Saturday, October 11, 2025

31 Days of Halloween: Hell Hole

2024,  John Adams, Toby Poser (Hellbender) -- download

We watched a previous film by this family of film makers called Hellbender back in the 2022 year of this series. They have a bit of a name made for themselves in the horror film festival circuit, but we know what I generally think of the horror fandom crowd (less of the crowd, more of what excites them). I could have been one of that fandom, some would probably label me as such -- I have a "horror movie" seasonal series and I did revel in both FantAsia and Toronto After Dark film festivals and attended a few years of TIFF Midnight Madness. But I could never commit. This is my way of saying, after this flick, I can say I don't really care for this family's films. They will not be added to future rosters.

Kent, are the posts you did as a guest-reviewer for After Dark still online somewhere?

American Frackers are in Serbia but halted while some local ecologists look to see if the fracking will damage the ecology of local pika's. Note, the pika is not found in Serbia. Also, the only road into the camp, which is situated on the ruins of some Soviet-era installation, has washed out.

Even with the delay, head fracker Emily (Toby Poser, What We Find on the Road) starts things off by drilling a hole. I guess the low budget of the movie, as long as you can get past the stilted acting, shows itself here, as this is more a piece of machinery used by landscapers than heavy industrial work. No matter, it drills into something bloody. But don't pay attention to that, because the movie quickly forgets that happened so it can focus on the weird cocoon found while digging a garbage trench. And inside the cocoon is a living man. Note, there was a brief preamble showing two men from 19th century France having become lost in Serbia, and were attacked by... something that exploded out of a horse. This guy in the hole is one of them. He doesn't show his hundreds of years.

Nobody knows why this guy was in this weird sack cocoon thing and nobody speaks French well, but eventually they figure out he wants them to kill him, and makes weird gestures that something is in him. Everyone argues about what they should do with him. Kill him! Protect him! Sure, they found him in a hole, and that's weird, but... kill him? Seems a little extreme for even Serbian roughnecks.

Everyone argues about everything. Everyone stands around in half circles and discusses everything contentiously. So... much... standing around in half circles!! Normally a comment like that would lead you to believe this was going to be a cerebral horror movie full of dialogue. But nope, the debate is barely conversational, just angry utterances, and even when they have the scientists do science chatter, its barely above high school level banter. The rest of the movie is either showing they spent their budget on some decent practical blood & gore effects, a painfully rubber monster and some terrible CG.

For a family that is touted as being so deep in the no-budget horror movie making, once given some budget they seem to not be able to rise above a sense of Asylum (my gauge for terrible movie making) level film making. At least Hellbender had some flair and thought to it, but this is just ... tiring. Nothing ever comes of the monster, despite the endless commentary on octopus biology. Depictions of the monster are unnecessarily juvenile and scatological, and then they just explode most of the miners and then rush head long to the "only the sympathetic characters escape" ending with the requisite... but did they escape?!?!

Terrible movie.

Chiplog - Brets Porcini Mushroom

In recent years I have developed an intolerance to onions, consuming which in its various forms can lead to becoming violently ill at worst, and feeling hours of upper gastro-intestinal discomfort at best. Most flavoured chips (and most flavoured anything in North America) wind up having onion or onion powder as a cheap source of easy power-flavour, which leaves me on the outside looking in wanting flavour for myself but finding very little. Chiplog is my hunt for yummy chips that I can actually eat.

Preamblin': I discovered Brets French chips about two years ago at a local bodega (we don't have real "bodegas" in Toronto, but it sounds fancier than "fruit and vegetable store") and instantly fell in love. Despite a bag of Brets being about double the price of, say, a bag of Lays for about half the volume, I was just so golddang excited to have a whole new array of flavoured chips that I could actually consume.

I wrote about those on my mostly abandoned Instagram account (which I'll maybe collect into a supplement Chiplog post here) and absolutely loved logging my chiply adventures. Unfortunately, said Bodega stopped carrying Le Chipsier Francais, and I was very, very sad. Life has literally not been the same since (I'll have to write an entry about the most disgusting chip I've ever eaten).

Lo and behold I was walking past the very same bodega this Saturday, looking wistfully in the doorway, thinking of fonder times, when I spied, just inside the doorway, the STACK OF BOXES with the Brets chips logo on the side. I handed the dog leash off to my wife without a word and charged inside, ready and eager to get some of my favourite chips of all time back into my gullet....

only to discover....

these are ALL NEW FLAVOURS. None of my favourites from before. No Chip Sauce or anise-flavoured chips for me. No, now I had to go through about a dozen flavour varieties and determine which were onion-free and ready for my consumption.  About half proved safe for eating which meant I had decisions to make. I said "only two" but wound up getting three with nothing but utter glee filling my soul for the day. A new flavour adventure awaits!

 Pre-chip: The first chip I'm going with out of this selection is the one that fills me with the most trepidation, mainly because the worst chip experience I've ever had still lingers large in my subconscious and I was similarly excited about eating that chip. Also, I don't really like mushrooms. It's mostly a texture thing, which should not be a problem here...but what do mushrooms actually taste like?  

Why would I buy a mushroom flavoured chip if I don't like mushrooms? Because it's a flavoured chip I *can* actually eat without bad things happening (potentially).
Why would I choose it as my first? Just to get it out of the way in case I don't like it. That way if I don't like it I still have two other flavours I can dive into. Plus, Lady Kent loves mushrooms so perhaps she will like them even if I don't.

Ingredients: Potatoes (France), sunflower oil, salt, natural porcini mushroom flavouring with other natural flavourings, carob powder, dried garlic, powdered porcini mushrooms.

First smell:I was bracing myself for a powerful scent, but mostly it's the aroma of potatoes with a hint of oil, but strangely not sunflower that I'm smelling, but olive. For some reason the sunflower/porcini mix creates a sort of olive scent.

First Taste: Like all Brets chips, the flavour palette is a subtle one that takes a moment to kick in. Unlike American chips which seems intent on overloading your taste buds Brets always wants you to discover the flavour. First taste is, well, it's chips! Yay! Fucking love chips. And it's certainly not a flavour I'm rejecting at all. I don't really know "mushroom" flavour, but if this is it, it's gentle and pleasant ("earthy" as Lady Kent chimed in) and then the garlic finds you, but again, not overwhelmingly so.

Aftertaste: It's the garlic that lingers the most, and that's more than mighty fine.

Mass Consumption: Two chips in rapid succession and yes, I'm ready to consume. The "mushroom" element is coming more to the forefont and it's really is quite enjoyable, which is a definite surprise for this guy who really doesn't like mushrooms. Will this whole 125g bag get eaten tonight? Possibly, but maybe only if Lady Kent helps. A dozen chips down and the flavour is both benefiting from a cumulating effect of mushroom powder in my mouth, but also overwhelming me only in that it's a flavour I'm not fully accustomed to.

Final Thoughts:Oh, we're back! Back into Brets and I'm beside myself. Consistency from chip to chip is pretty erratic here. One chip very garlic heavy, the next really hitting that porcini, the next a dose of saltiness, but that makes the flavour adventure more adventuresome, and kind of encourages me to shovel three or four in my mouth in quick succession to rediscover the flavours. This would never be a staple chip for me, but I could definitely see having a craving for them, or even, when just wanting something different, reaching for a bag. More than anything though, it's really making me want to discover more chip flavours. (So I like it but I'm also ready to move on?)

Rating:6.9/10




KWIF: One Battle After Another (+3)

 KWIF=Kent's Week In Film. This week, Kent is brain-tired after an exhaustingly thinky period of work and game, so buckle in for some abject mediocrity in the world of film reviewing (as if I deliver anything different).

This Week:
One Battle After Another (2025, d. Paul Thomas Anderson - in theatre)
A Serious Man (2009, d. Joel and Ethan Coen, dvd)
Final Destination (2000, d. James Wong, crave)
Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982, d.Tommy Lee Wallace  - hollywood suite)

---

I just happened to be looking at a Google search result for One Battle After Another to see an "audience rating summary" of the film that, as of this writing, was sitting at an average of 3.1 out of 5 stars with over 2000 review. The rating breakdown was almost an even split between 5-star and 1-star reviews with very few 2-through-4-star reviews scattered throughout. Doing a cursory glance thought these reviews (I mean, who exactly is reviewing on Google? I don't think I've ever even looked at the Google "audience rating summary" for a film before, nevermind read any of them.) I had, wrongly, assumed that the 1* reviews were going to be simple right-wing bot-generated reviews decrying this film for it's anti-government/pro-antifa viewpoint, but from the dozens or so I took in, they *seemed* to be from legit viewers genuinely disappointed by the movie. Of course, in scanning through about 100 of these reviews, I did wind up seeing the same or similar review from the same or multiple users so, as with anything on the shitternet take it all with a healthy dash of salt. [Toasty, I think it's time to take this blog into old school 'zine territory. Get off-line and IRL.]

