The Running Man (2025)

I am always excited for any new Edgar Wright movie, and when I heard that he was remaking The Running Man, with a starring role for Glen Powell, I was intrigued to see how he would approach the material. For as much as I enjoy the Arnold action flick, the source material (a novella by Stephen King, published under his Richard Bachman pseudonym) was a much darker and more cynical piece of work. Wright, for all of his good points, doesn't necessarily seem capable of dark and cynical.

And it turns out that he isn't. This IS a bleaker film than the original, and there are a number of moments here that show Wright trying to add an edge that has been absent from his past features, but he still can't help aiming for a message that is ultimately a positive one, taking the ending of the novella as a starting point for a slightly different direction that should actually please both fans of the story and fans of films that don't ruin your whole week.

Powell plays Ben Richards, a man with a strong moral code and a bit of a temper, which has made things a bit problematic when it comes to his relationship with exploitative employers. Desperate to get the medicine that his daughter needs, Ben heads along to a TV studio to sign up for one of the many shows that offer cash prizes. He's happy to try most of them, except The Running Man, which sees contestants being hunted, until almost inevitably trapped and killed. Unfortunately, his attitude and capabilities make him a perfect choice for The Running Man. It's time to start running.

Powell is great in the lead role, far removed from Arnold, of course, but physically capable and suitably charismatic. He's grim and determined, but able to start having fun when he starts to figure out the best way to play the game. Colman Domingo is great value as the flamboyant host, Bobby T, Josh Brolin is enjoyably slick and shark-like in the role of Dan Killian, the head manipulator who creates the perfect storylines for viewers to lap up, and Emilia Jones turns up in time to play a pivotal role in the third act. There's also room for fun little turns from Katy O'Brian, William H. Macy, Lee Pace, and an enjoyably manic pairing of Michael Cera and Sandra Dickinson (featured in the most memorable sequence in the film).

It's been interesting to watch Wright's career as he has stepped further away from the Cornetto trilogy that proved to be so enduringly popular. I think he's maintained a remarkable consistency throughout a varied selection of treats, although I know some people have stopped being impressed by his particular style. Another attempt to show he can do more than just gags and homages, The Running Man works well, for the most part, although it's jarring on the few occasions when you do notice the standard "Wright-isms" (e.g. a Y/why gag, the foreshadowing, soundtrack choices, etc.) in the mix. 

Having also worked on the screenplay with Michael Bacall, there's great care taken here to present a vision of a horribly depressing future that doesn't feel too far removed from the here and now without leaving viewers depressed at the thought of it all looming up to ruin our lives.

For as bleak and as brutal as this can be, it's also a lot of fun. Some purists may balk at that idea, considering how things play out in the Bachman book, but it's a perfectly-blended end result that proves why Wright was a great choice to bring us another interpretation of the tale. It's just a shame that he didn't hire Harold Faltermeyer to deliver another fine electronic score, which would have been the best thing to carry over from the older film. 

8/10

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 

The Long Walk (2025)

I'm not saying I'm ancient, but I'm old enough to have read The Bachman Books before Rage was excluded from the collection by Stephen King. It was a pretty great read. Four novellas written by Stephen King, under the name Richard Bachman, between the late 1970s and the early 1980s. The highlight was The Long Walk though, and it's something that fans of King's work wanted to see turned into a movie for decades. Here we are then, but is it any good?

The short answer to that is yes.

The premise is simple enough. America seems to have slid into some kind of horrible totalitarianism, with culture and free thought frowned upon as everyone struggles to make ends meet. This leaves many desperate enough to nominate themselves for a place in the annual event known as The Long Walk. The participants are all teenage boys, one from each state. All they have to do is walk at a constant speed of at least 3 miles per hour. That may sound okay to you, but they get three warnings if they fall below that speed, and then a bullet. There are no toilet breaks, no rest periods, no relief from pain, just walking. Always walking. Until there's only one left. The winner, who will receive a huge sum of money and one wish granted. Raymond Garraty (Cooper Hoffman) thinks he has a chance, and knows exactly what he wants his one wish to be. Peter McVries (David Jonsson) seems to be a good ally during the contest, but both young men need to remember that only one can survive to the end. Gary Barkovitch (Charlie Plummer) remembers this, and tries to goad others into wasting some of their energy, Billy Stebbins (Garrett Wareing) looks like a very strong contender, and others trying to stay on their feet include Arthur Baker (Tut Nyuot), Hank Olson (Ben Wang), Collie Parker (Joshua Odjick), and Thomas Curley (Roman Griffin Davis). 

Adapted from page to screen by JT Mollner, The Long Walk is directed well by Francis Lawrence (best known for helming a number of other movies about a deadly competition, a note that everyone is obliged to mention in any review of this film). There's only so much you can really do with the premise though. This is a film with a lot of conversations happening between people who are walking. It's punctuated by some sudden deaths, and those are sometimes delivered with maximum impact, but it's essentially a lot of walking and talking. Not great cinema, but still a great story nonetheless.

Lawrence has done himself a big favour with his casting. Hoffman does a fantastic job in his lead role, and Jonsson is almost equally good (if slightly hampered by the accent and occasional phrases that make him feel like he's mired in the bog of eternal King-isms). Plummer is even more hampered, but does well, and Wareing, Nyuot, Wang, and co. all do good work, especially when their full journey is shown via stages of physical and mental deterioration. Judy Greer has a couple of scenes that have her fretting over her son (Hoffman), something she does really well, and Mark Hamill is brilliantly cold and jingoistic as The Major, the military figurehead of The Long Walk and the one who will deliver the final shot before the winner is celebrated. 

