For It Is Man's Number

Wednesday 6 November 2024

Prime Time: City Of Industry (1997)

Writer Ken Solarz has seen a movie or two. It’s easy to remember this when he keeps throwing so much onscreen that should be familiar to even the most casual viewer of crime movies. City Of Industry is chock full of dialogue and situations that have been in hundreds of other movies, and it doesn’t manage to put a fresh spin on anything being regurgitated throughout the 97-minute runtime.

A group of guys do a robbery, one big score that could set them up for a good life ahead (of course), but things soon go wrong when someone gets greedy, leading to a betrayed individual plotting some bloody revenge.

Director John Irvin mistakenly puts his faith in others here. He has a great cast to work with, but very few of them are able to improve the material. In fact, one or two (mainly Stephen Dorff and Harvey Keitel) seem to lean into the idea that the characters were written in a way all too similar to some of their previous work.

Aside from Dorff and Keitel, although they aren’t awful (they just seem stuck in a certain lane that the script puts them in), the cast also includes Timothy Hutton, Wade Dominguez, Michael Jai White, Lucy Liu, Dana Barron, and Famke Janssen. It’s the women who do much better, maybe because they have to work harder in roles that would be completely forgettable with less capable performers.

Derivative and uninspired, this feels like exactly what it is - a 1997 crime thriller that wants to be Tarantino-esque without having any actual Tarantino talent attached. So we’re left with thin characters, laughably tired dialogue, and a plot that tries to twist and turn slightly while heading towards a very predictable third act. Not recommended, especially when I can point you towards at least a dozen other “Tarantino-lite” crime thrillers that work better than this.

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Tuesday 5 November 2024

Noirvember: The Mob (1951)

Let’s start at the end with this one. If you somehow caught the final scene of this film when it was on TV then you could be forgiven for thinking it was an episode of Police Squad. It ends on a light note that I could easily see being played out by Leslie Nielsen and company while some major perp figured out that they could escape as everyone stayed in a freeze-frame position. That’s quite a difference when compared to how it all starts, but I feel that it’s only fair to warn people who may want their film noirs to be hard-boiled from start to finish.

Based on a novel, Waterfront, by Ferguson Findley, this is the tale of a tough cop (Johnny Damico, played by Broderick Crawford) who is tasked with going undercover to gain entry to, and climb, the criminal underworld career ladder. Damico needs to get to the top man, but that might only happen if he stays alive long enough.

One of the earlier films to be directed by Robert Parrish, who wore a number of hats during his time in the movie business, The Mob is a serviceable screenplay from William Bowers that is elevated by some choice cast members doing their bit to help everything move along quickly and entertainingly enough.

Crawford may not be the best lead, but he definitely has the attitude for the role. He convinces as someone tough and fearless enough to do what he has been asked to do, and there’s never any doubt about him keeping his moral compass pointing in the right direction. A couple of the main heavies are played by Neville Brand and Ernest Borgnine, both fantastic in their roles, and the latter having the added bonus of just having that Borgnine presence (of course). Betty Buehler, Lynn Baggett, and Jean Alexander portray a variety of women who are slightly connected to a couple of the main characters, and Richard Kiley, Otto Hulett, and Matt Crowley play important roles in guiding the fate of our lead.

There are enough good moments throughout to make this worth a viewing, but the teeth of the film are filed down more when they should be getting sharper. The third act feels far too safe and tame, and also slightly rushed when the very last scenes start to play out, despite the 87-minute runtime that should be more than enough for this kind of thing.

Good enough for crime film fans, but far from essential viewing. At least you can keep your eyes peeled for that briefest appearance of a young Charles Bronson though. That’s a small bonus.

6/10

Monday 4 November 2024

Mubi Monday: The Tsugua Diaries (2021)

Hmmm. That's about the best thing I can say about The Tsugua Diaries. Hmmm. Showing a series of days in reverse chronological order (hence the title, see how August is spelled backwards in the title, get it?), this is a fairly weak work of meta-fiction that blends lines between reality and fiction in a surprisingly uninteresting way. The fact that it is set during the 2020 pandemic is the only interesting thing about it, providing an interesting time capsule and a look at how everybody, but especially creative artists, started to think about interactions, keeping themselves safe, and being able to continue their work.

The main characters onscreen are Crista, Carloto, and João, played respectively by Crista Alfaiate, Carloto Cotta, and João Nunes Monteiro, which I think tells you everything you need to know. They're part of a group of people trying to make a movie during a situation that has taken a turn for the strange. Lockdown, new rules about masking and distancing, and general concerns make things extra tense for people, as is crystallised in a scene at about the halfway point showing someone being berated for taking himself away for some time at the beach.

Co-directed by Maureen Fazendeiro and Miguel Gomes, who also apparently co-wrote the thing with Mariana Ricardo, and all three also appear in front of the camera (of course), this is a loose and rambling examination of an unsettling reality. It's worth remembering two main things though. First of all, Hitchcock once said that drama is simply life with "the dull bits cut out", which doesn't happen here, so you have a slice of life, dullness and all. Second, lockdown was, for many people, even more dull than usual. It's when people started making lots of home-made bread, and trying out other recipes in their kitchens. Many of us found shows to binge-watch, some started to go a bit stir crazy, and news reports showed the worst of humanity when people would race against one another to stock up on rice, pasta, and huge multipacks of toilet rolls. Some people loved it, I still wish every establishment had codes for table ordering to save me from extra social interactions, but many found it intolerably dull, and not great for their mental health. So . . . here's a film allowing you to remember those days. It's not exactly the nostalgia we crave a la Stand By Me.

Some may appreciate that the film-makers still managed to get something made during very difficult times. Some may appreciate the honesty of one or two key moments. I didn't appreciate any of it. This felt a bit too self-indulgent, and also a bit too cavalier about the central subject matter (which, lest we forget, is still affecting many to this day, it just isn't deemed newsworthy right now). I didn't care about anyone onscreen, I wasn't impressed by the editing choices, and it was taking me back to a time that I would much rather see used for educational purposes than art or entertainment. It's 102 minutes, but feels longer, and I am just glad that I hope to never have to sit through it again. In summation, I detah it.

2/10

Sunday 3 November 2024

Netflix And Chill: Anja (2020)

Sometimes you can watch a film that is ambitious enough to make you overlook a variety of flaws. It can be easy to remember that not everyone has the budget and resources to get their vision onscreen in the way they would prefer. But when the biggest flaw is the script, and it feels so sorely misjudged, then it’s hard to look beyond the weaker aspects.