I thought for sure that One Battle After Another would, in today's world, rub the MAGA crowd (more specifically the MAGA leadership) the wrong way. It opens set in the nebulous past, 17 years-ish ago (it's very hard to say if the "present day" of OBAA is today-present-day or some past and/or future present day... it all goes to show how achingly timeless the film feels in a way) with a group of "freedom fighters"/"domestic terrorists" in the Weather Underground vein of militant left-wingers raiding an encampment where illegal immigrants, mostly of a Central or South American persuasion, are being held.  The French 75 liberate the prisoners from the camp and their explosives expert, "Ghetto" Pat Calhoun (Leonardo DiCaprio) makes a real show of it. Perfidia Beverly Hills (Teyana Taylor), whom Pat is s sort-of in a relationship with, takes the base's commanding officer hostage and sexually denigrates him. Unfortunately for Perfidia, Lockjaw (Sean Penn) totally gets off on it, and becomes obsessed with her, stalking her in her subsequent efforts, and, on occasion manufacturing encounters with her, which he always lets her takes control of.

The immediacy of seeing people in pens right at the start in the film is disarming and, regardless of one's political views, is likely to pull their brains right out of the film with thoughts of the modern day. But it should also cause one to call into question the time period of the film, and think about just how long the government and military has been putting immigrants in pens and how little any of it has solved over the past 20+ years. It's also asking the audience to immediately be on the side of a domestic terrorist group, and that can be a tall ask, as well as making a left-wing militia the center of a big-damn Oscar-play movie is only going to fuel the fires of the commander-in-cheesepuff in his anti-antifa crusade. It's a film based on the 1990 Thomas Pynchon novel "Vineland", so it predates all our current strife, but it's uncomfortable just how explosively relevant it feels to the immediate now.

OBAA's  lengthy prologue runs through a year in the life of the French 75, along with moments in the relationship of Pat and Perfidia as she winds up pregnant, has a baby, and Pat tries to pressure her into settling down. But Perfidia is a warrior, and a runner, and she will never stop fighting as long as there's a fight to be had. At least that's what she thinks of herself as she's petrified of being a mother and anything other that a fighter. "Settling down" infers giving into the capitalistic nightmare of the American dream and nuclear family and she would rather die in a blaze of bullet than be suffocated by such a life. She keeps fighting and eventually Lockjaw, who has let the whole thing go on under his obsessive watch, turns the screws. Either Perfidia will love him or he's going to tear it all down. Caught between a rock and a hard place, she turns rat, and gives up her people to save herself, going into witness protection. Only a few of the French 75 manage to escape alive, including Pat and their daughter Charlene. Perfidia, meanwhile, escapes her new life and runs to Mexico where she disappears forever.

Pat becomes Bob, Charlene becomes Willa, and 16 years later they've forged a new, if uncomfortable life in the sanctuary city of Baktan Cross. Bob has taken to extensive drinking and routine pot smoking while Willa is an intelligent, hyper-competent, teen with a fighting spirit, and a strong anti-establishment streak. Lockjaw, meanwhile, has risen slowly through the ranks and positioned himself as a right-wing idealogue within the military. He catches the attention of a think tank of rich and powerful racists, The Christmas Adventurers, as a potential new member. It's Lockjaw's deepest dream to be a part of that club (hovering right above his dream of being loved by Perfidia). They ask him a litany of questions about his "purity" which he answers with the most assured lies committed to film. This sets Lockjaw off, and he uses his position and power to hunt down the ghosts from his past that could jeopardize his chances of joining the Adventurers ("Hail Santa!"). This includes looking for Perfidia among the refugees in Baktan Cross, under the guise of the city being a hotbed of heroin manufacturing.

This military raid on the city leads to riots in the streets and Bob/Pat becoming reactivated, mostly because Willa/Charlene (Chase Infiniti) has been taken by the French 75 remnants, and Bob's brain is too fried to remember the safety phrases and pass codes to get the information to go to her.

Currently in the hot-bed of Coen Brothers filmography, it's hard not to see DiCaprio's Bob/Pat as "The Dude" Lebowski-coded. Much like The Dude, Bob spends the majority of the film thinking he's being proactive but never actually accomplishing anything substantial. He's pretty feckless. The appearance is everything revolves around him, but the reality is, things are happening around him, but he's inconsequential to it all. It's relatable in a way. How many of us feel like "progressives" but do very little to advance "the cause" (any cause). How many of us wish we were revolutionaries, fighting the fight that needs to be fought, but incapable of pulling ourselves away from screens or shopping or sports or other distractions to make that much of a difference. DiCaprio has been a superstar for so long, and a guy who seems so bought into his own image, that he's disconnected from reality. He's not seemed human for a very long time. Playing Rick Dalton in Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood showed he was ready to break free of his image, and here he's playing his most fallible, most human character, I think ever, and he's at his most likeable in doing so. 

Sean Penn's Lockjaw is such a unique figure on screen. At once he is a human cartoon, the absurd posture and physicality, the that-stick-up-my-ass-ain't-ever-coming-out look on his face is never not laughable. He is a figure that deserves mockery and derision. But he's also an absolutely vile, utterly gross individual who couldn't be any creepier if he had snakes and crickets crawling out of his orifices. His sense of superiority, even in the face of his own inferiority, just makes you want to puke on him, and one gets the sense that he would like that, because he's gross.

Chase Infiniti, as Willa, has to contend with a constantly disappointing father, her abandonment issues, the ghosts of her parents coming back to directly haunt her, and ultimately go face-to-face with Lockjaw who had a very uncomfortable relationship with her mother... and in every scene, Infiniti plays Willa as the adult in the room. The moments where Infiniti has to play simultaneously tough and scared is a really hard emotional balance to achieve and she absolutely loves there with seeming honesty for much of the film. It is an incredible performance and we will be seeing much more of her soon if this were a just world.

OBAA is long, it's challenging, it's darkly funny and at times exceptionally thrilling. It's bracing and confrontational, it's uncomfortable, and it's a little icky, even. It's exceptional and sometimes unpleasant. I can see why there are viewers who earnestly detested it, because it's a provocation. It's a film that is getting in your face both politically and emotionally and trying to rub you the wrong way often. It doesn't necessarily want you to agree with it, and it may not agree with you. 

I found it to be epic and engaging, but I didn't love it, whether it's because I kept fighting it, or it kept fighting me, it's hard to say. And yet, in spite of not loving it, I still think it's great.

[Poster talk ... the two posters I selected for this entry are two of the greatest things about this pretty great film that I didn't love. The first is a weird IMAX poster representing the film's climax which is a slow pursuit through the rolling hills of a desert highway. there are a lot of great sequences in the film, but this is an all-time great moment in cinema. the second poster I chose because it features Infiniti, and she deserves even more of a spotlight (and I didn't want to use the "character poster" because I'm tired of "character posters"] 

---

As I've been watching their films week-to-week alongside the Blank Check Podcast, one of the things that keeps coming up over and over again with the brothers Coen is how much they dislike talking openly or honestly about their films. They're cagey interviewees who fuck with anyone who dares ask them an honest question about their films or filmmaking. You may get an answer out of them that is the truth, a lie, or a joke, or sometimes just a spiteful retort, and a lot of the time you can't tell the difference. As filmmakers, they want their work to stand on its own, and as creators they have no interest in being subjects themselves. They make narratives, they don't want to be part of them.

For A Serious Man they did drop hints about how their mid-west Jewish background influenced the story about a Jewish man in the 1960's mid-west whose life begins to unravel. But is this film any more personal to them than any other? Who can really say but the Coens and they're not really saying.

But after their massive critical, box office and awards-darling success of No Country For Old Men (and the lest critically and awards-decorated, but equally box-office boffo Burn After Reading) the Coens were due for a true blank check/do whatever you want project, and A Serious Man feels like the definitive Coen Brothers film.

It is an unpacking of Jewish culture that seeks neither to define it, nor be a statement on it. It is a film that lives and breathes the culture, but whether it's doing so honestly is besides the point. It isn't the Coen Brothers working through something, it's them in full-blown storytelling mode being hyper-specific about place and time and yet fudging the details because sometimes they can't be bothered to research and sometimes it's just more entertaining to make it up.