I did really like this, and it's been good to see many others reacting positively to it, but I can't judge it on purely technical aspects. I think at least some of my reaction stems from finally seeing ANY adaptation of the story in film form. The material is strong enough to make up for any minor failings, and maybe the fact that it is here for us in 2025 will help us avoid making a reality that comes all too close to this kind of fiction. Or maybe we're all just too tired and befuddled to do anything other than keep walking toward a depressingly bleak future. 

8/10

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 

The Life Of Chuck (2025)

Based on a short story by Stephen King, The Life Of Chuck is adapted into screenplay form and directed by Mike Flanagan. For those expecting horror, however, you should be warned. As made clear by the marketing, this is actually one of the non-horror treats from King, and Flanagan has taken the opportunity to revel in an onscreen world full of optimism and, well, love.

Things work backwards, chronologically, but the main thing to know is that, as the title suggests, this is all about Charles 'Chuck' Franz (played at various points in his life by Cody Flanagan, Benjamin Pajak, Jacob Tremblay, and Tom Hiddleston). Chuck grew up with his grandparents (played by Mia Sara and Mark Hamill), likes dancing, and eventually gets used to the comforting idea that we each contain multitudes. We are the sum of everyone and everything we've ever experienced, even if it can seem as if we haven't done very much with our lives.

It's hard to hate The Life Of Chuck, and it could be argued that this is the kind of fantastical escapism that people need right now (considering the state of things here in 2025 . . . note to any time travellers reading this, SEND HELP). I was surprised to not really love it though. The first act leads up to an obvious enough reveal, even for those who haven't read the source material, and it was a mistake to try to play things off like a big mystery.

Narration from Nick Offerman helps a lot, and his voice is as wonderful as ever, but the rest of the cast is quite a mixed bag, aside from everyone playing Chuck (standouts being Pajak and Hiddleston). Chiwetel Ejiofor is wonderful as a teacher, Marty Anderson, but Karen Gillan isn't so good as his ex-wife, a nurse named Felicia Gordon. Mia Sara is lovely as the grandmother, Hamill overdoes things slightly as grandpa. Then you have many others who are just sorely underused, including Rahul Kohli, Matthew Lillard, and Annalise Basso. There's time for some superb drumming from The Pocket Queen AKA Taylor Gordon though, and Trinity Jo-Li Bliss is a winning presence to convincingly motivate our lead to keep enjoying his talent for dance.

One big set-piece at the halfway point is what you're ultimately left with here. The messaging of the movie is very good, but it's a fortune cookie homily that is somehow paradoxically given too much of the screentime and yet not enough of it. That one set-piece ties everything together so beautifully that it still works though, and thinking of that moment should make most viewers smile and appreciate the beauty and connections of life. It's just not quite enough. Reminding us that we contain multitudes should be done with much more of an emphasis on the multitudes. The Life Of Chuck tries to tell be grandiose and intimate at the same time, which leads to it feeling caught in between the two, and not being as successful in either approach as it could have been if Flanagan had figured out another way to present the material.

I enjoyed this while it was on. I would probably rewatch it. I didn't love it though, although it seems to have worked much better for a lot of other film fans. Maybe it will grow on me whenever I do end up giving it a rewatch.

6/10

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 

Shudder Saturday: Children Of The Corn (2020)

For many of my age, Children Of The Corn feels like another of those fun little movies that everyone saw as soon as it hit VHS. I'm not sure how well it did in cinemas, if it did well at all, but it was a film that felt like a popular choice for us horror kids . . . perhaps because it allowed us to watch some actual "horror kids" onscreen. Everything should have ended with that one film though, allowing us to view it as a cherished cult classic that was too weird to turn into a franchise. But no, now we have a franchise. And I've seen all but one of the damn things. Missing that one wasn't a deliberate decision. I just lost track of how many bloody instalments there are in the series.

This is the second remake, using the word quite loosely. It has corn. It has some killer kids. It also has writing and direction from Kurt Wimmer. And it's not good.

Kate Moyer plays Eden Edwards, the main child at the heart of all the nastiness this time around. It's all to do with the power of the corn, of course, and action is spurred on by the adults in a small community making the decision to get rid of their crop and use the fields in a different way. The main adults to feel the wrath of the children are Robert Williams (Callan Mulvey) and Pastor Penney (Bruce Spence). Robert might have a route to safety though, being supported and assisted by his daughter, Boleyn (Elena Kampouris).

The longer it has been since I last saw the 1984 Children Of The Corn, the more fondly I remember it. I know that I'm being unfair when I compare any remakes or sequels to something I am viewing with some nostalgia filters firmly in place. But that feels like less of a problem when other attempts to adapt the material seem to step further and further away from the simple joy of it. All you need is a small town, a lot of corn, and evil kids killing off the adults. While this film has those elements in place, the ratio feels all wrong, leading to the end result feeling completely fumbled.

Wimmer isn't exactly a sign of quality, considering the wildly varying quality of his filmography, and he seems to spend his time here making every wrong decision possible, from poor pacing and a lack of real scares/tension to a disappointing scarcity of memorable characters. And don't even get me started on how ridiculous the ending is, even in comparison to the silliness of the original movie.

At least Moyer is great fun, doing her best to make the whole thing watchable as she toys with the adults around her. She's the only real highlight though. Kampouris isn't a good lead, and not helped by her character being so poorly written, and Mulvey and Spence play people you actually just want to see meet a nasty end. Not because they're necessarily evil, although it's certainly suggested that one is more deserving of death than the other, but because they're main characters who feel designated for some kind of special fate.

Bad writing, bad effects (although they remain better than most of the eye-hurting CGI from the many other films in this series), and bad performances make this a sadly wasted opportunity, considering it looks to have secured a relatively decent budget for being such a late entry into a cornfield that should have been razed many years ago.