Anja is essentially the tale of a lonely man named Andrej (Roberto Caccavo) and an encounter with the titular young woman (Larthia Galli Nannini) that leads him into a criminal underworld as he tries to figure out a mystery that either connects directly to Anja or connects directly to his own past.

Directors Pablo Benedetti and Paolo Martini, working from a script co-written by Martini and Giuseppe Calandriello, show a disappointing lack of experience and imagination here. They know the tropes they want to work around, they know the style they want to emulate, but they cannot do anything with the material that feels interesting or worthwhile. And the mystery at the heart of it all feels like a mishandled MacGuffin. I might be doing everyone involved a disservice, but this feels at times like a failed attempt to emulate David Lynch without really understanding his skillset.

The cast are fine, arguably better than the material deserves. Caccavo makes for a perfect male lead, slightly naive as he gets himself entangled in something that quickly spirals into a deadly predicament. Nannini looks the part, and is shown in a state of vulnerability that may or may not be accurate, but is certainly enough to motivate our “hero” anyway. Désirée Georgetti and Samuele Batistoni are two other main characters, both potentially manipulating the situation to solve a problem of their own.

I really wanted to like this, and the early scenes pointed at a film that was going to at least deliver what most would expect from this kind of thing, but it soon starts to go downhill, and keeps sliding further and further towards a final scene that it’s almost impossible to care about. The whole thing ends up being an unenjoyable mess, although there’s at least a consistency in the dark visual style used throughout that hints at better things to come from those behind the camera when they have better material to work with.

3/10

Saturday 2 November 2024

Shudder Saturday: The Exorcism (2024)

Co-written and directed by Joshua John Miller, it's worth starting any review of The Exorcism by reminding people of who Joshua John Miller is. He's many things, including an actor, writer, and director. But, and it's most important in relation to this movie, he's also a son of Jason "Father Karras in The Exorcist" Miller. That's most important here because The Exorcism is very much in dialogue with The Exorcist. You could even consider one as an attempt to exorcise the spirits of the other, but maybe that's overthinking things.

Russell Crowe plays Anthony Miller, an actor trying to keep himself in order as he portrays a priest in a horror movie about an exorcism. The film is called The Georgetown Project, and it bears a major resemblance to the landmark horror film famously filmed in that area (although that film is namechecked, which means we're in a world in which that film already exists). Miller is trying to stay away from alcohol, trying to stay connected to his daughter, Lee (Ryan Simpkins), and trying not to be too disorientated by the content of the film, especially while the director (Adam Goldberg) keeps pushing him to tap into uncomfortable memories of abuse and pain.

The last time I watched Russell Crowe get involved with some demon-wrestling exorcisms was when I watched The Pope’s Exorcist. That film was fun, and Crowe seemed to be having a lot of fun in the lead role. This film is the polar opposite of that. Crowe isn’t having fun, and neither are viewers.

Alongside Crowe and Simpkins are a great mix of players who all deserve better. David Hyde Pierce gets to utter dialogue that his most famous sitcom creation would justifiably ridicule, Goldberg is a cartoon depiction of an angry star director, Chloe Bailey doesn’t get enough to do, and there are irrelevant amounts of screentime for Adrian Pasdar and Sam Worthington. Simpkins probably fares the best, mainly because she’s at the heart of the drama without having to do all of the contorting and snarling that Crowe delivers.

Miller has done good work before this, and I am sure he will do something else worth my time sometime in the future, but this is truly dire. Maybe directing isn’t his strong suit, especially when you consider that this is only the second feature he has helmed in twenty five years. M. A. Fortin doesn’t help in his co-writing role either, despite being a long-term collaborator with Miller, which makes me think the biggest problem here stems from someone wrestling with a project that they cannot view with any objectivity. Miller is the reason this exists, and he is the reason that it collapses like an underbaked soufflé.

Although it’s all put together with the level of technical competence and polish that the budget allows, The Exorcism still manages to sink to the bottom of the 2024 horror movie barrel. And I can only hope that it stays there, perhaps pinned under anything else that we can send down there to ensure it doesn’t try to float back to the top.

2/10

Friday 1 November 2024

Noirvember: 5 Against The House (1955)

Isn't it always the way. You come up with a jape that involves the perfect robbery, with a casino as your main target, and then someone thinks it's a serious idea, meaning they want to see it all played out for real. That's the basic premise of 5 Against The House, a lightweight and fun noir that props up a weak cast of males with a supporting turn from the lovely Kim Novak.

Al, Brick, Ronnie, and Roy are all university students, and all making their way through the education system after already doing their bit for Uncle Sam in the military. While having a fun time at a casino, our leads see an attempted robbery. This leads to Al (Guy Madison) thinking about how the attempt could have been successful. It's all fun and games, until Brick (Brian Keith) keeps chewing over the idea like a toothpick. Al just wants a nice life, and hopes to marry his swell gal, Kay (Novak), but the gang are about to be drawn into a criminal plan that Brick now thinks is foolproof.

Based on a story by Jack Finney, this is a surprisingly tame and sweet noir from director Phil Karlson, who has more than one or two superior gems tucked away in his lengthy filmography (including Kansas City Confidential and the excellent Scandal Sheet). The screenplay, credited to Stirling Silliphant, William Bowers, and John Barnwell, seems to make the mistake of assuming that all of the cast members are charismatic enough to carry viewers through some dull patches (sadly, that's not the case), but it is helped by the many moments that involve one or more interaction from Madison, Keith, or Novak. Alvy Moore and Kerwin Mathews are Roy and Ronnie, respectively, but they never feel like a vital part of the main group.

If you don't like the criminal plot at the heart of things then maybe you'll like the student shenanigans when our leads are trying to convincingly act like they're not too old to be getting up to such hijinks, or maybe you'll like the look at PTSD affecting one of the main characters (which is interesting to see as a main plot point, considering how long it took to really start acknowledging it as an issue). Sadly, however, you may just find that the film jumps between different tones without settling on anything that keeps you truly satisfied. I enjoyed the strange mix, but I can see many others being very disappointed.

Novak shines in a role that could otherwise have been easy to overlook, and she almost completely steals the movie away from everyone else. Keith is an enjoyable force to be reckoned with though, and makes the arc of his character more interesting and entertaining with the force of his presence, which allows Madison to impress opposite him by simply remaining calm and stoic. Moore adds some levity, Mathews adds not very much, and there's a selection of nondescript, but dependable, supporting players filling out the rest of the cast.