Michael Stuhlbarg plays Larry Gopnick, a professor of theoretical physics at a Minnesotan university. He has a Korean student failing his class trying to bribe him for a passing grade, while also being under review by the school whether he's right for tenure. When he returns home, Judith (Sari Lennick), Larry's wife, asks for a divorce, because she's gotten involved with the widower across the street, Sy Abelman (Fred Melamed). His shrieking eldest teen Sarah is frustrated with everyone and everything in the , and his younger teen Danny is getting ready for his bar mitzvah while also ducking a monstrous classmate he owes money to for the pot he bought off him. Also Larry's older brother Arthur (Richard Kind), the one with the sebaceous cyst on the back of his neck, has been sleeping on his couch for weeks with no signs of him leaving.

On top of his marriage falling apart, Larry's heard that the review board is getting letters about him, painting him in a bad light, he has Columbia House calling him about overdue payments, and his alpha male war vet neighbour seems to be waging a passive aggressive war to take over some of his property. Everything is getting worse for Larry, and all he wants to know is why? He never did anything.

And that's the crux of the film. Well, the two cruxes. The cruxi.

Why?

And

"I never did anything!"

Larry searches for answers from various rabbi, from friends, from adversaries, from lawyers, and nobody cans answer "why" these things are happening to him. The film teases and teases that revelations are forthcoming, that there is potentially answers, that there's some form of text or knowledge or wisdom or signs that will provide answers. But even after Sy Abelman dies suddenly, and Danny gets through his bar mitzvah beautifully (despite being high as the stars), and Larry's seemingly given good news about his tenure, with things suddenly looking up for Larry and Danny after much angst (and oh so traumatizing anxiety dreams), the film ends screaming at them that shit. just. happens. There's no answers, there's no karma, it just is the unknowable, the chaotic nature of reality that provides no certainty. (Larry's two big class showcases are talking about the mathematical formulae proving that the Schrodinger's Cat paradox is scientifically unknowable, and the the mathematical equation proves the Uncertainty Principle (which, after doing a quick search about, I'm pretty certain that the Coens are uncertain what the Uncertainty Principle actually is, beyond thematically relevant to the story they're telling.))

Larry (and even Arthur's) refrain of "I never did anything", applied to in different contexts is not the excuse they think it is, the way they try to get out of trouble our avoid consequences. But the truth is, "I never did anything" basically is the answer to Larry's question as to "why". Nearly everything that's happening to Larry is because he never did anything. His absence of doing has led him down a road to being unfulfilled and disconnected.

A Serious Man is an incredible film, one that toys with the audience as much as it toys with its characters. It opens with a prologue that, as the Coens describe in an interview, they wanted to carry the air of a Jewish folk tale, but they didn't know any Jewish folk tales, so they made one up. It is, they say, an amuse bouche, not a prologue. It's like the short cartoon before a feature, bearing no weight. Except it's obviously a lie, as well as being the truth. It's setting up the deep-rooted Jewishness of the film, even if it's a fabrication.  It's a wonderfully twisty opening sequence that feels both deeply connected to and worlds apart from the film that follows it.

It's a riotously funny, deeply uncomfortable film without ever being cringe-comedy. Cringe comedy comes from a protagonist doing the wrong things and being adamant about their rightness, whereas here Larry is just a passenger in his own life, unable or unwilling to take the wheel despite it being right in front of him. It's a film for all of us meek types who just want things to be okay, too afraid to take risks, too worried about uncertainty, and so things crumble around them as a result of inaction.

Burwell's score is intense. Deakins once again shoots the goddamn hell out of it (through Deakins' lens, nothing is more idyllic than this suburban Minnesota neighbourhood). It is not my favourite Coen Brothers films, but it probably should be, and it's a contender for their absolute best.

[Poster talk... there is only the one poster for A Serious Man. it's a shot from the film of Larry on his roof fixing the aerial because Danny can't watch F-Troop or something, and the moment when Larry spots his next door neighbour, the divorcee played by Amy Landacker, sunbathing nude, and Larry can't help but take a reluctant ogle. there are so many gorgeous shots Deakins makes in this film but somehow that moment becomes a turning point moment for Larry in the film (but does it really?) so it makes the poster. The restraint though of never showing the nude sunbathing any closer than Larry's vantage point is such a perfect Coens move though, a real "am I actually seeing what I'm seeing" moment)

---

Final Destination released its sixth entry in the franchise this year with Bloodlines. I'm not sure I ever saw another entry beyond this first one (and the internuts is trying to tell me that Ryan Murphy created a TV series called Final Destinations that ran 5 seasons, well, I say "show me proof, because I don't think it ever existed"). 

The film opens with teen Alex Browning (Devon Sawa) and class getting ready for their senior trip to Paris. Alex is having a lot of anxiety over the trip, but manages to get on the plane. He seems to pass out and has a vision of a disaster happening on the flight and when he wakes, the events from his dream begin to repeat. He freaks out and he, and a few others, are kicked off the plane. The plane does explode shortly after take off and Alex isn't feeling good about any of it.

The other survivors, though, starting with Alex's best friend, have freak accidents or unceremonious death. Alex thinks that death is coming for them, because they tricked death or escaped it. Alex begins looking for patterns and slowly goes mad, but as more deaths occur, others begin to reluctantly see what he sees. There is, possibly a pattern. 

Final Destination does a few things exceptionally well, the first of which is really effectively capturing the anxiety of flying, and even if you're not an anxious flyer, the film effectively relates that feeling. Secondly, it logically starts turning Alex into a sort of conspiracy nutcase, and by the end of the film Sawa leans into it pretty effectively. Third, the deaths are all very entertaining in how Rube Goldbergian they get. The domino effect that is needed to cause the wild deaths are so utterly improbable, except the film really makes it feel like it's the obvious outcome in any of these situations.

This started life as a treatment for an X-Files episode, if the internets can be believed (can it?), which explains how X-Files greats James Wong and Glen Morgan got involved in the film. It's so perfect a premise for a teen-deaths horror movie, where the killer is none other than fate, one that can't truly be escaped.

[Poster talk... there are a few posters for Final Destination, including the most typical one with the main young cast along the lower half in a very black and blue colour pallette with the plane in a lightning storm above the title... but that's so played out. i chose the so very, very X-Files-inspired poster which I'm not sure if I've ever seen before. It's so fitting given the director]

---


In Halloween III, a doctor treats a patient who was found having collapsed outside a rural gas station. The patient clutched a soft vinyl halloween mask so tight, the hospital staff couldn't release it from his grip. In his few waking moments he proclaimed "they will kill us all". Shortly after being sedated and put in a room, a suited stranger walks in, crushes the man's skull, and leaves, only to die shortly after entering his car.

The whole situation is just perplexing, and the doctor, Dan Challas, (broad-chested, mustachioed Tom Atkins) starts inquiring wherever he can about what the fuck is actually going on. He meets Ellie (Stacey Nelkin, a real Adrienne Barbeau-type), the patient's daughter, a fetching woman about half his age. She's even more eager for answers, so Dan schluffs off his parenting duties (yet again) to run away with this young lady to the Silver Shamrock mask factory not far away in upstate California. It's a strange town completely run by this factory and its owner, and it has a 6pm curfew every night.

Nothing is right in this town and between screwing each other's brains out Dan and Ellie go investigating, only to learn the terrible secret far too late to do anything about it.

Season of the Witch is a sublimely ridiculous horror movie that just revels in its 1980's-ness, from the TV and radio ads, to the kind of American folksy quaintness that had already disappeared but was still being clung to.There's only the slightest hint of anti-capitalism baked into this story about a rich industrialist asshole who effectively buys a whole town so he can set in motion a plan to turn children's brains into snakes and crickets. To what end? Probably the raising of some elder god. And also this genius has figured out how to make lifelike automatons. This movie is wild and so much stupid nonsense fun.

I've seen Halloween III at least four times, but I still didn't really remember how everything played out in this film, so the process of discovery of Dan and Ellie playing amateur detective was thrilling. I had no recollection of what the big eval plan was (hell, I still don't). It's a rare film that seems to feel like you're discovering it all over again each time you watch it (not that it would stand up to regular repeat viewings mind you).

In the long list of Halloween films, Halloween III: Season of the Witch is probably my favourite next to the original. Michael Meyers is a fun horror icon, but also a pretty redundant one and his potency has never truly surpassed the original. But it's Season of the Witch's deviation from Meyers that makes it so exciting and enjoyable. It was the promise of something maybe really different, except audiences at the time rebuffed its lack of masked murderers (it's full of masked murderees instead) and so the fourth entry would go right back to the same old well.