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 

The Monkey (2025)

When I heard that we were getting a movie version of "The Monkey", a short story by Stephen King, I immediately tried to remember how the tale panned out. I've read a LOT of Stephen King work, including almost all of his superb short story collections, but I could not remember "The Monkey", even after being reminded of the fact that it featured in the fantastic Skeleton Crew. I somehow kept confusing it in my mind with "Chattery Teeth", a story from the enjoyable Nightmares & Dreamscapes collection.

Theo James plays twins Hal and Bill (the younger incarnations played by Christian Convery), men who have very different views on a cymbal-bashing monkey that they took possession of for a brief, but memorable, part of their childhood. Piecing things together, they eventually reached that the conclusion that the monkey would always signify the sudden death of someone close by. Hal would be happy to never see the thing again. Bill, on the other hand, thinks he might be able to make use of such a unique power.

Written and directed by Osgood Perkins, who had great success penetrating the  last year with Longlegs, this looks as if 2025 is the year that allows him to cash in on all of the goodwill he gained in 2024. While still not necessarily for every mainstream horror fan, this is easily the most accessible film that Perkins has directed. As many others have already mentioned, it's a horror comedy with a number of deaths that would easily nestle alongside those showcased in the Final Destination series.

James isn't the best choice for a leading man, but he doesn't do a bad job with his two roles. There are better moments for Convery though, and Colin O'Brien (playing Hal's son, and someone he has kept at a distance in order to keep him safe) brings a better energy to things. Tatiana Maslany is very good as the mother of the twins, and there are very entertaining cameos from Adam Scott and Elijah Wood. Rohan Campbell also has fun in a supporting role, hard to recognise underneath a hairstyle that makes him look like a member of a Ramones tribute act, and I also have to mention Sarah Levy, Perkins himself (giving himself a small role that allows him to almost steal one scene in the movie, Tess Degenstein, and Danica Dreyer.

Everything is decently put together, from the score to the gore gags, from the dialogue to the pacing of the main plot points, but what matters most is that monkey, and I'm pleased to say that it's exactly as it needs to be. Designed to somehow remain completely impassive, yet also oozing menace whenever it's onscreen, the monkey is a brilliant, and unexpectedly effective, "villain". 

Perkins cannot quite navigate the tonal dancing required, but the fact that he gives it a go shows how good his instincts are when it comes to adapting the source material, which really wouldn't work if handled with complete seriousness. The end result is a bit of a mess, but it's an entertaining mess that manages to stand out from a crowd of neater, safer, mainstream horror choices. And I don't need my entertainment to be safe and neat and tidy.

7/10

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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 

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

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

Salem's Lot (2024)

It's been 20 years since the last adaptation of Salem's Lot so I guess there's a chance that many people exploring the horror genre nowadays will be less familiar with the tale, first presented in a Stephen King novel that remains one of his best, before being turned into a traumatic TV movie directed by Tobe Hooper. There have also been other sojourns into, or near, the town, with A Return To Salem's Lot in the mid-1980s, and King himself expanding on the tale in separate short stories and as part of the threads winding through The Dark Tower book series. So I don't think it should ever be classed as something that cannot be revisited/reworked.

Lewis Pullman is our Ben Mears this time around, a writer who returns to the small town that he lived in for a time as a child. The town, and particularly one large house, has a certain pull to it. Ben forms a connection with Susan Norton (Makenzie Leigh) while he is back in town, and befriends a schoolteacher named Matt Burke (Bill Camp). It doesn't take long for these three to notice that something strange is happening around them, with town residents disappearing or acting very odd, as a powerful vampire decides to make Jerusalem's Lot the base for his attempt to turn the USA into his own little Fangtasia.

The second film directed by Gary Dauberman, who helped to make the Annabelle series such a success, and also worked on the screenplay for both chapters of It, the biggest problem with Salem's Lot is something I wouldn't normally tend to complain about. It's far too short. Considering both of the main previous attempts to film this story have clocked in at about the 3-hour mark, this solo movie needs far more than the 114-minute runtime it gets. That becomes very obvious when scenes seem to clash against one another, allowing no time for the proper development of the bigger picture of a town being infected and turned into a ghost town (but, obviously, the ghosts are all vampires).

There are good moments here, all of the actual vampire stuff is well-handled (it's often spooky and inventive, if never actually scary), and the way in which certain scenes are reworked is often surprisingly successful, especially in the change of setting for the big final battle. It's just a shame that the pacing never feels right for most of the runtime, with the exception of a few set-pieces in the second half that you just know the rest of the movie was planned around.

Pullman is decent in the lead role, although he doesn't shine as brightly as some other potential choices (Ben Mears has never been the most memorable King character though, despite the greatness of the story). Leigh is better, with the advantage of being able to comment on a town that she's lived in all her life. Both Bill Camp and Alfre Woodard (playing Dr. Cody) are excellent, feeling quite appropriately like more experienced peers helping the younger leads to deal with a very odd situation, and there are also enjoyable performances from John Benjamin Hickey (as Father Callahan), William Sadler (Sheriff Parker Gillespie), Pilou Asbæk (as Mr. Straker), and Spencer Treat Clark (superbly unnerving as the grave-digger, Mike Ryerson). The other person to mention is Jordan Preston Carter, playing young Mark Petrie with an expected mix of wisdom, anger, and terror. Carter is very good in the role, although a couple of the best moments involving his character are slightly mis-handled, again all to do with the pacing.

Maybe we'll see the full version of this one day, and I don't doubt that there was a lot of extra work done in the editing room here. It's almost like watching a series on a streaming service and accidentally hitting the "play next episode" option twice, leaving you with a gap that you piece together as the ongoing narrative continues. There's still enough to enjoy here, and it's certainly not as bad as many other remakes I could mention. The visuals and atmosphere both have moments of brilliance, but it's clear from the opening credits and very first scenes that this is a film with much more just beyond the edges of the screen that horror fans would love to see.

