rambunctious nature or menace of the character survives in the face of Mr. Haig who can barely deliver the lines here. It's a pretty sad affair given that he was not long for this world thereafter.

Things seem dreary at this point you might thing but all is not a loss. The film actually picks up in its latter half with the other thing (besides Haig) that is sorely missing from it...the introduction of an antagonist to these, well, antagonistic protagonists. Rejects had Sheriff Wydell (the great William Forsythe) for the family to play against. A cop, who though justified in his actions, proved enough of an asshole to make the Firefly's likable in their mania. In short, Wydell made the Fireflys work by working against them. This film is bereft of a galvanizing presence like Wydell for a woefully long time and it is, sadly, introduced only till the latter portion of the film, despite being somewhat dismissively set up earlier. Introducing this opposing presence much earlier would of done WONDERS for this movie. Instead, we just sit around with unlikable creeps until it comes along.

Given someone to stretch their anti-authoritarian world viewpoint against, the FIreflys shine. Once again their psychotic nature becomes palatable in the face of something keeping them from what they ultimately should represent to the audience, absolute and true freedom; something we can actually root for. Zombie won me over at this point. With a final showdown imminent and his open use of Mexploitation tropes and Mexican culture to add zest to the Firefly's villain, the movie got cooking and was a blast from thereon out.

Many nods to genre film abound. Most notable among these is allusion to "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" which Zombie weaves into the narrative quite nicely. As always, he litters his films with great character actors and beloved genre names playing outrageously oddball characters (most notable among these is Dee Wallace losing herself in the role of a crooked prison guard). Special effects and music stand out, as you'd expect.

In the end, "3 From Hell" is far from perfect but does much to win over the returning audiences by the time it concludes. It's a close call but he pulls it off well enough. It certainly grades above "31" which felt like a visually rich but substantially lacking exercise. You'll leave more content that you started off, for sure. If this is the last time we'll see the Firefly clan then it wasn't a bad way to go though it could of been far better. The question remains, will Zombie step up his game or will he shuffle off into obscurity and ridicule? "3 From Hell" suggests he has promise yet. 6.5/10

Vincenzo Natali was already of renown for his unique, contemplative brand of sci-fi infused concepts when he gave us "Splice" which spiced up its cautionary tale of science gone wrong with a dash of melancholic horror and, surprisingly, family drama. It is only appropriate that Guillermo Del Toro is counted among its production team as the film treads in territory familiar to his viewers with its humanized monsters and emotionally and psychologically dense characters.

Indeed, "Splice", at its core, is basically a retelling of the Frankenstein story which, in turn, is the story of scientific responsibility and impact of the role of a creator in the life of their creation. Clive and Elsa are genetic science wunderkinds, and lovers, that create morally and ethically questionable life in the face of opposition. On the surface this seems merely for the sake of proving their mettle in the field, if not outright egoism, but as the film progresses the layers of reasoning unravel even as the relationship to their creation deepens in complexity.

As with Frankenstein, the creature in "Splice" is a nuanced being whose psychological makeup is molded by the reactions and personalities of its creators. The script does a fine job of drawing parallels in its development to the growing pains of an actual child and the hairpin turns in the interpersonal relationships between parents and children that only serve to underline the creator's inherent innocence, despite its outward or natural monstrous nature. Therein lies the utmost strength of the film, that it serves as a striking parable about the importance of selfless parental involvement in the life of a child. Indeed, the most horrifying portions of the film lie not in the hands of the monster but the choices made by its unworthy creators in all their

Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley are both charming and detestable as Clive and Elsa, who though relatable are tainted by their hubris, past, and flaws. The more we know them, the less we empathize and, ironically, the more a cruel mirror of ourselves is held up to our face. We are them, daily failing to shake the shackles of our own upbringing and yet thrust into the role of leaders, fathers, and mothers. It is a shocking revelation presented to us under the auspices of a sci-fi horror nightmare.

The effects hold up relatively well and, even if they hadn't, the story is carried out in such a way that it would engage nevertheless. The whole affair is a bleak and somber one which is emphasized by the cinematography with its deep wells of darkness and gritty shades of green and blue to contrast stark and sterile whites, almost as if to underline the idea of science gone awry.

At times heartwarming and heartbreaking and at others chilling, cold, and cruel in its implications, "Splice" is a fantastic and underrated piece of work. A definite must see for fans of the genre and the casual viewer. I give it 9/10.

The denizens of the internet seem determined to fight an irritating battle on the merits of female leads in previously male-dominated genres/roles. It's a spectacle that has become something of a civil war amidst cinephiles and pop culture aficionados. SJWs caterwaul relentlessly about the validity of a gender or race swap or the influx of female cinematic outings while more conservative dweebs lash out in anger at a perceived attack. Sides are taken, threats are issue, people are "cancelled" , and much rage in incited but director Luc Besson goes on unfettered by a discussion he never even saw worthy of having for decades now.