[Poster talk... this one is cuh-lassic. Just so beautifully engineered with the bold seric font that was so highly prevalent in early 80's horror, along with the drop case first and last letter, all seemingly sweeping out of the haunted figure hovering in the clouds over costumed children in distorted silhouette. the red-orange tinge amidst a sea of black offers a haunting pop of colour. it's all so ...rough, unrefined, and yet completely charming. there's no other poster, but why would it need one. this is perfect]

Friday, October 10, 2025

31 Days of Halloween: The Pope's Exorcist

2023, Julius Avery (Samaritan) -- Netflix

"Catholic Horror" or at the very least, "Religious Horror" is a dominant sub-genre in the West. Its interesting, as it comes with its own built-in trappings, that require a pre-existing understanding of the inherent structural elements. I wonder what a new-comer to the west, even one with a strong exposure to our pop culture, makes of movies about demonic possession, Catholic exorcists and sin. No no, I get that religious fervour and rigid rulesets is common enough in almost all cultures, but the accoutrement of Catholic horror always rely on knowledge of it, to give it any assemblance of meaning. 

Father Gabriel Amorth, or Gabriele (Russel Crow, Kraven the Hunter) in his native Italian and Gabe to the American brained demon, is the top-tier exorcist working directly for The Pope, out of The Vatican. He's jovial, irreverent and loves to scoot around Rome on his little put-put scooter, possibly a Vespa. Its not an eBike as its the 80s so gasoline all the way. The preamble gives us his technique & personality, commenting on the challenges of dealing with most exorcism cases being an issue of mental health, vs the few that involves real demons. Gabe prefers to let mental health professionals deal with cases of their expertise, but sometimes, like in the preamble's case, he just uses subterfuge to deal with it himself. He is also dealing with significant guilt over the time he should have just intervened, for his punting of the case to doctors led to  the girl's suicide. Finally, the preamble shows how the "modern Church" doesn't care for his actual demon fighting, and wants his role dismissed, and is taking advantage of the Pope's infirm state to depose him.

He is drawn to Spain, where an American family has inherited an abbey and is in the midst of renovating it for re-sale. This is not your typical fixer-upper, but  an ancient medieval structure full of secrets. The family, as per usual, comes with trauma in tow -- the abbey had been in the father's family, and he had died tragically in a car accident, his death witnessed by his young son, who has been mute since. Tragedy opens one's soul up to demonic possession, Gabriele says. So, when one of the workers cracks up a hidden room in the alcoves of the basement, something sneaks out and inhabits the boy. Thus, Gabriele is called in.

All the familiar religious focused possession trappings are there. Experienced Gabriele has to explain things to the local padre Esquibel (Daniel Zovatto, Station Eleven), a man with his own sinful burdens. And soon after being introduced, Gabriele realizes this is no normal demon possessing the child. There is something going on here, related to the history of the abbey. While the Pope (Franco Nero, Django) himself researches the place's history back in The Vatican, Gabriele roots around in the basement, finding hidden chambers galore. 

The demon escalates things, pointing directly at Gabriele, hinting the demon is on a personal vendetta against the exorcist. All Gabriele feels he has to do is find out the demon's name, and he can end this all. But when he does so, he finds out this is Asmodeus, a general in Satan's army, but more so he finds out  the truth of the abbey, that it had been the seat of the Inquisition's start, and that beginning was due to the possession of a religious leader by Asmodeus. Combined Vatican forces had sealed the demon in the cellars, ending the Inquisition's sacrilegious rein. Asmodeus needs Gabriele's body so he can begin that corruption again.

The idea of this movie is more interesting to me, than the execution. Its feasible enough, more than capable of a production with good effects and settings. The placement of Russell Crowe as an Italian Exorcist was ... odd, and the man does have a lot of fun playing the character, which all makes more sense when its revealed at the end that Gabriele Amorth was a real man, and this movie was based on his published books. The movie is a mix of what we would expect from a "real" exorcist, as well as some of the commentary around the whole idea. The movie ends with a hint that this could be a franchise as Gabriele pusued 199 other major demons / fallen angels, in their locked away places around the world. Hello Hollywood, could you just not? Enough of the franchise ideal, your purple suited ideas are so 15 years ago.

Wednesday, October 8, 2025

31 Days of Halloween: The Menu

2022, Mark Mylod (Entourage) -- Disney

Why am I not surprised he directed episodes of Entourage and Succession; this was most definitely an exploration of wealth and privilege. And assholes.

So, its inevitable every year that we watch at least one movie that gets the label of "horror" by its respective service and/or end up on a list of "best horror", but I would personally label more "thriller" than anything. I came into this movie expecting more of a horror theme; I honestly thought there was going to be a significant element of cannibalism to the movie, as in "eat the rich"; I guess I just convinced myself that is what the movie was about.

Last little preamble bit; yes, this was one of the movies on my "finally got around to" list given its foodie nature.

A bunch of rich fucks are heading to an exclusive island restaurant, essentially in the harbour of some nameless coastal city. Our point of view characters are pretentious foodie Tyler Ledford (Nicholas Hoult, Superman) and his date Margo (Anya Taylor-Joy, The Gorge); she is our primary connection to reality, but the two seem to somewhat appreciate each other. The rest include a movie star, a renowned restaurant critic, an old money couple, and some hedge fund bros. From the moment they arrive on the island and meet Elsa (Hong Chau, The Whale), their guide to this experience, things feel extreme and off. The resto is Hawthorn and the famed chef is Julian Slowik (Ralph Fiennes, 28 Years Later). Everything is told to us as if we, yes we the viewer, should know who this man is and be in awe of what is happening. Which is typical upscale eating bullshit.

Of note, I have never eaten food at this level. Some of my friends would consider me a foodie because I try so many things. I am not. I just enjoy eating, and because I have a diminished sense of smell, I usually enjoy strong flavours, varied flavours. But yes, I do enjoy the idea of haute cuisine, food prepared as much for technique & presentation as it is for taste & substance, but could never really subscribe to it, even if I could afford it. I want to relish food, eat food and yes, I prefer the restaurant at the beginning of The Bear than what it becomes.

But, wow, is this story told with precision and menace! All the expected details are there, but amped up a bit. The pretentious menu, the cult like behaviour of the staff of the resto, the yells of "Yes Chef!!", the constant stream of irritants as we get to know the guests, the control with which Slowik demands over how the guests behave. We are learning, and yeah, it doesn't take long, to not life these diners, nor are we expected to like the staff nor Slowik. Margo is abrasive but, we easily warm to her because she challenges everything ! 

It doesn't take long for Slowik to reveal his End Goal, in that everyone here will die. Everyone. Everyone seems terrified and angry, except for Ledford. He, now matter how horrible Slowik gets, seems thrilled by it all. More than a little unhinged. Unfortunately there is no eating of the guests, just some light abuse, for the goal of this eating adventure is to just fucking kill everyone. Boo. Still, the movie is incredibly well done, and I really enjoyed myself but I wish there had been some real terror in the situation instead, "Weeee, yeah boyz, let's see everyone die." 

But not Margo, because Margo likes fucking cheeseburgers.

Tuesday, October 7, 2025

31 Days of Halloween: Presence

2024, Steven Soderbergh (Magic Mike's Last Dance) -- download

Kent wrote about it here.

This is a haunted house movie, but oh my what a lovely house that I wouldn't mind haunting at all. Wildly successful Rebekah (Lucy Liu, Elementary) and her husband Chris (Chris Sullivan, This is Us) buy it after something tragic has happened with their daughter Chloe. This is the "we need a change" trope at play, but by someone with money, because they aren't far from where it happened, and the kids seem to be at the same school. Chloe (Callina Liang, Tell Me Everything) doesn't seem to be recovering fast enough from her mother's point of view, nor from the view of her nigh-sociopath popular-at-school brother Tyler (Eddy Maday, feature debut). Dad does his best to be a lovely, supportive dad but some other kind of shit is going related to whatever well paying work Rebekah does, the kind of shit that has her deleting emails and hiding it all from her husband.

The entire movie is told through the eyes of whatever is haunting the house, a presence that Chloe can sense. It was shot with a simple camera (i.e. not a big film rig) on a gimbal attached to Soderbergh himself. Its a conceit meant to simplify and contain how the story is told. He's done well enough to be able to play with whatever style he wants, box office success or not. Horror movies, or maybe Halloween movies as this is not a horror movie per se with barely a whiff of fear present, also like to play with stylistic choices to center a story element. I really liked how it worked here.