6/10

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

The Boogeyman (2023)

Urgh. That's the best way to start this review. Director Rob Savage made such a great impression on horror fans when he released Host, arguably the best use of Zoom ever, with the exception of that one short clip of the man who accidentally made himself look like a cat (check it out if you don't know what I'm talking about, it's hilarious). Unfortunately, it is starting to look more and more like Host was an exception, with Savage following that up with the horrible Dashcam and now this. The Boogeyman isn't as bad as Dashcam, but it's a surprisingly lazy and inept movie that delivers a polished package of everything that exemplifies the worst of modern mainstream horror.

Springboarding from a short story by Stephen King, and that's more worthy of your time than this is, the very simple plot summary for this is that it looks at a family terrorised by a boogeyman. Still grieving the death of their mother, there's teenager Sadie Harper (Sophie Thatcher) and younger sister, Sawyer (Vivien Lyra Blair). They both live with their father, Will (Chris Messina), a therapist struggling to help his children through this difficult time. Anyway, once the boogeyman enters their home, and once they start figuring out exactly what is going on, people are warned not to spend too much time alone in the dark . . . and they then spend most of the movie wandering about alone in the bloody dark.

I really don’t want to spend too much time discussing this, it annoyed me so much for almost every minute of the runtime (although the opening sequence is impressively dark and disturbing, which makes the sharp slide downhill all the more disappointing). It might be a bit more polished than the 2005 movie that covered some similar ground, but I would struggle to say this is better. It’s so carelessly thrown together, but has a couple of elements in the story that are supposed to give it some weight it never maintains, and I blame Savage and the writers, Scott Beck, Mark Heyman, and Bryan Woods. Having read the original short story, one of the many little gems written by Stephen King, I assumed that everyone involved was drawn to the material because of a twisted ending that could be expanded into a feature full of paranoia and constant unease, but it appears that they just wanted the title so they could then deliver a few jump scares and mediocre scenes we have seen hundreds of times before. 

The cast aren’t bad, with Thatcher and Blair capably carrying the whole thing on their young shoulders. Messina is sidelined for a lot of the movie, of course, but does perfectly fine work in his role, and David Dastmalchian is sorely underused in what amounts to little more than a cameo. Having said that, at least he doesn’t suffer the fate of Marin Ireland, stuck playing the standard grizzled survivor who thinks she knows how to finally kill the boogeyman and drags Thatcher’s character into her scheme. LisaGay Hamilton is enjoyable in the role of Dr. Weller, another therapist, but suffers from the fact that her screentime alludes more to the aforementioned short story ending in a way that fails to then deliver any decent pay-off.

I saw a lot of love for this when it was in cinemas, which meant I was keen to see it as soon as it hit home media, but I am glad I didn’t rush along to see this on the big screen. I don’t know what others saw in this, and maybe a fair few people left cinemas disappointed after being hoodwinked into buying a ticket, but there was nothing here that worked for me in terms of the horror content. I might have even preferred a straightforward drama showing the main characters dealing with their grief. Or, and here’s a radical idea, a creepy horror film that actually felt in line with the source material.

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

Netflix And Chill: 1922 (2017)

There was a time when I considered Stephen King as the master of the short horror story. In fact, regardless of genre, he was a master of that form. That time has long passed though. He still puts out some great short stories, but they're not as effective, or short, as they used to be. 1922 is one such tale, having started life as a novella in the collection titled Full Dark, No Stars (alongside Big Driver, Fair Extension, and A Good Marriage, with only one of those tales still waiting for the inevitable adaptation from page to screen).

This is the tale of a family set to come apart. Wilfred James is a proud and hard-working farmer, unwilling to accept that his wife, Arlette, wants to sell their land and move elsewhere. With his son, Henry, on his side, Wilfred eventually sets out to do the unthinkable in order to maintain the status quo he wants in his life. Believing he has thought of everything, Wilfred soon starts to encounter a few wrinkles in his plan. Before you can say "tell-tale heart", things start to get increasingly strange and tense on the farm.

Adapted and directed by Zak Hilditch, 1922 is far from the worst of the many Stephen King movies we have had over the years. It just has the same problem that many others do. It's been a while since I read this tale, but I felt that the film added a fair bit of extraneous material that took time and focus away from the enjoyably simple central idea. You also get that sense of familiarity that comes with most King tales.

The cast help though. Thomas Jane is excellent in the role of Wilfred, a weak man who thinks he can sort all of his problems with one deplorable act, and Molly Parker does well in the role of Arlette, a role that obviously requires a lot less screentime. Dylan Schmid is their son, suitably changed by the fateful night that has him assisting his father in a heinous crime, and he also does good work. While the supporting cast features roles for Brian d'Arcy James (a standard friendly sheriff), Bob Frazer, and Kaitlyn Bernard, the only other standout is Neal McDonough. He's not used well, but he's Neal McDonough, able to make a strong impression even in the most minor of roles.

Competently put together, the production design, audio, score and all other technical aspects feel on a par with one another when it comes to a level of quality, it's just a shame that this never feels as if it gets into gear. Letting everything unfold at a languid pace, and with Jane's character rarely giving in to external displays of his internal stress and struggle, Hilditch arguably makes the mistake of treating the whole thing too seriously. I wouldn't want it filled with humour, don't get me wrong, but moving between the real horror of the premise and some more entertaining moments of mania could have allowed for even more full-blooded scares, complementing the growing dread and misery that fills up the second half of the film.

I wouldn't recommend this to anyone, apart from the kind of people who may want to watch every Stephen King adaptation ever made (aka masochists), but I also wouldn't strongly warn people away from it. Some will end up loving or hating it much more than I did, but I think it's fair to rate this as absolutely average as average can be.