I'm unlikely to ever revisit this one (never say never though), and I'm not going to rush to recommend it to others seeking some darker film noir thrills, but I had a good enough time with it, there are a few decent set-pieces, and anyone already a fan of any of the leads should at least watch it once.

6/10

Thursday 31 October 2024

The Well (2023)

I'll be repeating things already said by others while reviewing The Well, but that just shows that it has a very certain appeal to horror fans, and it succeeds in what it sets out to do. Because, as you may have already been made aware, this is a film that feels very much like a throwback to the gory Euro-horrors of the 1980s and early '90s.

Lauren LaVera plays Lisa, a young woman who ends up in a large house in the middle of nowhere as she sets about restoring a very damaged painting. Lisa encountered a group of young travellers on the way to her job, and the movie shows those people being put in peril, and grievous bodily harm, as Lisa starts to suspect that something is amiss at her place of temporary employment. Her employer, Emma (Claudia Gerini), needs Lisa to hit a very specific deadline, but Emma's daughter, Giulia (played by Linda Zampaglione), doesn't want the job finished.

Although there are enough people in the cast to keep the deadly set-pieces flowing throughout the runtime, this is based very much around our three leads and one hulking killer who seems to live to supply the titular well with fresh meat. The killer is an enjoyably horrifying menace, but everyone is given just enough to make themselves feel worth spending some time with just before a potentially grisly demise, which is a pleasant surprise when evaluating the cheesy script co-written by Stefano Masi and director Federico Zampaglione (and yes, that is his daughter cast in the role of Giulia). The dialogue might not tickle your earlobes, but there's enough done to identify people as individuals and have viewers retaining a small hope that one or two escape their predicament.

Zampaglione knows exactly what he is making, and he moves into each gory set-piece with gusto, getting in close whenever flesh is being chopped and limbs are being removed. The unfolding "mystery" is pretty obvious, but our lead character is helpfully motivated to stick around by the young girl that she ends up feeling protective of.

LaVera is an excellent lead, and already quite the horror celeb due to her role in the Terrifier movie series, and she's easy to spend time with, and root for when things start getting even more dangerous for her in the third act. Gerini is enjoyably shifty, as expected, as is Zampaglione, and both slightly overact in that way that helps the film feel more in line with the films that it is emulating than any slicker modern horrors. I'm not going to pretend that I could spot all of the other cast members in any line-up, but I stand by the opinion that they're all helped just enough by the script to make themselves feel like more than bodybags-in-waiting.

It's not interested in being clever or revolutionary, but The Well is a hell of a lot of bloody fun. Horror movie fans should have a good time with it, and it shows how you can craft something that has memorable kills AND a decent enough narrative moving between the set-pieces.

7/10

Wednesday 30 October 2024

Prime Time: Gamera 3: Revenge Of Iris (1999)

It's near the end of the road for Gamera, in terms of cinematic outings (one more main feature after this one, is it time for a revival?), and this particular outing brings together a couple of familiar characters to root for Gamera as it ends up fighting a giant creature named Iris that really isn't like a version of Mothra at all, honest.

There are more Gyaos around, dealt with by Gamera in a way that leads to major collateral damage (aka thousands dead). This leads to some once again viewing Gamera as an enemy of the people. Meanwhile, a young girl, Ayana (Ai Maeda), finds a stone egg that she looks after until hatching time, leading to the birth of Iris. Ayana and Iris have a bond with one another, and the girl is manipulated into directing her resentment and anger (her parents died during a previous kaiju incident) towards Gamera. Mayumi Ngamine (Shinobu Nakayama) knows the truth though, how things need to play out for the benefit of the human race, and she hopes that Asagi Kusanaga (Ayako Fukitani) can help Gamera to win what may be their toughest battle yet.

It's Shûsuke Kaneko in the director's chair again, and Kazunori Itô back as a co-writer, which guarantees a consistency of approach and style that helps to make this feel like a fitting third part of a trilogy. It never feels like a full ending though, with those involved perhaps hoping to make another movie that would serve as an immediate continuation of this particular cinematic chapter of Gamera (the next film, Gamera The Brave, would end up being released in 2006, with a different writer and director on the job). The special effects are very good, with Iris a particularly eye-catching creation, the pacing works well enough, and anyone who enjoyed the previous two movies in the series will enjoy this, even if it is a slight step down from the last film.

With both Nakayama and Fukitani reprising their main roles, the latter having been in all three of these movies, there's a solid through line for their character development, and it's nice to have that extra sense of familiarity, a comforting core of Gamera support while so many others view the creature as an enemy to be destroyed. Maeda is very good as the person inadvertently helping to destroy our hero, and Senri Yamasaki and Tôru Tezuka are good fun as the real villains of the piece.

Although not as memorable as I suspect it wants to be, this is another solid Gamera feature, and it does well in balancing the human element with the big fight scenes. It delivers what you would want, but doesn't quite do enough to exceed expectations. All in all, it's a good time.

7/10

Tuesday 29 October 2024

HauntedWeen (1991)

There's nothing like a good slasher movie, and many slasher movies you can find in your exploration of horror cinema can best be described as nothing like a good slasher movie. HauntedWeen isn't good, not in the standard ways, but it's a lot of fun, and certainly does better than a lot of slasher movies that are less interesting, and less enjoyable.

Things start in the classic way, a prank gone wrong. A young boy accidentally kills a young girl, but he's then protected by his mother for years, instead of being treated by any proper professionals. Sadly, mother passes away, leaving that young boy as a confused man, living in what is assumed by everyone else to be an abandoned house. Which is where our cast of disposable fraternity students comes in, looking to make money by turning the abandoned house into a haunted house experience. It's certainly going to be full of scares, but they may be much more realistic than intended.

The only film written and directed by Doug Robertson, this is the kind of oddity that many will hate, but some (like myself) will be slightly charmed by. The acting and effects are both quite crude, the dialogue isn't polished, and there are many scenes that feel like filler on the way to a satisfying end sequence, but it's a group of people trying to do their best with very limited resources. Although released in 1991, this feels like it's from some years earlier (I don't know the schedule, sometimes these independent productions can take years to film and find distribution, depending on the availability of everyone).

Ethan Adler does a decent job as the killer, Eddie, and the setting allows him to have one or two moments that feel memorable for all the right reasons, and Brien Blakely, Blake Pickett, Brad Hanks, Leslee Lacey, et al. do fairly well as they remain part of a large group of potential victims to be hacked and slashed once our killer starts to get his groove on. Nobody stands out, but that just makes it easier to sit and wait to see who won't make it to the end credits.