There's no question of a spirit being at play here, and despite some initial mockery of Chloe for her "feelings" eventually the evidence that something is haunting them is too much to ignore. They bring "the expert", a medium who brings up the idea of spirits are often out of time and space so the tragedy that anchored them to the house might have not happened yet. Everyone but Dad and Chloe dismiss her, and if there is some failing in the script, its that despite their initial concrete belief in something, they ... just move on. The story wants to slowly explore its coming climax, a not-quite-Shyamalan-reveal but honestly, not what I expected. Its a thing about me, in that once I am wrapped up in something, I tend to slide right past the Hollywood structures, and just ... enjoy myself.

Aside from enjoying Soderbergh doing a haunted house movie, as I enjoy pretty much everything he has done (I guess I need to knuckle under and watch some strippers?) I really enjoyed his vignette style characterizations. Rebekah is very very dedicated to her son, almost to a creepy mom level, maybe past the creepy level, once we hear her reveling in her son's story of how he pulled a bully-level prank on a school mate. Meanwhile, her husband is spinning out on whatever the fuck terrible thing she has done in her business, but distracted by taking care of his daughter, whom his wife doesn't seem to care an iota about. Its never explained, never resolved, just ... there. And I loved it; quality story telling which I wish I could capture in my "never to go anywhere" notebook story ideas.

Monday, October 6, 2025

31 Days of Halloween: Fear Street: Prom Night

2025, Matt Palmer (Calibre) -- Netflix

This movie is another in the RL Stine based (movie) series that started with a trilogy on Netflix exploring a pair of communities that were subject to a curse (explored in the third movie) that left a shadow across both. Shady Side's curse leaves it dubbed the murder capital of America with more than its fair share of serial killers. This is one of those stories.

If the first trilogy of movies was impressive in that it wanted to explore and upend the misogynistic tendencies of slasher movies, this one is for today's world where that woke agenda is worthy of eye-rolling.

slash s, to denote sarcasm, as the kids would say. They don't, but I just did.

The point is that this movie abandons any desire to comment on the genre and just embraces runs with it in the most pedestrian, BINGO card manner, but also considering that current culture is more fine with beheadings than it is sex, we cannot have anything naughty in this movie, which in itself is a commentary on the genre. And yes, I will lay the blame entirely on the current political climate, just cuz.

In case you are shouting, "But its from books for kids !!!" the last movie was able to be both catering to youth but not pandering to the chaperone at the prom.

Its 1988, Shady Side. Six girls are competing to be Prom Queen: four beauty queens, one Tough Chick (Ariana Greenblatt, 65) and one Normal Girl (India Fowler, The Nevers). Instantly, because the Tough Chick is played by the Recognizable Face, and I guess the Drew Barrymore thing is a thing now, Christy is killed by a killer in an elaborate rain poncho and mask -- if anything, the killers of Shade Side have some flair. After a wee bit of attempt at "get to know the girls", we are at Prom Night and only a few people care that Christy is nowhere to be found, including the Normal Girl Lori's best friend Megan (Suzanna Son, Red Rocket), suggested lesbian and horror movie fan. Sorry, those are all the same girl.

Anywayz, Poncho Guy shows up and starts killing off the rest of the Beauty Queens, one by one, and any boyfriends who happen to be around at the time. To be honest, its not worth recapping because... yawn, its so perfunctory and vanilla in its presentation, you could almost think its an actual late 80s Made for TV Movie, except its not trying to be that ironically. But yeah, all the main girls are killed off, leaving Normal Girl (or Final Girl, if we may) to run away and reveal that it was one of the Beauty Queen's family, her Dad (Chris Klein, American Pie), who is the killer. Blah blah, his daughter had to win, chop off a few more heads and limbs, yawn.

And even a requisite Fake Out, cuz Mom's (Katherine Waterston, Inherent Vice) in on it too. And their little daughter Tiffany (Fina Strazza, Paper Girls) too!!

Stifled yawn, no cackle.

I just don't know why they will produce something with so evident lack of energy or effort. Sure, I cannot fault any of the actors, as they power through the pablum they are given with devotion. But again, no flair. They left that for his rain poncho, only.

Sunday, October 5, 2025

31 Days of Halloween: Wolf Man

2025, Leigh Whannel (The Invisible Man) -- Amazon

So, I will just roll my eyes when I am reminded this is yet another attempted "reboot" of a Universal Movie Monsters set piece. But it was a full moon, so we had to watch a werewolf movie.

Of note, we never finished Whannel's The Invisible Man because we just weren't into watching another abusive spouse movie, which is ironic because we assumed throughout this entire movie that THIS was also going to be a metaphor for male toxicity and abusive husbands, like last year's The Beast Within. I wasn't in the mood to be faked out again.

The preamble sets us in Oregon where a young Blake is raised by his angry, militaristic father on an isolated farm. These woods are known to be haunted by a curse called "hill fever" or "face of the wolf". While hunting, the two encounter an unknown snuffling, growling creature but drive it off.

Twenty-five years later Blake (Christopher Abbott, Poor Things) is an unemployed writer and stay-at-home dad living in NYC with his journalist wife Charlotte (Julia Garner, The Royal Hotel) and building a strong relationship with their daughter Ginger (Matilda Firth, Subservience). There is some tension between the two which is not helped by his request to move them to rural Oregon for the summer, so he can settle his father's affairs. His father, who has been missing for quite some time, has finally been declared legally dead. Blake has not been home in decades. 

After the obligatory fly-over shot of a winding road and dark forest, I would have assumed the story would have done the usual debate between pristine wilderness beauty and the threats just beyond the threshold of the wood, but nope, almost immediately, their moving truck crashes, the local guiding them is killed by the Unknown, and Blake is nicked by its claws. The family rushes through the dark, on foot, to his father's house, the snarling and huffing beast on their heels. The house is off the grid, no power, no phone lines, no cell reception, but all the first floor doors and windows are behind strong bars and screens. They are safe for now.

They are not safe. Blake's "infection" quickly takes hold, this curse having nothing to do with full moons. He is quickly transforming, frightening his wife and child. And frightening himself. He no longer understands them, and sees as a monster would see, clear in the dark, veins pulsing. Its been hours and he is already becoming something other than what he was. All the while, the beast that clawed him is still out there.

So, not a metaphor for an abusive husband, but a decent family oriented horror that was born from Whannel and his wife holing up for COVID 19 year, feeling isolated and imminent mortality seeping in. I wish the movie had embraced more of that original script treatment, actually given us more of that isolation and fear of an infected family member, but considering the shit show that built the movie (the umpteenth failed attempt at remaking/rebooting the 30s movie) I can see why they rushed headlong into two werewolves duking it out in the woods. Still, there was ... something there, but to be honest, Werewolf by Night had more fun with the whole wolfing out thing.

KWIF: Got another thin coen

 KWIF=Kent's Week In Film. Last week in film was put off by 2 days of toy hunting in southern Ontario in honour of Lady Kent. Lets just say antique mall-ing has officially become more exciting than toy hunting. And now movies. Catching up on Coens and another spell with Nick and Nora.

This Week:
No Country for Old Men (2007, d. Joel and Ethan Coen - bluray)
Burn After Reading (2008, d. Joel and Ethan Coen - dvd)
Another Thin Man (1939, d. W.S. Van Dyke - dvd)

---

One would like to think that after the lackluster performances of The Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty -- both critically and commercially -- the Coens intentionally regrouped for their biggest critical and awards success in adapting Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men, but in reality it never has seemed like the Coens were ever that concerned with making such calculated manoeuvers in their careers. I doubt they did a lot different in the process of bringing No Country to screen than any of their other pictures.

No Country is definitely not an outlier in their career, that's for sure. It's almost a return to their roots with crime noir, probably the closest film in tone to their debut, Blood Simple, although showing the years of growth in skill in between. Despite hewing close to the source material (not that I would know, I ain't got much times for no book learnin'), it would be very hard to tell that they were not the originators of this story. It bears so many Coen-esque hallmarks, and in many ways feels like it's derived from their quasi-stream-of-consciousness plotting.

It's been some time since I last watched No Country, recalling it to be a bleak picture of the darkest side of humanity. A lot has changed in the world since 2007, and I have to tell you that a film that's merely dealing in the drug trade, and centering primarily around a psychopath who enjoys killing and toying with his prey...well, it's almost comforting. Just one lunatic clearly detached from anything approximating humanity, and only killing a few people who get in his way, well, it's so small potatoes next to the inhuman psychopaths who control all the wealth, industry, government and are dismantling every structure that benefits anyone who isn't them. Yes, I'd take 100 Anton Chigurhs running around over a whole think tank of old white men with enough wealth, resources and influence to seemingly change the entire direction of the planet. Point is, I found escapism in this rewatch of No Country for Old Men.