To say that Besson loves Mary Sue style leads is an understatement. The man has practically built a career on it. Hell, you might say he redefined the idea by making his female characters actually have some flaws but still making those flaws essential to everything. Yes, his women inspire the men (and women) to fall unabashedly in love with them, they're usually incredibly capable of feats of prowess that would put a Navy Seal to shame, they're statuesque and intrinsically beautiful, they'll bring foes to their knees and lift heroes to another level previously inaccessible by them, and, more often than not, they are defacto savior figures. This is Besson's bread and butter and it's definitely something that's not new to the world no matter how people want to color the narrative.

"Anna" is no exception to the rule. If anything is a smorgasboard of Besson clichés all vying for the spotlight. As is typical of Besson, he keeps the action constant, the flow breezy, and the aura decidedly European. Despite making films for an international market, Besson has admirably never tried to Americanize his efforts as many tend to do. His casts are usually multi-nationals playing just that, his locations rarely cross the Atlantic, and everything has that distinctly sleek Euro-cinema look and feel to it.

It's well known that Besson co-writes dozens of scripts to put into production and cherry picks the best ones for himself to direct. Though "Anna" is breaking absolutely no new ground you can easily see why he chose to keep this one for himself. Aside from filling all the typical Besson "requirements" it is also gave him an opportunity to potentially catapult a female talent into the spotlight, something he is quite fond of doing. In this case we have model Sasha Luss, previously cast in a small role in one of his previous films, given the titular lead role.

Indeed, the bulk of the film depends on this waif of a girl to keep it afloat and, lo and behold, she manages quite well. Is she a stellar actress? No, she has a ways to go but, to be fair to her, English is not her first language. This may come off as wooden to some, however, when working outside those parameters you can definitely see that she has something more to offer if a different role should come her way. Ultimately, she was portraying a character that was jaded and embittered by the trappings of her lifestyles so one wonders if it was a creative choice.

And there's our story, Anna is a perpetually oppressed Russian woman in a dead-end relationship with a crook. She is cherry picked by the KGB (the film is set in the early 90's) for her proficiency with languages and her noted ambition. Given the chance to escape her life, she is taken into the spy program with the promise of her eventual freedom after five years of service, five years she's not expected to survive. Determined to make her way out, she is involved in a serious of intrigues that may either dig her a deeper hole or get her what she wants.

The story unfolds in a non-linear series of flashbacks and flashforwards that slowly reveal the many layers of her manipulations and those of the agents around her. Honestly, it's the choice to approach the material in this particular fashion that gives a familiar plot a fresh feeling. "Anna" seeks to constantly flip the script on you and make you see events from opposing sides and it is most definitely an engaging conceit. If the movie had not taken this approach it would have easily been a pedestrian affair.

At times "Anna" is surprisingly violent and, thankfully, Besson never overindulges in this and so each time the film goes there it packs a visceral punch that never besmirches the style the film is going for. Yes, the action is delightful to watch and expertly choreographed and never seeks to take attention away from the story, saving its impact for the notable times it roars onto the screen.

Luke Evans and Cillian Murphy play agents on opposing sides and their credentials do much to give substance to otherwise filler "love interest" roles. Most welcome, however, is Helen Mirren as the head of the division in charge of Anna's clandestine affairs. Mirren brings likable, humorous charm and nuance to the role of a rigid former spy with ambitions of her own. It's really amazing how much she says about her character with a look or even a grunt. It is the relationship between she and "Anna" that made me go from just "liking" this movie to truthfully enjoying it.

Without ruining much, is a movie about the often overlooked resiliency and potential of women working in a world dominated by men. It's not preachy though and it isn't burdened by an agenda, it's just what Besson does. As always the men are left in awe of the women and the effect they had on their lives. This is the definition of Besson. He wants to provide fun, action filled entertainment filled with gobsmackingly gorgeous people and the occasional tenured actor to lock it all together.

Despite bringing nothing new to the table, I found myself really enjoying "Anna". It's almost impossible not to. The pace never lets up, the storytelling device hooks you in, the action is engaging, and the ending just sets in nicely. I give it 6.5 out of 10.
.