5/10

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

Prime Time: Needful Things (1993)

I went for my first proper holiday overseas when I was about 16-17, finally experiencing proper sunshine in the glorious land of Los Christianos in Tenerife. And that first proper holiday overseas meant that I picked my first chunky book that I decided would be perfect to read by the swimming pool. And that book was Needful Things, another Stephen King tale set in Castle Rock, Maine. It was a very enjoyable read.

Then the book was made into a movie, which I always thought for many years was a TV movie (but it did have a theatrical release in the USA), and I was young and naive enough to be optimistic about it.

Watching it now . . . my goodwill towards the story, and goodwill towards many of the cast members, means I still like it more than some other King-based tales (I will never understand all of the love that gets heaped on Storm Of The Century), but I know it’s not actually a good film.

Max von Sydow plays Leland Gaunt, a newcomer to the town of Castle Rock, and the owner of a new store named “Needful Things”. The store seems to have just what people what most, and the prices are affordable. A specific cash amount . . . and a small prank. But Gaunt knows how to make things snowball, with pranks being used to turn people against one another, leading to bickering, fighting, and potentially deadly consequences. Sheriff Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) is initially confused by the way his friends and neighbours so quickly turn into bloodthirsty maniacs, but he soon starts to realise who is at the heart of a dark and wide-reaching web. He wants to save the town, but he also wants to save the woman he loves (Bonnie Bedelia).

Adapted into screenplay form by W. D. Richter (who has a filmography with titles ranging from the likes of 1978’s classic The Invasion Of The Body Snatchers to the not-so-modern-classic Stealth), Needful Things doesn’t have a premise that works half as well when moved from page to screen. Not that anyone wanting to make money from Stephen King tales has ever been put off by that idea. It’s a hurdle that Richter cannot overcome though, sadly, and nothing is helped by Fraser C. Heston’s pedestrian direction, which makes my memory of this as a TV movie all the more understandable. Nothing here feels particularly cinematic or exciting, despite the best efforts of the cast, and it all just fizzles along to a climax that presents a damp squib when it should be a full firework display.

Von Sydow is a great fit for the role of Leland Gaunt, an elderly man who can deliver a physical shake-up of someone as easily as he can deliver a charm offensive. Gaunt has more fun as those around him become more miserable, and Von Sydow almost always pitches his performance perfectly, despite an odd moment that has him a bit too close and personal with Bedelia’s character. Harris is an excellent Pangborn, a very reliable and stoic figure who fortunately avoids being seduced by the allure of anything that Gaunt has for sale. Bedelia is a bit wasted in her role, sadly, although her character plays a vital part in the unfolding chain of events, and Amanda Plummer is fun to watch, delivering another prime mid-90s bit of Plummer madness. J. T. Walsh is the standout though, playing the kind of shady and sweaty businessman that appears in so many Stephen King stories, a role elevated here by the kind of performance you can rely on from J. T. Walsh. And it’s also worth mentioning Shane Meier, who plays young Brian Rusk, the first customer in Needful Things, and the first person asked to play a little prank in service of Gaunt’s grand plan.

I still like Needful Things. I have that strong attachment to the source material, the premise is a great one, and many of the supporting cast members have one or two moments to shine. I doubt many others will view it as I do though. Part of me knows that it’s not good, a bigger part of me knows that I will never actively dislike it. It feels like a story that has joined me on a journey, as I moved from a voracious reader to more of a cinephile, and that attachment certainly skews my rating slightly.

6/10

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

Netflix And Chill: Mr. Harrigan's Phone (2022)

Written and directed by John Lee Hancock, adapting a short story by Stephen King, Mr. Harrigan's Phone feels like the kind of film that would result from, well, John Lee Hancock adapting a short story by Stephen King. He is helped by excellent casting, and I have seen many people already happy with what they view as a fairly faithful adaptation of the story (I haven't yet read that short story collection, "If It Bleeds", yet, despite my love of King's work), but it's a thriller/horror movie that is best described as perfunctory.

Jaeden Martell plays Craig, a young man who ends up making some pocket money by reading books to the titular Mr. Harrigan (played by Donald Sutherland). Mr. Harrigan is a rich businessman, with a potentially murky past that is only hinted at, and he enjoys the company of Craig. The two become friends, and when a scratchcard gift from Mr. Harrigan gives Craig a windfall of $3000, he decides to treat the older man to a mobile phone. Although he isn't initially thrilled by the device, Mr. Harrigan soon learns to appreciate his phone, for the information it can supply him and the "hotline" to Craig. It becomes such a prized possession that, during the sad time when Mr. Harrigan dies, Craig slips the phone into his inside pocket during the wake. And then Craig starts to receive text messages from . . . Mr. Harrigan.

I'll start discussing more about the film by praising the cast. Martell is very good, believably sweet without seeming overly precious, and Sutherland has one of his best roles in some time. Joe Tippet is a decent movie dad, Kirby Howell-Baptiste is a kind teacher, Ms. Hart, who becomes another friend to Craig, and Cyrus Arnold is entertainingly unpleasant as a towering school bully. The cast are really the best thing about this.

Aside from assembling a great cast, the other good thing that Hancock does is present a tale that you can tell contains the voice of King running through it. The dead parent, the magical bond of friendship shown, the school bully, the coming-of-age aspect, these are all elements that King often uses in a very King way, and there's a comforting familiarity here that you often feel when reading his work. That also works against it though, because this is too nice to be scary or upsetting. Hancock seems to be unwilling to make any artistic choice that could improve the material from the page to the screen, which is a shame. This could have been turned into something more impactful, a story that shows Craig struggling to get the genie back in the bottle or struggling even more to just let go/deal with loss. The latter is the focus of the film, but that's easy to forget as it spends the second half dealing with the fact that Craig realises he has access to a power that can help him get revenge on people who have spent too much of their life avoiding punishment for their misdeeds.