In the film Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), a vietnam vet and hunter, comes across the aftermath of a drug deal gone wrong. In the process of exploring the scene, he finds a big bag of money and thinks he's more than due this reward, and more than capable of hanging onto it knowing that assuredly dangers will be coming his way. Of course he wasn't banking on relentless, astute, killing machine Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) tracking him down. Their cat-and-mouse hide-and-seek game leaves a trail of death and destruction in their wake, and County Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) is two steps behind tracking it all.

No Country For Old Men is, in part, about facing a world one doesn't feel like they belong in, one they don't recognize. This point of view stems from Sheriff Bell, himself a WWII veteran, but already keenly aware that the nature of America has shifted from community into selfishness. He may not be acutely aware of it, but that's capitalism, baby, and Reaganomics is about to tear the country a new one.

Llewelyn is desperate to have his piece of the pie, to have the dream that was promised him. It hasn't come cheap, nor for free. He sees an opportunity, he takes it, knowing only somewhat what the actual toll may be. Chigurh is driven by compulsions and fixations, little else, but sometimes he acts like a Batman villain, simply because it entertains him to put people off their guard, to unsettle them, to disrupt them. Like a horror movie villain, he's also judging them and finding most of them wanting.

There are allusions one could make around Chigurh, whether he's a demon, or the actual devil, but the penultimate sequence of the film shows that he is just flesh and blood in a body that can be broken like anyone else's, but with a mind that doesn't care about fitting in. If anything he wants to disrupt societal norms, whether it's because he feels outside of them or just enjoys disrupting them he never says.

It is a gorgeous looking picture, which, at this point, is expected with Coens films with Roger Deakins as their cinematographer. The Texas landscapes, the arid feel, and the colour tone to the film feels almost an absence of darkness and shadow, though definitely not vibrant. It's the contrast of the world being awake and alive while nightmares still roam free. It's simultaneously chilling and warm.  The Coen's frequent collaborator made the choice not to score the film, and by that I mean he advised the directors it didn't need a score. Instead it's a film of sounds, foley work an and whatnot, acting as a soundtrack.

No Country For Old Men won best picture, best director, best adapted screenplay, and Bardem won best supporting actor at the Oscars. It broke both Bardem and Brolin into much more prominent players on the big screen, and the Coens brushed the dirt of previous flops off their shoulders silencing any prior doubt the critical community may have had. It was a real turning point in their careers that instantly called for a reassessment of everything they had done before.

And so, in a fashion that should not be unexpected for the Coens, they followed it up with Burn After Reading, a film that does a heel-turn pivot back into their penchant for subverting genres, dealing with idiots and crimes, their favourite subject....

---

It's remarkable that Burn After Reading has the biggest superstar cast of any of the Coens' films given what a sort of silly trifle it is. George Clooney, Francis McDormand, Brad Pitt, John Malkovich, and Tilda Swinton are the A-listers up front, with J.K. Simmons and Richard Jenkins (with David Rashe) supporting. It's definitely the success of No Country that gave them the opportunity to cast their films with such massive talent, when at least half of those roles in prior films would have gone to wonderful character actors that maybe weren't such recognizable faces.

The film opens with CIA Analyst Osborne Cox (Malkovich) getting demoted from his current position and quitting in protest. Cox is a pretentious Ivy-league alumnus who thinks himself high in station and status, and assumes he's smarter and more capable than everyone else. It's a role written specifically for Malkovich and it fits him like a glove. He simmers with rage anytime anyone he deems beneath him intellectually (which is everyone) dares to tell him anything that conflicts with his view of the world. He's a difficult personality who, in his unemployment, decides to write a memoir ("mem-wah").

He's married to Katie (Tilda Swinton), a pediatrician with the worst bedside manner, high status from family money, and is so totally done with Osborne. She doesn't respect him in the slightest. She's been sleeping around with U.S. Marshal Harry Pfarrer (Clooney) who is married to a children's novelist. Katie expects her impending divorce to be the impetus that Harry needs to leave his wife. 

Harry, we learn, is a serial adulterer. I mean, he's a confident, charming, amiable, fast-talking good-humoured guy who is very handsome and fit (he has a lot of sex and goes for 5 mile runs afterwards)... so of course he's taking full advantage of it. He talks big about his secret service past and how he's never had to discharge his weapon, but when push comes to shove (and there's a lot of pushing and shoving of these characters in traditional Coen bros fashion) he's a big damn coward.

Carter Burwell's score leans in extra heavily on cliched spy and action movie sounds, with sweeping strings and pounding drums accentuating everything surrounding Osborne, Katie and Harry. Even though Malkovich is perfectly Malkovich in his excess, Swinton is so in the pocket of her entitled poshness, and Clooney is in peak "competent buffoon" form, the intensity of the Burwell score makes everything feel important despite being pretty damn silly. When the film cuts to its flipside cast, the crew at the gym Hardbodies, Burwell's score all but drops out and lets Pitt's upbeat idiot Chad, McDormand's wallowing in vanity Linda, and Jenkins' hapless, pining Ted hammer home their comedic dumbassery.

A CD is found in the locker room, and Chad is convinced it's top secret government shit. He convinces Linda that there's likely a healthy reward in returning the shit to its owner. Linda, desperately needing money for four cosmetic surgery operations to counteract the effects of being middle age, is more than eager to go along with the plan. It goes to such absurd lengths, even for a Coen brothers movie, and the major players start to intertwine like a Celtic knot.

The end of the second act and the end of the film both end with CIA Officer Smith (Rashe) explaining his understanding of what's actually happening in the film to Simmons' supervisor. Simmons' reactions are hilarious as he asks questions to which Smith has no answers (we the audience have the answers and we know they're absurd and unsatisfying) and his casual dismissal of all the players involved is effectively telling the audience that maybe they shouldn't really care either.

It's not uncommon for the Coens to mistreat their protagonists, to really put them through the wringer or even unceremoniously kill them off, and there's plenty of that in this film. They do terrible things to their likeable idiots because it amuses them to do so. The last third of the film does feel more than a bit mean-spirited, even more so than pretty much any other Coens film, and yet, they attempt to rebound with some of the funniest bits in the film, and come so close to succeeding. 

I spent the majority of the film with a big dumb smile on my face even when I wasn't laughing. This is a ridiculous film full of really great comedic performances, all in service of another Coens-style shaggy dog story. Nothing face front in this story really matters, but underneath it's really about reaching middle-age, feeling uncertain about the present, maybe too regretful or too wistful about the past, and perhaps desperate for a new path forward. I don't know that it really succeeds in exploring this subtext to any satisfying degree, but at least it feels a little like a purpose for the film which otherwise has none, besides entertainment.

---

Oh my God, Nick and Nora have a baby. Might as well put them on the proverbial motorbike and have them jump the proverbial shark.

At least that's what I feared. Being a consumer of sitcoms from the 70's through the 90's, I learned that babies were introduced only to try and shake things up in the characters lives, and it was a signal that the situation from which the comedy derived had run out of ideas.

But very quickly in Another Thin Man (referencing that it's another in the series, and not alluding to the baby being another thin man) I could see what kind of parents Nick and Nora were, simply because they had people minding the baby, and they were very largely hands-off. This pleased me greatly, not because I want Nick and Nora to be horribly neglectful parents thus raising a child to grow into a white man of family wealth with parent issues that makes them emotionally detached and ruinous for the world. No, rather, it meant that parenting a baby wouldn't get in the way of all that drinking and murder-solving.

In this case, Nick and Nora, having just arrived back in New York City, are beckoned by their father's business partner -- the money and finances guy -- to come visit upstate. He's needs Nick, now in charge of Nora's family businesses, to do some paperwork or something. When they arrive, they find that the old man is tangled in some shady business, with a former fixer trying to blackmail him into giving him a big pile of money to keep his mouth shut and return to Cuba.

When the old man winds up dead, a reluctant Nick (and bored-mommy Nora) is wrangled into investigating, mostly because he sees how incompetent the police are at this whole thing.

Once again, Nick sidelines Nora once he actually decides to investigate, but Nora finds her own pathway into it and the story is the better for it. I was hoping that Nora finally getting in on the investigating would yield greater results than it actually does here, but it's still nice that once she comes in, Nick's reaction isn't as much chauvinistic as juvenile fuckery.  Nick and Nora's relationship seems to be getting off on messing with the other, putting them into a bit of a fix with someone, and watching them try to squirm their way out. In the last movie, Nick managed to get Nora arrested because he was amused by it, and here Nora manages to implicate Nick as a possible suspect in the murder, because she is amused to do so.