There's plenty to pick apart here, especially on a technical level, but this won me over. Using the familiar slasher movie template, it has a great idea at the heart of it, even if Robertson cannot do quite enough with his film-making to match the potential of the premise, and there are one or two well-executed scares on the way to the third act. I'm not going to consider it any kind of forgotten classic though, I'm not that blinded by my affection for it. I would tentatively recommend it to fans of the sub-genre though, especially those who have already sat through so many other films in this vein, and are already used to the weaknesses often outweighing the strengths.

6/10

Monday 28 October 2024

Mubi Monday: The Substance (2024)

Please note, in a slight change to the usual format, I have scheduled this review AHEAD of time. The Substance lands on MUBI on October 31st, making it a potentially perfect viewing choice for your Halloween evening.

As many people already know, The Substance is the second full feature from writer-director Coralie Fargeat (who made an impressive debut with Revenge back in 2017). It’s a hell of a move away from her first film, in terms of both content and the level of film-making on display, and I am pleased to say that it’s going to be battling near the top spot whenever I try to list my favourite films of the year.

Demi Moore plays Elisabeth Sparkle, a celebrity/fitness instructor who is about to be thrown onto the scrapheap by her shallow and selfish boss, Harvey (Dennis Quaid). Desperate to find a way to prolong her time in the spotlight, Elisabeth signs up to use The Substance, a material that leads to her birthing the younger and beautiful Sue (Margaret Qualley). All should be well if the two women remember that they are one, and abide by the rules. They have to switch every seven days, without fail, and properly schedule their ongoing dosage of materials to keep up the ruse.

A full-on body horror that isn’t for the squeamish, The Substance is also a pitch-black comedy and an unsubtle commentary on the horror of unrealistic beauty standards, the aging process, and the hunger people can have for celebrity status. Some musical and visual cues also remind viewers that this is sci-fi that could have easily been sub-titled An Innerspace Odyssey (or perhaps A Face Odyssey).

Fargeat moves through every main sequence with admirable precision, helping the 141-minute runtime fairly fly by with audio and visual choices that positively affect the energy levels and help maintain the momentum en route to a wonderfully delirious finale.

Moore and Qualley are both pretty flawless in their performances, the former required to closely inspect every perceived flaw in her physique and face while the latter gets to dazzle with the apparent knowledge of what lies ahead of her. The two feel believably sourced from the same genetic material, yet also separated by the years that can provide some wisdom and caution. Quaid is enjoyably monstrous in his role, filling up his few scenes with his big grin, fast negotiations, and a steady stream of bullshit for those he deems a lucrative enough proposition for his time.

There will be people who wish that this was handled with a lighter touch, but I think this is one walnut that deserves to be smashed with a sledgehammer. The consistently excellent special effects (seemingly largely practical, but with some good VFX work mixed in) help to make this an unforgettable, and scathing, commentary on a problem that isn't new, but has certainly been exacerbated by the proliferation of cameras, filters, and a constant need for new faces to turn into branded content. Unlike my own reflection in the mirror, wrinkles and lumps and bumps and all, I cannot find fault with this, and I wouldn't want to make any changes.

10/10

Sunday 27 October 2024

Netflix And Chill: The Conference (2023)

I don't know why I didn't get around to watching The Conference sooner, considering the good word I heard about it from other horror movie fans, but I finally made time for it now. Do I consider it time well spent though? that's the question. I do, although I think it could have been a bit sharper.

What you should know about The Conference is that it is a darkly comedic slasher movie set at a remote hotel where a group of colleagues are to engage in a variety of team-building activities. That premise is ripe with potential for fun, pain, and murders, as anyone who has seen the excellent Severance will already know. There's also something fishy about the latest big deal that this team are due to celebrate, which leads to people throwing around a few accusations and choice curse words. Even worse, someone starts a killing spree. But who is the killer, and what is their motive?

Based on the 2021 novel, Konferensen (also the standard title of the movie in the original Swedish language), by Mats Strandberg, The Conference is co-written by Thomas Moldestad and director Patrik Eklund. Moldestad has worked well in this sub-genre before, having helped to shape the enjoyable Cold Prey trilogy, but I am completely unfamiliar with Eklund's filmography, although a quick browse shows that most of his projects have been mostly short-form work. Much like the aforementioned Cold Prey, this is happy to stay well within familiar boundaries, and it presents some enjoyable tension and decent kill scenes in a way that reminds you of how easy it should be to deliver such relatively simple pleasures to horror movie fans who don't need every slasher movie to comment on, and play with, every rule and trope that has been part and parcel of the sub-genre for decades.

Despite not giving them all quite enough time and space to make their impact, Eklund also helps his cast do enough to both work as one imperilled group and also individuals who may end up being a killer or a victim. Katia Winter and Adam Lundgren work very well as Lina and Jonas, respectively, the two most at loggerheads, and Maria Sid is wonderful as the team leader, Ingela. Eva Melander, Bahar Pars, Amed Bozan, Christoffer Nordenrot, Claes Hartelius, Cecilia Nilsson, and Jimmy Lindström all deserve a mention though, as do Lola Zackow and Marie Agerhäll, everyone convincingly engaging in their usual work duties until the bloodshed begins and the fear starts to flow through the group like a fast-developing fire.

There are weaknesses here though, and I should probably make note of them here before people start assuming that this is some unmissable and perfect creation. The attempts to give the killer some memorable iconography don't quite work, the red herrings thrown around aren't ever convincing, and the second half moves between some decent kills and a fairly banal explanation for the murderous rampage. There are also very few elements that truly stand out, one or two kills aside. The script could have been sharper, the direction likewise, and those two important aspects not being as strong as possible create a ripple effect that neuters what should have been a good bit of gory fun.

6/10

Saturday 26 October 2024

Shudder Saturday: Azrael (2024)

The fact that Azrael is described in some places as an action horror should be enough to get the makers in trouble with the Trade Descriptions Act. There's no decent action, and there's also a distinct lack of any horror. There's a decent end scene, but it's a punchline that isn't even worth the relatively meagre 86 minutes that you have to waste on the full runtime.

Things start off with a bit of text explaining that the movie is set years after the Rapture. Yes, THAT Rapture. Many of those left behind believe that speech is a sin, which leads to them trying to live in relative silence. That should also help them avoid some demonic creatures that try to hunt and eat them. One person trying to avoid such a fate is Azrael (Samara Weaving).

I was going to try and add some more detail there, give you something to at least pique your curiosity, but I can't. This film gives viewers nothing, and then continues to deliver a whole lot of extra nothing throughout. It's bad in a way that is hard to understand, because it feels like someone had to continually make one bad decision after another, all the way to just before the end credits.