Although supernatural, and with scenes that touch on a backstory that is never fully explored (disappointingly), Mr. Harrigan's Phone is much more in line with the more emotionally-affecting works from Stephen King than any of his scarefests. It's about dealing with grief, Craig and his father are on their own after the untimely the death of his mother, and about the good consequences that can come from people who have done bad things. While others suffer, Craig has his life inexorably changed for the better by his friendship with Mr. Harrigan. Despite some interesting elements, it falls between two stools, failing to be enjoyably spooky while subsequently also failing to be as moving as any of King's better work.

This isn't bad. I've already seen comments from many people who enjoyed it more than I did. I just didn't think it was very good.

6/10

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

Firestarter (2022)

As much as I have enjoyed his work over the years, Stephen King is very hit and miss when it comes to his work. Anyone so prolific is going to be. And filmed adaptations of his work have been even more hit and miss. Yes, we got The Shining, Carrie, and the likes of Stand By Me. But we also got The Mangler and The Langoliers (which I mention here as an oft-cited example, despite my own affection for it). Firestarter was originally adapted for the screen back in 1984, and most people would agree that it was an imperfect little film, at best. Drew Barrymore did well in the lead role, David Keith was great, but it couldn't do justice to a story that wasn't the strongest in the first place. And George C. Scott is, well, interesting to watch. This is all my way of saying that, yes, Firestarter was something that was arguably worth having another shot at. I'm not sure this end result was really the way to go though, especially as it is hampered while trying to stick so closely to the source material.

Directed by Keith Thomas, who made a strong impression on many people with his horror feature debut, The Vigil, this casts Ryan Kiera Armstrong in the important central role, the pyrokinetic Charlie McGee, and Zac Efron and Sydney Lemmon as her parents, both trying to protect Charlie from anyone taking an interest in her powers while also trying to protect themselves from any temperature-raising accidents. There's definitely interest from a Captain Hollister (Gloria Reuben), who has permitted an "agent" named Rainbird (Michael Greyeyes) to hunt down the family and take possession of Charlie.

Written by Scott Teems, Firestarter is a film that is completely competent, and improves on the original in a couple of ways (not least of which is replacing Scott with Greyeyes). It somehow lacks part of the goofy charm of the original though, which also had room in the cast for Heather Locklear, Martin Sheen, Louise Fletcher, and Art Carney (his role played in this adaptation by the excellent John Beasley). Maybe it’s because it cannot replicate just that image of Barrymore looking moody as her hair is blown around and flames start to develop, an image so brilliantly spoofed by Barrymore herself in a wonderfully memorable SNL skit. Or maybe it is because Teems was so set on a faithful adaptation that he didn’t feel as if he could try anything that might improve things further. This is a safe horror movie. I cannot think of anyone who would outright hate it, but I also cannot think of anyone who might end up loving it. The opening third has all of the best moments, and then it just slides down and down from there.

Armstrong is good in the role of Charlie, and she does well with the necessary “look sternly at things until it starts to heat up” expressions. Efron also does well, and gets to have a couple of good moments using his own skill to "push" people, something that is inevitably causing him a bit more damage every time he does it. Lemmon isn't necessarily bad, but she's given the least to do from the main cast members. Greyeyes is a formidable hunter, Reuben does well as the standard head of operations who gravely underestimates the situation, Kurtwood Smith is as good as ever in his small role, and I've already intimated how good Beasley is.

I'll be very surprised if many people can remember this film once the end credits have rolled. Thomas directs in line with the script, safely and competently, and nobody involved gets to put any strong fingerprints on the material, including King. Anyone somehow unaware of the original, novel or film, would probably watch this and think of it as a pale imitation of something that King would come up with. There's no energy to it, no real feeling of people living their lives in this world. No . . . spark.

Maybe someone else will have a go at this material in 30-40 years. Meanwhile, there are many other movies riffing on this kind of thing that are easier to recommend than this, and I would suggest films as varied as Brightburn, Freaks, and Looper for starters.

5/10

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

Shudder Saturday: Creepshow Animated Special (2020)

Here we are, a special episode of the much-anticipated anthology series springboarding from the classic movie, and I felt it should be discussed here. It's not a movie, I know, but it's not the first time I have discussed something here that is not a movie. And it won't be the last time either.

A lot of people were delighted with the news that this series was coming. Many people are still delighted that it has happened, with some commenting that the feel of the show is just what they wanted, and the stories and framing make everything seem nicely in line with that Creepshow vibe.

I have to respectfully disagree.

Much like the tale of the monkey's paw that features in one episode in the first series, Creepshow is a classic example of being careful what you wish for. We already had the classic first movie. A lot of people really like the second movie. But there was a third movie, which was pretty bad. Now we have this, arguably the weakest of all of the products that have the Creepshow name attached.

I don't know why I held out hope that this animated special would be better, but I did. Maybe I was carried along on the wave of positivity that seems to keep coming from the horror community. But let's be clear, I cannot help thinking that the positivity, the love, for this series is coming from people who are still hoping it becomes better than it has been so far. As easy to please as I am, the hit rate for the show has been just below 50%, at a conservative estimate. The better stories have been good, the worse stories have been godawful.

A lot of the success depends on the source material, so I was pleased to see that the first tale this time around was "Survivor Type", a dark and twisted Stephen King story about a man who ends up on a desert island, and aims to stay alive for as long as possible, no matter what. I've long been a fan of this story (which I first read in "Skeleton Crew" and, considering the nastiness of it, using animation to tell it seemed like a perfect choice. Kiefer Sutherland voices the main character, the animation style is okay, and it wasn't that bad. If the second tale was a good one then I could see myself enjoying this special.