William Powell seems so settled into playing Nick at this point, it's almost autopilot, but he's turned up the charm moreso than in the previous film. It still doesn't measure up to the every-line-a-gem dialogue of the original though. Myrna Loy's Nora does get the coup of finally participating in the investigation, but she's hamstrung in her own way by societal expectations where, as she's now a mother, she's expected to be sober (I did like that there's the inference she does seem to sneak some off screen).

The guest performers here are a hammy bunch. There's a lot of shifty-eye acting here... a lot! And it's ironically amusing, because it's so cliche and over the top. It's not something that's been incredibly present in the last two films, but so many of the character here do it.

The mystery, much like the last two, is a wild web that makes it almost impossible to solve as an audience member. These aren't murder mysteries that give enough clues to deduce the culprit, only enough to show that when Nick comes to the reveal, he's the smartest guy in the room and thus the only one able to solve it. It makes for a more engaging picture when you're just along for the ride and not distracted trying to figure it out. They're not interested in guiding you to an answer. It almost doesn't matter, really. It's all just a vehicle for Nick and Nora's quippy detective work. I'm still enjoying it and ready for more.


Saturday, October 4, 2025

31 Days of Halloween: The Monkey

2024, Osgood Perkins (Longlegs) -- download/Amazon

I guess we are fans of Osgood, despite never having finished  I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House?

Interestingly enough, despite having similar covers, this movie is not a remake of the 1988 George A Romero movie, Monkey Shines, which despite that movie riffing on the cover of the Stephen King short-story collection, "Skeleton Crew" (which contains the originally published in Playboy short-story "The Monkey") has absolutely nothing to do with a cymbals playing wind-up monkey toy. This movie is based on the short-story but had to replace the cymbals-playing with drum-playing because Disney made the monkey less threatening in Toy Story; kind of. Either way, this monkey really outshines his originating "Jolly Chimp" cymbals-playing toy via the hands-raised, spinning drum stick having most malevolent hesitation.

Enough with the meta, already!

I read it, but I have zero recollection of the short story, but the ten-second research says this clings close to the core of the story, in that Hal Shelburn ends up with a murderous wind-up monkey in his childhood, and later, in adulthood, attempts to finally rid himself of it.

So yeah, Hal and his twin brother Bill, raised by their mother Lois (Tatiana Maslany, She-Hulk: Attorney at Law) after their father Petey (Adam Scott, Little Evil) disappears. We get a brief moment with Petey in the preamble after he unsuccessfully tries to sell the monkey toy ("don't call it a toy! it doesn't like that!") to a pawn shop. The boys find it in their father's curio collection (he was a pilot) and it doesn't take long for the thing to start killing people, starting with the babysitter Annie Wilkes (no relation), and in the most horrific yet comical ways it can. Osgood always has a weird way with his horror. Their childhood ends when Hal tries to convince the monkey to kill his brother Bill, because Bill is a horrible troll of a bully to him. It kills their mother instead. They go to live with an aunt and uncle; the monkey kills Uncle Chip (Osgood Perkins, Star Trek) -- 67 horses trampled him = cherry pie filling. The boys toss the monkey down a well.

Twenty-five years later. Hal (Theo James, The Gentlemen) works retail, has cut off all contact with ... well, everyone, including his own son. But he has one last chance to connect with the boy before his ex marries a weirdo (Elijah Wood, Come to Daddy) who will Hal's son. Road trip! Exceeeept the monkey has found its way back to Aunt Ida and ... well, bye-bye Aunt Ida (Sarah Levy, SurrealEstate). It is at this point that Hal knows he has to end the monkey's reign of terror.

The Shelburn boys are not quite right. Sure, let's blame the monkey, but I am pretty sure they were broken long before that. And no, mom was not to blame. She was quite lovely in fact. But Hal seems quite... inured to the deaths the monkey causes. Once he hears from brother Bill (Theo James, Divergent), who has come completely undone, and realizes the monkey is going to get going again, he's more annoyed than anything. It is a bit of the farcical tone Perkins has on the movie. The deaths are always to the extreme. Annie Wilkes had her head cut off at a hibachi restaurant, Aunt Ida got her head set on fire, and fell face first into a wooden spike, the random bikini swimmer who happens to be in the vicinity of Hal when his brother calls, well she dives headlong into a pool with an electrical problem and explodes, and same for the real estate agent who is taking care of Aunt Ida's house. Lots of gore here.

The movie is more about the brothers dealing with their own shit than dealing with the monkey. Do they really ever get rid of him? No, Hal, and now his son Petey, accepts the responsibility of the monstrous curse, hoping that at least it does not fall into the wrong hands, evil hands that would use its murderous intent for ill. I mean, they just watched more than half their home town destroyed by Bill during his twisted bid for revenge on his own brother -- its a literal apocalypse with planes falling from the sky.

The Monkey was a darkly comedic movie, weird and twisted but "light hearted" by Perkins usual standards. I liked its weirdness and James really embraced the role.

Note about the Jolly Chimp himself -- he's so incredibly lovingly built and depicted! He's much larger than most of those actual "toys" but also much more maniacal looking than they usually are, and their usual image is pretty fucking creepy. Golf clap to the designers!

Friday, October 3, 2025

31 Days of Halloween: Jaws

1975, Steven Spielberg (Duel) -- Netflix

"Duel" was a TV movie ?!?! Interesting; it started as an ABC Movie of the Week and then got theatrical release. 

Anywayz, I would have been 8 when Jaws was originally released. I probably caught bits of it later on at a drive-in, which probably did not help with my fear of swimming. Eventually, post age-10, I taught myself to swim by staying under the water and marveling at the views. And in ponds, not the ocean. No sharks there.

I must have seen this at least once after on VHS but its been many decades since. The legacy of "shark movies" was created with this movie, and we have seen a few of them, but only one during this series: The Shallows. I do have a Tag though. But, my point was that the impact this had on movies is indelible, especially the "sense of impending doom" that became synonymous with the "Jaws Theme", but also the idea of showing a placid scene but the viewers being very aware that it could become a blood bath at any moment, and quite literally!

I swore Kent did a Spielberg Director Series which would include this movie, which his wife loves, but that must have been in a previous alternate reality.

The munching begins almost immediately. On an early summer night (it must be cold there, as the kids partying on the beach are all in heavy sweaters) on a Massachusetts beach, a girl goes skinny dipping and gets eaten. At night. Interesting how the iconic image of a girl in a bikini with the shark coming up under her is more Mandela Effect than reality. Or maybe its just my memory. Either way, she is mostly nude, its not during the daylight and is, in fact, quite horrible as we get to hear her scream, "I don't want to die!!" Not long after, a kid is taken from a crowded beach, after the authorities sweep the girl's death under the pier. The kid is slain in full view of hundreds of beach goers.

The feeding frenzy after that death is palpable, the metaphor very real. The shark hunters and reporters and lookey-loo's flock to the small island town each thinking they can take care of the shark. Quint (Robert Shaw, The Sting), the bedraggled old fisherman, says he will kill the shark, but for $10k, no less. And Oceanographer Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss, Stand By Me) shows up to give some real talk on sharks, immediately dismissing the first sharks all these fishermen haul in as something other than what ate the kids. Nobody listens to him but for the not-an-islander town police chief Brody (Roy Scheider, Seaquest 2032), but after this catch, the town Mayor allows the July 4th beach festivities to go through, as Amity Island is a summer town, dependent on tourism. After an initial hoax (two kids with a fake shark fun, again creating a prankster legacy) the shark eats another boater, and the mayor's fate is sealed. Quint is hired, and Hooper and Brody join him.

This is where the meat (chum, no less?), pun intended, of the movie happens -- the hunt on the not-big-enough boat. Quint is a seasoned shark hunter, having survived a WWII incident where "1100 men went into the water, 316 came out" (do I hear The Tragically Hip suddenly?). He dismisses Hooper's rich-college-boy knowledge, but eventually the two men bond over war stories and scars. Brody is almost an incidental character in all these scenes, a man who is utterly afraid to be on the water.

This Great White becomes Quint's White Whale, refusing to give in, when it terminally injures the boat. Nothing will stop him from killing this shark, but ... well, the shark itself. I totally forgot the man gets munched on himself and Hooper only survives by hiding out on the bottom of the bay, thanks to his scuba tanks. Also thanks to his scuba tanks, Brody is able to blow the shit up out of the shark.

I really liked this one, even with my general dislike for the cinematic 70s, and I was surprised at how much I liked Ricard Dreyfuss in this role, considering how much I disliked Roy Neary. The jump scares are still effective even knowing all the practical effects history behind Bruce the Shark, and the whole "we're gonna need a bigger boat" scene is a chef's-kiss perfect scene. 