I guess the person to get most of the blame is writer Simon Barrett. Barrett is someone who has written some fantastic films, but he's also done his share of some not-so-fantastic films. His other not-so-fantastic films are easier to understand though, often making use of too much CGI or too many jump scares in ways that epitomise the worst habits of modern movie-making. This is another level, however, with a lack of detail, an apparent lack of logic (at times), and nothing to truly reward viewers who read that opening text, shrug, and decide to go along with the ridiculousness of the central conceit.

Maybe, and it's a very big maybe, things would have been easier to go along with if director E. L. Katz had been able to present the material in a way that was more entertaining and distracting. Katz has made a couple of fill features before this, and has been involved with a few decent horror genre TV shows, which explains why this doesn't even have the accidental positive of laughable incompetence. A complete newcomer may have failed with more amusing results, or even succeeded beyond anything they could comprehend, whereas someone with more experience would know to either stay away from the script or change whatever needed changing to give it even half a chance to work.

Weaving can't do anything much to help. As good an actress as she is, she's dragged down into the mud here by the script. Her character isn't ever someone we get to know, aside from her will to survive, and she's only worth rooting for, I guess, because she's Samara Weaving. I understand that Barrett probably wanted to challenge himself, and cinema is predominantly a visual medium, but making the central character such a blank page (perhaps literally) does nobody any favours.

I didn't like Azrael, I know that I have made that much clear, but I want to underline how angry it made me. I resent the fact that I watched this bloody thing, which limped along from one stupid and improbable moment to the next, without the feeling of anyone involved having ever once pushed aside their own sense of smugness to make an effort to draw people into the world and premise depicted onscreen.

2/10

Friday 25 October 2024

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street (1936)

Every film fan and movie collector knows that the best thing about it is constantly making new discoveries. Of course, one of the worst things about it is . . . also constantly making new discoveries. It's bad for your bank balance, it's bad for any physical space being eaten away by any collection, and it's bad for your sense of self as you figure out yet another big gap in your knowledge highlighted by some lovely boxset that you've just bought. This is what happened to me when I picked up a lovely Tod Slaughter set earlier this year (accompanied by a fine tome I have yet to start reading).

Not knowing where to begin with any of his films, but knowing that he was celebrated for some fantastic stage work that was also translated into movies in the 1930s (although his career spanned more than just that decade, of course), I decided to take what I saw as the safest option, diving in to a film with a very familiar storyline, and one I have loved since seeing it played out in a wonderful coin-operated machine that used to be the highlight of Edinburgh’s Museum of Childhood.

Thanks to other movie versions, and also the enduring appeal of this macabre tale, I expect that everyone knows what this is about. Sweeney Todd (Slaughter) is a barber who gets into the habit of killing certain victims who end up in his chair, and then turning the chair on a trapdoor mechanism to deliver the body into the underbelly of Mrs. Lovatt (Stella Rho), who then turns them into pies. Things get more tense between the two when Todd sets his sights on the lovely Johanna Oakley (Eve Lister), but Johanna hopes to soon be reunited with her love, Mark (Bruce Setton), who is spending some time at sea as he tries to improve his lot in life.

Making use of an amusing framing device (a man waking into a barbershop where he is told this story), this is an unsurprisingly brisk 76 minutes, the perfect pacing helped by the absolutely superb lead performances from Slaughter and Rho. John Singer plays a young apprentice named Tobias, which provides a way to both show how our deadly duo operate and add some extra tension in the escalation of the third act.

Although this feels very much like a Tod Slaughter film ahead of anything else, director George King deserves credit for his work, as do the writers, including the creator of the stage material serving as the source, George Dibdin-Pitt, dialogue contributor H. F. Malibu, and Frederick Hayward. Everything plays perfectly, including the specific allusions to the content of the pies, the fun set design, and the moments that provide a glimpse of what happens to the unwitting victims as they are polished off by the titular villain.

It is Slaughter’s film though, no doubt about it, and his performance is the highlight of the whole thing. That’s why it’s pleasantly surprising to find that his co-stars do their best to match him. Yes, Lister and Setton may be stuck with the weaker roles, but they have great energy and attitude when being placed in peril in time for the grand finale. Singer is very enjoyable as the kind of Dickensian urchin usually seen in, well, Charles Dickens tales, and Davina Craig and Jerry Verno provide supporting turns that feel useful to the narrative, yet also provide some comic relief from the dastardly dealings. Rho is the other real star though, holding her own opposite Slaughter in a number of scenes that show the turbulence of their arrangement as the power dynamics start to tilt favourably from one to the other.

I expected something stagey, a bit creaky, and maybe just a bit too old-fashioned to be truly entertaining. What I got was something that managed to avoid claustrophobia (one or two different settings help to occasionally get us out of Todd’s “lair”) while always providing viewers with an absolute feast of eyebrow-wiggling, finger-twirling, twinkly-eyed devilry. Which is what you should really want from a Sweeney Todd movie. It ostensibly felt like a film version of that coin-operated machine I fell in love with as a kid, which means that I slightly fell in love with this too.

8/10

Thursday 24 October 2024

In A Glass Cage (1986)

A film that was recommended to me some time ago (by Christianne, who does great writing and other blog content here), In A Glass Cage was never at the top of my "to watch" list because I had heard about the main premise. It's a dark and disturbing tale that explores very uncomfortable material, but generally does so in a way that tries to shock viewers without completely pushing them away.

Klaus (Günter Meisner) is confined to an iron lung after an unsuccessful suicide attempt. You might have pity for him, but the opening scenes hint at his passion for cruelty and death. Klaus is a former Nazi who would torture and abuse children. Unbelievably, he remains married to Griselda (Marisa Paredes), but the situation is taking a toll on her, and making her wonder if she can continue to play the loving wife. It might be better if Klaus would just die. In comes young Angelo (David Sust), a young man who is interested in taking on the role of nurse/carer to Klaus. Griselda doesn't like Angelo, and doesn't think he is right for the job, but Klaus wants him to stay. It turns out that the two share some history, and Angelo doesn't want to leave the past in the past.

Despite his film career having spanned the better part of four decades, I am unfamiliar with writer-director Agustí Villaronga. All I know about him is that this was his feature debut, which is a hell of a start to a full film career. I was certainly aware of this title before it was specifically recommended to me, having seen it on lists that suggest "most disturbing movies" for those not too faint of heart, but I wasn't sure if it would be something actually worth my time (which rarely stops me from watching anything, but can often lead to certain titles hanging around in the low priority section). Thank goodness for friends who know are there to give the occasional nudge.