The second tale, "Twittering From The Circus Of The Dead" was not a good one. I'd actually say it sit easily alongside the worse of the tales featured in season one. A young girl (voiced by Joey King) and her family end up going into a roadside circus attraction, which features zombies and people in peril. The people in peril act as if they're genuinely afraid. I am sure you can guess why. Based on a short story by Joe Hill, I can only assume this was picked as a way to give the special that father-son writer connection, all this did was make me wish they had gone with some other, ANY other, Joe Hill story. Given the form, this would have been an ideal opportunity to introduce people to the quirky world of Pop Art (okay, not as grounded in horror, maybe, but a much more interesting choice).

I'll watch a second season of the show, but it's become increasingly obvious with each episode, and particularly with this special, that the people crafting Creepshow (and it's Greg Nicotero who has his name writ large over most of it) have forgotten how to capture that spark of magic that makes the original film such an enduring classic, and even makes the second film a fun time for horror fans. I hope they bring some people on board soon who can help them remember how to find it.

4/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Doctor Sleep (2019)

I don't think anyone was overly excited when Stephen King announced that he was releasing a belated sequel to The Shining. It was a story that was all done, and nothing else needed added to it. Yet King wanted to know more, he wanted to check in on the man that young Danny Torrance became, the man who must have struggled throughout his life to process all he had gone through. We'll come back to this point in a minute.

Directed, and adapted into screenplay form, by Mike Flanagan, one of my favourite people working in the horror genre lately, the movie version of Doctor Sleep is like a box full of hyperactive kittens. There's a visual appeal, there's a worry as things keep moving and you think one or two might run away and hide somewhere, and there's a transition from happiness to slight discomfort as tiny paws produce tiny claws while a brave little body starts to climb up your legs.

Ewan McGregor plays Danny Torrance, a man still battling ghosts and demons of his past. He's aided in this by the spirit of Dick Halloran (played this time around by Carl Lumbly). He also tries to aid himself with lots and lots of alcohol. While making a serious attempt to straighten his life out, and finally passing some years in relative contentment, Danny ends up on the receiving end of some messages from a young girl named Abra (Kyliegh Curran). Abra also shines, and shines strong, which brings her to the attention of Rose The Hat (Rebecca Ferguson) and her friends, a group of powerful entities who increase their lifespan by taking the lifeforce from those who shine. Danny needs to put himself back in a position he thought he would be able to avoid for the rest of his life, and that may also involve a trip back to The Overlook Hotel.

The more I think about Doctor Sleep, the more I find to like about it. Flanagan gave himself the unenviable task of tying together The Shining movie, The Shining novel, and the main source material (which I have yet to read), in a way that would try to please everyone, but could end up pleasing no one, and he's done a remarkable job, in that regard.

I always say that Stephen King tales are harder to adapt when most of the content belongs in the heads of certain characters. See Dreamcatcher, for example. Or, y'know, don't. But Flanagan proved that he could work around that with his superb adaptation of Gerald's Game, and he tries hard to make this work. It's a bigger challenge this time. Different people have different headspace environments here, and psychic conversations are always tricky to convey without either the actors looking silly or the momentum of the movie grinding to a halt.

The other challenge is, of course, reworking the famous imagery film fans all know and love from The Shining. Making the wise decision to recreate certain moments with new actors portraying the characters in ways that are in line with what we've seen already, but absolutely not just impressions of previous performances, Flanagan gets this all just right. Lumbly is a wonderful Halloran, Alex Essoe is very good as Wendy Torrance, and Henry Thomas is a decent Jack, despite coming closest to imitation (perhaps because Jack felt quite like, well, JACK).

For those giving us all new portrayals of characters, McGregor does okay, but is the weakest link. Whether it's the script or his own take on it (and I usually find McGregor to be a very good actor), he never feels quite right in the role of Danny, and is overshadowed in any scenes he shares with the excellent young Curran, and even Cliff Curtis and Bruce Greenwood, who are both very welcome in small supporting roles. Ferguson makes up for her inconsistent accent with a physical performance that displays her character as one light of touch until it is time to rip open "a meal". The only other disappointment with Ferguson is that her character takes up more screentime than the brilliant Emily Alyn Lind. Lind, playing a young woman who can control the minds of most people around her, is arguably the most terrifying figure onscreen, due to the careless way she will wield her power without a second thought.

A dark fantasy drama rather than an outright horror, in my view (although labels are a constant source of frustration for us genre fans), Doctor Sleep may disappoint anyone looking for proper scares, or some gore, or even a hair-raising atmosphere. Sadly, it lacks all of those things. But it still manages to be a decent watch as you invest in the characters and root for them to overcome the many obstacles in their path.

Which brings me back to what I referred to at the start of this review. King wrote his novel because he got curious about Danny, and what kind of life he would lead. He wanted to check in on him, psychological scars and all. The film starts off with this as a focus. I am sure that Flanagan would argue it never moves far away from that, but it does. I was drawn in to the first scenes with McGregor, already anxious for him as he picked the absolute wrong ways to numb his pain, and that journey leads up to the halfway point of the film, before then veering off to drag us along on a psychic horror adventure. The second half isn't necessarily a worse film, not in and of itself, but it's just a shame that what started as an exploration of ghosts and painful memories becomes a tale of ghouls and fresh wounds, and we already have a lot more of the latter than the former.

For the details dotted throughout, for the many little touches that will please King fans, and for the exploration of the troubled and assaulted mental state of a survivor, this is probably still worth your time, even at two and a half hours. A reserved recommendation.

6/10

You can buy the movie here.
Americans can buy it here.