Thursday, October 2, 2025

31 Days of Halloween: The Substance

2024, Coralie Fargeat (Les Fées Cloches) -- download

What is it Kent says? Squick? Yeah, that. Very much that. But its also a movie with loads of style.

It begins with the creation of the Hollywood Walk of Fame star for Elizabeth Sparkle (but is it Hollywood as we do see snow cover it?) which almost immediately begins to fade, crack and be ignored. Metaphor on the megaphone, much? Yes, Elizabeth Sparkle (Demi Moore, Songbird) was once the talk of Hollywood but now she's relegated to a morning workout show (ala Jane Fonda) and then... she's fired. "Too old!" her sleazy Purple Suit (Dennis Quaid, Fortitude; no actual purple suits, but ohhh so many colourful ones) yells into the phone. She's gonna be replaced.

And then someone sends her an invite. Its an invite to The Substance, something that promises to make her the younger, more beautiful, more perfect version of herself. Elizabeth Sparkle is barely past 50 but she already feels invisible. After the briefest moment of hesitation, she orders it and picks it up from a pristine clean space hidden in the opposite of a pristine, clean neighborhood. There are instructions, very clear and loud instructions about a seven day on, seven day off, switching cycle. Elizabeth injects the drug, suffers debilitating pain, and then her spine splits open and ... Sue (Margaret Qualley, The Leftovers) emerges.

I have to interrupt myself and comment on the loads of style here. This is another horror movie set in an anachronistic mish mash time, with the bright colours and RGB rayon clothing of the 80s, but the sales pitch to Elizabeth comes in the form of a USB drive. Everything about the movie is from the male gaze, through the eyes of a woman who has to live with it. When Elizabeth is taking the drug, she is nude. She is not horrible but a normal woman, once Hollywood Perfect, but who has aged. Most would say she is still an ideal vision, but when Sue emerges, we see what the ideal really is. And in case you are wondering, the perfect body that Sue is depicted as having is mostly prostheses, make up and camera trickery because nobody not even the lovely Margaret Qualley is that perfect.

Sue gets Elizabeth's old job, which is now not just a morning workout show but a nigh porn show, more 20 Minute Workout than Jane Fonda, i.e. there are probably plenty of (not just adolescent boys and) men masturbating to it. Sue has exactly what sleazy old men want and want to sell, and does it with a wink and a giggle and a leer back into the gaze. But seven days later, she has to give it back to Elizabeth. You would think it could be an easy gig. Live as Elizabeth, do whatever you want for seven days and then let Sue do the paying work for seven days. But fame is not just about the money it garners, but the admiration afforded from it. Elizabeth is even more invisible now. Sue is not just on the billboard outside her penthouse, but everywhere leering down at her.

But its not just Elizabeth suffering neurotic anxiety over the situation, but Sue, as she becomes more powerful, more desired, more popular, she wants more -- more fame, more attention, more... time. But as she takes it from Elizabeth, Elizabeth suffers even worse, her body showing the ravages of time beyond what even a day's stolen time could do. It becomes a battle of wills between the two women who are, as the voice on the phone keeps on reminding them, still only one woman. 

I wondered if they remembered each other's seven days, but no, they don't, they just see the consequences of each other's actions, and Sue really gets the short end of that stick, as Elizabeth sinks into a wallowing hole of cooking, eating, eating and more eating. Neither gain weight but... the filth! 

And as expected, things eventually culminate towards doom. Sue is offered a Role of a Lifetime but needs more time. And boy, does she take it, which ends with her pretty much draining Elizabeth of all lifeforce, youth and beauty. Elizabeth has morphed into a monster while somehow still thinking Sue... deserves this? When the months of stolen time are visualized, Elizabeth is a literal monster, a stooped, ancient crone that is more fairy tale witch than anything. And the results of her reaction to THAT emergence is where the movie kind of falls down, to me. We go from stylish, outrageous farcical commentary on social injustice to ... Cronenburg-ian level, well, squick. Total gross-out, over the top, buckets of blood body horror, monster show.

I almost feel as if they weren't sure how the movie should climax. I mean, we knew it had to come to a final battle of wills and bodies, but, wow, did they let loose. There is no lesson learned, just pure unadulterated consequences.

This was a good movie, a well done movie, a movie that wasn't afraid to embrace the sheer lunacy of the situation and make a bold statement at the same time. It didn't blow my socks off though, as I would have preferred to have been completely, utterly, entirely horrified by an ending, instead of  them embracing the camp.

Wednesday, October 1, 2025

31 Days of Halloween: Until Dawn

2025, David F Sandberg (Lights Out) -- download

Starting in 2011 we (Marmy and I, as Kent is not much of a horror fan) began celebrating the Halloween season (all of October, of course) by watching too many horror / Halloween related movies, most of them bad.  2012 had a few flicks but not the full month. Un/Re-employment killed 2013. Apathy slayed 2014. But we returned in 2015 with a full run. 2016 had a good start, but stalled in the last few days, likely due to work life. 2017 almost started with a fizzle, but then I remembered, "It's October 1st !"  It still fizzled. Life abounds. And in 2018, almost the entire year was Halloween *ahem* as in the year of posting was mostly October. 2019 did alright for itself, considering I went off to Las Vegas sometime in the month. 2020 was it's own horror fest, and I am not kidding or being pithy in the least; the horror movies we watched were almost a relief. 2021 was in full form, some good, most OK and some great/terrible. 2022 gave us a full run, counting in the TV we watched, which we did. Also, I absolutely love that Kent jumped in with some themed movies and even a We Agree(ish). Aaaand 2023 had a pretty good run, even if it was interrupted by Vegas Redux. I am not sure 2023 was a Good Year for horror, as we didn't have a whole lot lined up. I came into 2024 with at least half the movies already cued up, but somehow, some reason, left a lot of them sitting there, including some of the big hits of that year. It was a decent run with only a few inserted in after the fact (am I supposed to admit that?) which brings us to 2025, another year of real-life-horror both south of the border and at home. The hopper is filled to the brim both with leftovers and things I have been adding all year, and we haven't even researched anything.

OK, Lights Out was done in our 2016 run, and I recall liking it a bit, but don't recall a bit of the plot. That's the trouble with binge watching horror as a genre; very little seeps into long term memory.

Wait, this was a video game adaptation? Until the credits rolled and Sony was smacking me in the face with their PS logos, I had no idea. I have never been much into horror games, probably inspired by that night Marmy came home to find Mukey and I engrossed in Resident Evil being played on the PS1 she bought me for my birthday. The apartment lights were all on and our feet were tightly packed under us in case a Licker crawled out from under the sofa. But yes, the game is a horror game about a bunch of stupid kids surviving a night, but unlike the movie, the game is not a time loop.

Yes, a time loop. But not time loopy enough to become a Loopty Loop post. I think the movie screen writers & producer knew they writing something based on a game and wanted to recollect the idea of Loading from Save Games, i.e. coming back from Death and trying something different. The game itself didn't play that way, and strongly focused on you dealing with the consequences of your actions -- it was its entire gimmick, actually. But no matter, the movie is about a bunch of kids stuck in a house (mostly) where, after they all die, it all starts over again. The goal is to survive Until Dawn.

It starts off fun enough, really embracing the tropes -- the country road, the helicopter/drone shot, kids with trauma going on a trip, a creepy guy in a road side gasbar (i.e. The Harbinger as Cabin in the Woods named him) and the road ending at a rather quaint and picturesque visitor centre. The hint that the kids are (being) trapped is that the centre is in an "eye of the storm", a calm clear spot amid a raging storm. There is even a "wall of water" separating the calm spot from the storm. We know they are being caught, as we saw trailers, but... 

The first night they are all stalked and killed by a masked slasher. Then the sand dial resets and it starts all over again. The movie hints at a "new type of horror trope each loop" but... seems to abandon it? There is too much stink of producer interference and likely Sony interference, as it tries to steer the plot back towards the video game's plot of a town of miners, cannibalism and typical over-thinker Japanese horror plot stuff. I think if it had just stuck with the "different kind of monster" for each loop, it could have had a lot of fun, but... then again, in doing such, how could the kids learn enough to survive a loop? Even so, I was instantly annoyed when the movie hinted very heavily at "next up, werewolf!" (full moon, one character's nails growing weird) only to abandon it entirely for ... let's skip past a BUNCH of loops and speed run to the weak explanations of what's going on and how they are going to survive... until dawn.

It was still kind of fun and a lot of budget was tossed at it for effects, practical and otherwise. I just wish it had stuck with one thing or another. Also kind of fun that Peter Stormare comes back to play the Evil Bad Guy he voiced in the game.