Sometimes the only advertising a movie needs is the fact that it's being made. Such was the case with "The Haunting of Sharon Tate" which, controversially, was going to take the infamous murder of Sharon Tate and her friends by the Manson Family into the realm of horror. Or so it was suggested by the title and marketing which got it a lot of attention. In reality, the film is something of a padded for running time mish-mash of new-agey hokum and by-the-numbers genre standards that fails at being a biopic or a horror movie...or any type of movie, really. Maybe it was a case of trying to beat a bigger movie to the punch (Tarantino's "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood" was right around the corner, after all) or maybe it actually was a well-intentioned piece masquerading as a horror movie (the film's conceit allows it to "rewrite" history), either way "The Haunting of Sharon Tate" is one hell of a bad movie.

Problem number one with tackling a sensitive subject like a real-life prolific murder is getting the casting right. Obviously, in this case, that means the lead role of Sharon Tate, the iconic actress and titular character. The choice made here is a confusing one. Was it a matter of the production trying to cast at least one name of renown to further publicize their film or, worse, was this their best choice? Either way, we get Hilary Duff as Tate and, let me tell you, she is just THAT...Hillary Duff. There is not a single moment in this movie where you feel like she's doing anything but just wearing a costume and reading lines as Hilary Duff, much less that she's getting lost in the role. No, Duff is just Duff woodenly play-acting as someone else. It almost feels like a joke but the somber mood assures us it isn't. To add insult to injury, Duff bears absolutely no resemblance to Tate who the film brazenly shows us news footage of as a sour reminder of the bad casting.

The second biggest issue are the shades of the unknown/supernatural that are injected into the narrative to lead us to understand that Tate had a premonition of the fateful events a full year before they happened, then continued to be plagued by a series of vivid dreams foretelling everything up till the day of the crime (hence the use of the word "haunting"in the title). As this goes on you just begin to think of the character as a complete imbecile for even going to the place of the eventual murders much more staying there. The solution is as simple as leaving but all she does is get flustered, cry, and get even more of her nerves frayed by an unstoppable deluge of harbingers. Tate is portrayed as the leader of her circle, yet they play her sticking around helplessly waiting for the crime as her inability to convince those around her that she's anything but nuts.

Details of sudden outbursts of violence and chaos like the Manson Family murders are mostly privy to the perpetrators NOT those they victimized. In a movie, the sudden nature of a crime or the maddened reasoning for that crime are usually enough to terrify and intrigue and audience. Clear designations of good and evil can be made from this point of view. Characters are elaborated upon by means of their reactions and interactions. This film, on the other hand, makes the confounding choice to turn the tables on this obvious formula by giving the victims foresight and then having them trounce around like blithering idiots into the slaughter. This feeling persists despite the dramatic shift in the events that the film's ultimate themes allow for.

You see, bad acting and making the audience think ill of the dead isn't the only issue with the film. The aforementioned elements of the supernatural further complicate things. The film's events (sparse though they are) are tied together by the theme of destiny and whether we are in charge of our lives or driven by some horrifyingly uncontrollable roller-coaster of fate. Tate's visions and dreams serve as an inexplicable means to throw fate out of whack. A lot of the superficial details of the events of the murder ring relatively true to life but Tate's premonitions just make them feel false and in service of that very unnecessary conceit.

And, boy howdy, do they shoehorn these dreams into everything, too. In fact, the movie would be relatively short if they took out all the dream sequences and VERY undeserved jump scares. Mind you, the themes of fate explain why these sequences exist but they are still exactly what they are: FILLER. At a scant hour and a half running time this movie feels interminable and like it's running on repeat.

I spoke earlier of possible good intentions and, indeed, one of the movie's only redeeming qualities is that it ultimately uses this profoundly stupid setup to try to give history a bittersweet resolution. Yes, without ruining anything, the new-agey subtext (if you can call it that, with its overbearing obviousness) about destiny lends to a form of alternative end to those tragic events of long ago. The basis of all this is oddly fitting, given the hippie culture of the time and their open mindedness toward Eastern spiritual concepts. Does this save the movie? Not at all. In fact, it underlines how they chose to focus on all the wrong things to get to the end.

Some redeeming factors: The cinematography is pleasant, giving you that sun-bleached California look with a dash of faux dating and realism (lens flares abound for all you that hate them). However, the most noteworthy element in play here is the excellent and atmospheric score from Fantom. One wishes it were in a film better suited for it. Special kudos to the people playing the Manson Family who do a relatively good job of feeling menacing and monstrous, although I wonder if the quality of their performance was elevated by their comparatively fetid peers.

"The Haunting of Sharon Tate" is godawful, boring, and downright idiotic. It's polished enough to give the impression it's none of those things but it's impossible to deny that fact once you watch it. Worst of all, it takes a piece of history and belittles its players by making them seem like complete morons for a good, long time before trying to tidy up that mess with some mumbo-jumbo. Avoid this nonsense at all costs. 1/10

Directorial projects from people otherwise renown for their acting are usually a 50/50 affair. On the one side you have those best forgotten vanity projects and on the other you have the rare instance of absolute brilliance. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's directorial debut, "Don Jon", falls squarely into the latter category.