When it comes to the central performances, Meisner, Paredes, and Sust are all pretty great, even while performing with very different levels of physicality and emotional transparency. Young Gisèle Echevarría is also very good, playing Rena (daughter of Klaus and Griselda), and her story arc is arguably the spine of the whole thing, which gives viewers one pure and innocent soul, for want of a better phrase, to be invested in while others onscreen engage in a very macabre dance that inextricably connects them via a series of exposed and raw nerves.

Because of the many scenes set in one room, due to the location of the iron long, there’s a constant atmosphere of oppression and gathering clouds of pain and violence. It isn’t unbearable though, which is arguably the greatest trick that Villaronga manages to pull off, and feels closer to a drama about people being infected by a rapidly-developing cancer than the simplistic gross-out horror that it could have been.

Unpleasant but engrossing, this is a look at the cycle of trauma that takes things to extremes without distracting from the horrible truths sprinkled throughout it. It’s certainly worth your time, but be sure that you have suitably prepared your headspace before pressing play.

8/10

Wednesday 23 October 2024

Prime Time: Gamera 2: Attack Of The Legion (1996)

When I first watched Gamera 2: Attack Of The Legion I wasn't too familiar with the series. I did enjoy it, a lot, but I had no major attachment to, or knowledge of, the main creatures at the heart of this (aka the Legion). Now that I feel fully-versed in the lore of Gamera, all I can say is that I enjoyed it even more. It's still slightly restricted by the boundaries of the kind of kaiju movie it is, but this is easily a fantastic time for fans of these films.

The plot is as simple as expected. Earth is visited by another alien beastie, although they work together as a crowd of beasties working together as one. As people start to figure out exactly what is going on, Gamera ends up poised to once again save our planet. The main people working on a solution, and waiting to support Gamera, are Lieutenant Colonel Watarase (Toshiyuki Nagashima), an engineer named Obitsu (Mitsuru Fukikoshi), and a science instructor named Midori Honami (Miki Mizuno). There's also a returning appearance for young Asagi Kusanagi (Ayako Fujitana, reprising her role from the previous film), a girl psychically connected to Gamera.

With both writer Kazunori Itô and director Shûsuke Kaneko returning behind the scenes, this is a great natural progression from the last film, although it also works very well as a self-contained story (one or two elements aside). Unlike every other Gamera movie I can think of, this takes time to make things surprisingly tense and creepy throughout the first act, potentially keeping the main antagonist as a mystery to those who may have somehow started watching it without reading the title. Starting things off on a relatively small scale proves to be a great way to turn this into something that stands out from the kaiju movie crowd, but anyone hankering for a bigger threat and more destruction doesn’t have to wait too long.

Mizuno is an enjoyable presence, and both Nagashima and Fukikoshi do well enough in roles that are, as ever with these movies, playing second fiddle to the titular creatures, but the real highlight is Fujitana, more because of being able to enjoy the continuity of her character’s journey than any superior acting performance.

Gamera movies are often inherently silly, and also happy to keep things as child-friendly as the more juvenile Godzilla movies. This particular film uses the groundwork laid by the previous instalment to deliver something a bit more tense and interesting, and the end result is one of the very best films in the entire Gamera filmography.

8/10

Tuesday 22 October 2024

A Quiet Place: Day One (2024)

Look, I really liked A Quiet Place. It had some great set-pieces, a good core cast of characters, and just the right pacing and plotting to keep you from picking it all apart while it was on. Then came the sequel, which wasn’t as good, but enjoyed major success. And now we have attempts to develop this into a full franchise, which makes me feel as depressed and pessimistic as seeing a film advertised as coming “from the imagination of John Krasinski”.

There's very little to really say about this. It connects in a small way to the second film, but can easily be watched as a standalone "adventure" in this world where silence is golden. Lupita Nyong'o stars as Sam, a woman with terminal cancer and a cat she loves. Joseph Quinn is Eric, a man with no real character or depth (from what I could gather). Once our planet has been besieged by the creatures seen in the two movies preceding this, Sam and Eric eventually cross paths. But will they be able to help one another survive the perilous situation?

Written and directed this time around by Michael Sarnoski (although Krasinski once again helped with the storyline), this is a pretty disappointing piece of work from everyone involved. It certainly pales in comparison to Sarnoski's previous movie, Pig, and it's far down the list of Lupita Nyongo's films. Even Quinn, as relatively new on the scene as he is, looks set to quickly position this as one of his lesser films.

The visual effects are perfectly fine, but I didn't care about them. Some scenes with people in peril are fine, but I didn't care about them. Sarnoski tries to pace things well with a few key set-pieces on the way to the ending, but I didn't care about them. And those last few scenes? You guessed it . . . I didn't care about them.

A Quiet Place is the sort of thing you can get away with once. Keep going back to that well and all you do is draw attention to the flaws and plot holes. It's hard to maintain a vested interest in people when you can just as easily roll your eyes and wonder why they can't just sit still and be quiet until danger has passed them by. It's also hard to know what we already know about the creatures from the first two movies and then watch everyone fail to figure out how to fight back at them.

If it wasn't for Nyong'o here then this wouldn't even make it to the level of average. She's as good as ever, working hard in material that feels far beneath her. Quinn tries hard when sharing scenes with his phenomenal co-star, but he constantly comes up short, and isn't helped at all by a script that doesn't seem to know how to properly develop and nurture his character.

If you're after something that has the basic elements in place and does the bare minimum to trick people into feeling entertained for a while then knock yourself out. If you're after something that has actual tension and impact though then I'm afraid that you have to look elsewhere.

4/10

Monday 21 October 2024

Mubi Monday: Bloodsuckers (2021)

Count Dracula was, just to remind you, a selfish and rich monster who would feed from others without much fear of actually being caught and punished by anyone. He enslaved people to do some of his dirty work, lounged around in his massive home, and eventually set his sights on a trip to another country where he hoped to reassert himself as a well-to-do member of society and convince a young woman to be his new love. Basically, he is a typical rich person used to getting his own way.

Which is something made all the more obvious in Bloodsuckers (AKA Bloodsuckers - A Marxist Vampire Comedy), a mix of comedy and dark drama that feels light and fun until it strongly underlines every main point being made in the final act.

Writer-director Julian Radlmaier is no stranger to this kind of content, despite not being the first person you would think of to helm a "vampire" movie. He enjoys using cinema to explore philosophy and politics, and fans of his work will already have a good idea of what to expect from this, which is actually (and surprisingly) only his second full feature.

The main characters are Octavia (Lilith Stangenberg), her manservant Jakob (Alexander Herbst), and a man named Ljowushka (Alexandre Koberidze). All three of these people go through different journeys that show how they can work as both prey and prefator, sometimes in obvious ways and sometimes in much more subtle ways.

The visuals here are fine, although very few scenes work as effectively as they could in blending the vampire motifs into the everyday details of the struggles being depicted, and the acting from everyone is in line with the straightforward approach to the material that Radlmaier clearly prefers. Stangenberg has enough presence to make her character feel worthy of the people who fuss around her and aim to keep her happy, Herbst is entertainingly pained throughout, and Koberidze is part everyman and part fraudtser, lying about himself in ways that are only slight exaggerations of how people often lie about themselves every day.

Although I enjoyed this intermittently, it's not the best work from Radlmaier. As subjective as it is, the comedy didn't work for me as often as I wanted it to, which was made all the more notable during the few times when it really DID work. And I'll admit that I wanted to see some more moments of literal vampirism mixed in with the commentary. That might just show that I am not as smart or savvy as Radlmaier's intended main viewership, or it might show that he needs to work on making the most of any premise that can provide equal parts talking points and cinematic entertainment. Let's face it, it's probably the former.

5/10

Sunday 20 October 2024

Netflix And Chill: It's What's Inside (2024)

An ambitious feature debut from writer-director Greg Jardin, It's What's Inside is an interesting and unique concept that is well-executed, but ultimately suffers from the inherent difficulty of translating the material from page to screen.

A group of friends get together for a big party, just before one of them is due to get married, and things get very interesting when one of the guests, Forbes (David Thompson), turns up with a device that can allow them all to swap bodies. He explains it as your mind being like a hard drive and this gadget simply being able to transfer the files. Everyone is freaked out, but then they start to figure out how they can have fun with it. Swapping everyone around, the aim is then for others to guess who is the real person inside the body that they are currently inhabiting. With me so far? Things are then complicated by resentments, scheming, and treachery, and it gets even more confusing when one or two people decide to lie about who they are while hidden away inside the body of someone else.

If you read that paragraph and thought it seemed very complicated then you wouldn't be wrong. Jardin tries to help viewers keep track in two ways. First of all, everyone gets a photo pinned to them once they have been identified (although that is assuming that they actually ARE the person they claim to be). Second, scenes move between showing the external personalities conversing and then, with a different visual style, the peoeple inside those bodies. It's a tricky balance to maintain, and Jardin almost makes it work. There are two main flaws, sadly.

The biggest flaw is not having enough memorable characters in what ends up being an oversized group to keep track of. I understand that Jardin needed enough people to allow for the twists, turns, and playfulness of the material, but viewers don't spend enough time with most of the characters to more easily follow their journeys, aside from Forbes and the central duo of Shelby and Cyrus, who we first see having a tense time before they get ready to head to the party.

The second flaw is an avoidance of extra tics and signifiers. It's understandable that Jardin would keep away from these things, not wanting to make the film too simplistic and implausible (because it would be harder to believe that characters were being fooled if we ourselves weren't being fooled), but this needed to be slightly simplified. For example, there's a reason why "timeloop" movies always have main events that work as time-stamp markers, and this needed some device akin to that.

Things are paced well though, there's a wonderfully "disruptive event" just over the halfway mark and a surprisingly delicious and satisfying ending, and Thompson is a great presence. It's a shame that very few of the other cast members can match him. O'Grady is decent enough as Shelby, Morosini is amusingly whiny as Cyrus, and Reina Hardesty impresses in the role of Brooke, but that's about it. Gavin Leatherwood, Nina Bloomgarden, Alycia Debnam-Carey, and Devon Terrell all just make up the numbers. There's fun to be had with Madison Davenport, but she doesn't get nearly as much screentime as she deserves.

I definitely enjoyed this, and it's a film that may well improve on multiple viewings (when you know what to keep an eye out for), but it's a shame that some of the ambition, as admirable as it is, gets in the way of what could have been a more interesting and entertaining film.

6/10

Saturday 19 October 2024

Shudder Saturday: MadS (2024)

Writer-director David Moreau may not be the most prolific person working in the movie business nowadays, but he certainly isn't afraid of trying different things. Whatever you think of it, Them AKA Ils (2006) impressed many horror movie fans when it was released. The Eye (2008) didn't impress anyone, to my knowledge, but Moreau was brave enough to even tackle it. He has since tackled comedy, a fantastical teen movie, and a heart-warming adventure drama about some people trying to return a trafficked lion cub to Africa. MadS sees him firmly back in the horror genre though, and it's almost as if he has something to prove.

Milton Riche is Romain, a young man who takes some drugs before having his chilled evening plans ruined by an encounter with a sick and bloody young woman. What Romain doesn't understand is that he's about to be an important link in a chain that will lead to a zombie-like virus spreading. Romain inadvertently infects many other people, but the main one we then start to observe for a while is his girlfriend, Anais (Laurie Pavy).

Presented as if everything is being shown in a single take, although some cuts are hidden away here and there, MadS is a bold and intriguing spin on the infection/zombie movie. Moreau builds up a head of steam in the opening scenes and then somehow manages to keep control of a rolling snowball of energy right up until the very last moment. While the style of the thing is a gimmick, it's done well enough to make it worthwhile, yet it's also done without seeming to stop every few minutes to point out how audacious it is being.

Things are helped along by the lead performances, particularly that of Pavy. Riche is good enough to make his potentially irritating character bearable for his section, and a third important character played (and played very well) by Lucille Guillaume gets to carry us to the end credits, but Pavy is the shining centrepiece here. Whether in carefree party mode or showing the changes within her via some great physical work, Pavy is consistently mesmerising.

I was wary when this started, worrying that I had started some kind of drug-fuelled horror movie that would compare to the divisive work of Gaspar Noé, but Moreau put my mind at ease within the first few minutes. A great title card gives way to a sudden dose of added tension, which then gives way to a narrative that creeps along as steadily and surely as the malady about to spread through the population. I said near the start of this review that it's almost as if Moreau has something to prove. Well . . . he certainly proves it.

8/10

Friday 18 October 2024

It: Chapter Two (2019)

It's still Andy Muschietti in the director's chair here, but the writing duties have now fallen to Gary Dauberman alone for this continuation of the tale that pits the Losers Club against a supernatural entity that often takes the form of a clown named Pennywise. Is that a good thing? Many people probably think not. I'm in the minority, and I think Dauberman does a fantastic job of filling this hefty 169-minute runtime with excellent scares and moments of dark surrealism.