The titular Jon (played by Levitt) is a veritable Casanova stuck in a comfortable rut of habitual behavior; from his home life, to his every relationship, and, yes, to his intimate life. However, all semblance of peace and security is thrown awry when a woman that defies his expectations enters the scene. Jon begins a tumultuous battle with himself even as he begins to experience a dramatic self-actualization that takes him from self-obsessed pretty boy to selfless man.

On the surface "Don Jon" is about the destructive power of porn addiction and its debilitating effects on the proper development of your average male. For all its relative comfort, Jon's life is robbed of meaning by his dependence on pornography and its unreachable standards However, the film proves to have a deeper and more meaningful grasp on the subject than it would let up. From his father's toxic masculinity, to his sister's inability to live outside her phone, to his girlfriend's controlling nature, virtually no one in Jon's world is without some form of addictive or destructive behavior.

All this is amusingly presented in a twisted facsimile of a modern rom-com (which, of course, have their own ridiculous standards). Indeed, objectification and its dehumanizing effects are thoroughly lambasted and in a way that we might find hits uncomfortably (although hilariously) close to home. We, as viewers, are not spared but make no mistake, this isn't a preachy affair. No, in fact, Jon's journey is a hopeful one.

And there truly lies the ingenuity of this movie. It would have been easy to make a cynical piece about this subject but Levitt opts to make an uplifting one with a profound message about the importance of selflessness both in normal life and in an intimate one. "Don Jon" is that revelation we all know is right around the corner but we fear because we know it means being taken out of our comfort zone. It's a red pill in cinematic form. An essential film not only for the modern male but for the modern person.

Honestly, I'm floored at how exceptionally well made "Don Jon" is. From it's clever, subversive writing, to its self-aware editing, to its fantastic cast (something of a surprise of its own), and its sudden unexpected heart. Then again, why should I be? Levitt has been subverting expectations for a good long while now. This movie is a treasure. 10/10

Jordan Peele made a colossal impact with his debut feature "Get Out" and all eyes were on him when time came for his follow-up effort. The burden of the sophomore slump has taken many down with it but its pretty safe to say that Peele won't be one among those. "Us" proved that he not only deserves to be in the genre but that he is truly an innovator that it desperately needs.

The story follows Adelaide Wilson (a riveting Lupita Nyong'o) whose childhood encounter with a picture perfect double of herself leaves her seemingly traumatized into adulthood. When visiting the place of that encounter during a vacation later in life, she and her family are confronted by their duplicates, angry beings that crave the life that their counterparts have for themselves.

"Us" is conceptually rich and excitingly original. Even if one can trace the idea of doppelgangers to plenty of folk tales, Peele takes that eerie concept out of the realm of rumor and into that of feasibly realistic while never losing any of the otherworldy aura. A deft feat indeed and achieved here by making the origins of the doppelgangers not so much the point of the story more than a reason for it to happen.

Though much entertainment and intrigue is derived from working out the the origins of these creatures (dubbed the Tethered) the real wallop of the story comes from its subtext and almost cautionary message. Yes, much like "Get Out" before it there are bigger things at play here but, dare I say, the horror takes the front seat in this one and Peele's approach to social commentary is much more deft and careful. In the span of two films his touch was expertly refined making this movie much easier to digest as entertainment while never once losing sight of its goals.

Adding to the appeal of the film is the fact that the villains are, in effect, played by the very same people playing the protagonists. Nyong'o shines in the dual roles and if i were forced to give you only one good reason to see this movie I'd say watch it to see her work. Peele also has quite the eye for making the uncanny feel uncomfortable and credible while never losing any artistic touch. The outstanding and unique score, as well, contributes to the unsettling atmosphere. Special kudos to Peele's continued innovative approach to tension relieving comedy in his work. It proves a breath of fresh air to the standards that have plagued the genre for years.

The Tethered themselves fall in that category that brands them immediately iconic with their strikingly red jumpsuits and jerky, volatile demeanor. It's definitely no easy task to create something so simple and yet so instantly recognizable. Coupled with a genuinely interesting backstory and, more importantly, being utilized to represent the manner in which we tend to create our own greatest foes by keeping certain people "in our shadows" but never allowing them to rise, the Tethered prove that they are also substance above style.

To say more about "Us" is to ruin a genuinely engaging experience. Peele has sealed his status as an important figure in horror and in the course of two films has elevated the art. "Us" walks that fine line between message and entertainment expertly. It also provides us with some of the most memorable, original, and disturbing villains in a good long while. By no means miss this movie. I give "Us" a 9.5 out of 10.