In some of the most perfect casting to be committed to film, the youngsters from the first film are now shown in their adult forms, but also reappear in a number of flashbacks that tie events of the past and present together. Here is where I will credit both actors portraying them. You have Bill (Jaeden Martell/James McAvoy), Beverly (Sophia Lillis/Jessica Chastain), Richie (Finn Wolfhard/Bill Hader), Mike (Chosen Jacobs/Isaiah Mustafa), Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor/Jay Ryan), Stanley (Wyatt Oleff/Andy Bean), and Eddie (Jack Dylan Grazer/James Ransome). And against this steadfast group is the constant source of terror that is It AKA Pennywise (Bill Skarsgård being as brilliant here as he was in the first part of the story). There are other characters who come in and out of the narrative, some just as important as any of our leads, but the heart of the film remains a group of close friends helping one another to battle their greatest fears.

Perhaps it was inevitable that this would pale in comparison to the successful first instalment, especially when many people would agree that the story of the adults just isn't as engaging or entertaining as the story of their childhood experience, but Muschietti and Dauberman work together to try their hardest at making this work as well as it can. Making liberal use of the child actors is one way that they help themselves. Continuing to let Skarsgård steal pretty much every scene he is in is another.

As far as I can tell, nobody likes this film as much as I do. People like it, and there are individual moments that they can point to as highlights, but the runtime and tone seems to have put many off. You can certainly feel the runtime, but I would still argue that it's not necessarily bloated, considering the many extra treats littered throughout. As for the tone, it's a bit lighter at times than the tone of the first film, but I don't think it ever strays too far away from some proper horror for too long. This is never going to be incorrectly labelled as a horror comedy, despite some of the levity and one-liners. It just shows adults using laughter as an essential release valve from an enormous build-up of stress and fear. I guess that some viewers were disappointed by moments that they thought were too silly to be scary, but I also enjoyed that aspect of the whole thing. This is a film that never forgets that the thing taking on the guise of Pennywise is much more than that, and every form it takes is designed to put victims into a "more succulent" state of fear. Yes, some moments are quite bizarre, and illustrated by suitably wild special effects, but they're all part and parcel of the shape-shifting horror that wouldn't be out of place in any Lovecraft tale.

While not as uniform as the first instalment, the acting here is generally top notch. One or two minor quibbles aside, mainly stemming from the writing more than the performances, everyone does great work, and there is a particular joy in watching the adults feel like such a natural development from the children that already made such a strong impression in the previous film.

Arguably even more visually impressive, and arguably even more ambitious, this is a horror movie that benefits from those involved believing that they can now fully embrace the disorderly and manic nature of the beast depicted. I love that about it. I love that it shows how to make your fears small and manageable. I love that there is as much time given to the ideals of friendship and hope as is given to the darkness and danger. I might be overcompensating slightly, considering how many others consider it the lesser work, but I consider this equal to the first film. There are different strengths and weaknesses, but the whole thing works perfectly to deliver a satisfactory ending without spending too much time repeating the exact same scares that we got the first time around.

8/10

Thursday 17 October 2024

It (2017)

Adapting what is, for many, a formative reading experience into a movie is always a challenge. Attempting to do that after there's already been a fantastic, and beloved, TV movie adaptation that many still view as definitive and iconic would seem to be a fool's errand. It's happened before with Stephen King works though, and I have no doubt that it will happen again. I'm not sure I would mind if they all turned out as well as this.

It, and it's worth mentioning for those who may be unaware that this is the first, albeit nicely self-contained, part of an enjoyably sprawling horror story that is spread out over two movies, is all about a group of youngster who help one another survive an extremely deadly summer in Derry, Maine. They all end up being affected by a creature that can take on the shape of their fears, although it mostly catches victims while in the shape of Pennywise the clown (Bill Skarsgård, doing such a great job that he somehow manages to equal the nightmare-inducing performance given by Tim Curry in the 1990 TV movie). That's all you need to know. Seven children, a lifelong bonding experience, and a killer clown.

Having very recently rewatched this, I am sure that I was a bit harsh on It during my first viewing experience. I did praise certain elements, particularly the mix of scares and bloodshed without a reliance on either, but I also mentioned some unnecessary CGI used, a slightly weak script, and the fact that the main characters weren't really. Well . . . present me disagrees with the past me (although I still think there are one or two bits of CGI work that didn't have to be done that way, or maybe even done at all).

With Chase Palmer, Cary Fukunaga, and Gary Dauberman figuring out the best ways to turn King's major tome into a satisfying screenplay, Andy Muschietti can stay focused on direction. The screenplay is a great blend of coming-of-age episodes and well-executed scares, even if a number of them are jump scares, and Muschietti serves the material well. The film is, in many ways, a mood piece, a painting by someone who wants to depict growing pains and common anxieties in the same picture. And, in that regard, it works. In fact, it works brilliantly, constantly evoking a growing sense of nostalgia, the blossoming of dark petals of sadness, and an impressive sprinkling of dread over every main sequence.

There are no weak performances to critique, which makes it easy for me to simply namecheck all seven members of "The Loser's Club" here; Jaeden Martell (Bill, credited here as Jaeden Lieberher), Sophia Lillis (Beverly), Jeremy Ray Taylor (Ben), Finn Wolfhard (Richie), Chosen Jacobs (Mike), Jack Dylan Grazer (Eddie), and Wyatt Oleff (Stanley). All of these characters get enough time and space to feel like more than just a scared victim, and the cast members are all perfectly cast. Nicholas Hamilton and Owen Teague are also very good, although they are given the unenviable task of playing typical King bullies who are, and Jackson Robert Scott does well enough in the role of young Georgie to cast a suitable little shadow over the entire film. As for Skarsgård, he's a creepy and brilliant delight in ways that I cannot even begin to list here. Whether pretending to be innocent and fun or showing a hint of his true evil nature, he's always an interesting depiction of a monster never quite comfortable enough in any one form to fully convince people that there's no threat nearby.

The 135-minute runtime ticks over without any pacing issues, those responsible for the adaptation from page to screen have great instincts for what to show, what to imply, and what to completely excise, and the whole thing is just about as good as you can get, certainly in the realm of modern mainstream horror. It's still hard to watch without thinking of the novel, or thinking of that beloved TV movie, but it's easily up there with the very best King movies (and the top of that particular tree has some real classics nesting there).

8/10