Pet Sematary (2019)

You probably already know all about Pet Sematary. You may have already seen this movie. Or you saw the trailer, that gave away one big twist that the film used to distance itself from the 1989 original. Or you saw the 1989 original (lots of people view that one with fondness). Or maybe, just maybe, you read the book before any of the movies appeared. I was in a peak Stephen King period at that point in my life, devouring many of his works, and read it as soon as I could. I was old enough to enjoy it and still young enough to somehow miss the obvious fact that it was the ultimate way for King to rework one of his favourite ever tales, "The Monkey's Paw".

Jason Clarke and Amy Seimetz are Louis and Rachel, a married couple with two children, Ellie (Jeté Laurence) and Gage (played by twins Hugo and Lucas Lavoie). They have just moved in to a new home, somewhere that seems potentially idyllic for them. If it wasn't for that road nearby that sometimes has large trucks hurtling down it. There's a friendly neighbour (Jud, played by John Lithgow), at least, and he is the one with some extra information when they discover that somewhere on their land is the titular "pet sematary". Tragedy strikes. The nearby ground has powers. Sometimes dead is better. All of those three things will converge in the second half of the film.

It's a shame that Matt Greenberg helped to write the screenplay for 1408, one of the better Stephen King adaptations in the last fifteen years. A shame because that may lead you to believe that his work here, fleshed out by Jeff Buhler, will be good. It's really not. In fact, it's ridiculously lazy in places. Whether making changes to the source material that don't seem to be for the better or failing to shake off the spectre of the original film, Pet Sematary shambles from one bad decision to the next. It's telling to say that some of the better moments here feel so enjoyable because they could easily have come from any late '80s/early 90s Stephen King movie adaptation.

The casting is the best thing here. And that's working around the fact that the lead actor is Jason Clarke, a man who surely owes his career to being occasionally confused for Joel Edgerton by harried casting agents. I've seen him do decent work onscreen but he's rarely the best choice for any lead role, and doesn't have much charisma that you expect to find in most leading men. Fortunately, Seimetz is much better, and you have Lithgow doing the best he can to put his own spin on the character of Jud (no small feat when you remember how great Fred Gwynne was in the original). The children are also very good, with Laurence given more opportunity to shine than either of the Lavoie twins. And kudos to the cats involved (oh, animal lovers be warned, the death of a cat is the real turning point in the plot).

Directors Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer have done some great work together. Starry Eyes remains a film I will happily recommend to any horror fans after something different. Seeing them churn out something so ill-judged and poor is slightly depressing. It made a profit, although I am not sure if it was a good enough profit to please those who keep count or just enough to ensure people kept their jobs, so I am sure that they will get more work after this. I just hope they go back to doing something of their own creation.

The original novel or the 1989 movie, take your pick. Both of those options are much better than sitting through this. And I couldn't even be bothered to mention the new incarnation of Zelda (played this time by Alyssa Brooke Levine), all too familiar to fans of the original, but also with another pointless change that adds nothing to this empty experience.

3/10

You can buy the movie here.
Americans can buy it here.

Sci-Fi September: The Running Man (1987)

Based on a novella written by Stephen King (writing as Richard Bachman at the time), The Running Man may be a few sidesteps too far from the original material for literary purists, but it's a whole heap of fun, thanks to the fact that the premise was retooled into a star vehicle for action icon Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Directed by Paul Michael Glaser (who will, for many of us, always be Starsky from Starsky & Hutch), the plot concerns a wrongly-convicted Arnie (playing Ben Richards) being given the chance to appear on hit TV show, The Running Man. Of course, he's not really got any say in the matter. The host of the show (Damon Killian, played by Richard Dawson) will do anything for even higher ratings, and it soon becomes clear that the show has no winners, thanks to the way that footage is manipulated, contestants are smeared, and lies upon lies are spoonfed to the ever-hungry audience. Oh, and the aim of the show? Avoid death by avoiding the armed stalkers who are sent in after the contestants.

It may be lesser fare when compared to the other big sci-fi movies starring Arnie, but The Running Man has a lot to recommend it. The script, by Steven E. de. Souza, focuses on media manipulation and how it can be used to control society, but it's equally just about Arnie fighting big meanies and then throwing out his usual one-liners.

The direction from Glaser is fine, with the visuals accompanied by another great soundtrack by Harold Faltermeyer (the man best known for creating the Axel F theme for Beverly Hills Cop). He sets up everything briskly, and the visuals reflect the featured game show, with everything shiny and new on the surface, yet slightly grubby and cheap when the main characters see behind the scenes.

Arnie is still in his Arnold Prime phase here, and absolutely brilliant. Dawson, well-known as a popular TV host in America, does an excellent job of subverting his polished, showbiz persona. Maria Conchita Alonso is fine as a young woman who doesn't believe in the innocence of Ben Richards, until some things just don't add up, and there are supporting roles for names as varied as Yaphet Kotto, Kurt Fuller, Jesse Ventura, Marvin J. McIntyre, Jim Brown, Mick Fleetwood and Dweezil Zappa. Yes, you read those last two names correctly. They both have minor roles in this movie.

It feels slightly dated nowadays, and was never really built to hold up over the years as an enduring classic, but The Running Man also manages to overcome that aspect, thanks to both the sheer entertainment factor and the fact that the look at media manipulation is even more relevant than it was back in the late '80s. In a world stuffed full of Big Brother, Britain's Got Talent, and so many other "reality" shows, it's good to remember that it's all done with editing.

8/10

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 

Children Of The Corn (2009)

Another version of the short story by Stephen King, this time around the tale of "He Who Walks Behind The Rows" is given the TV movie treatment. It's not really a straight remake of the 1984 movie because it can claim to be based on the original story, but it's a lesser take on the material, whichever way you scythe it.

David Anders and Kandyse McClure play the married couple this time around, with their drive about to be interrupted by a bunch of nasty kids who do as they're told by young preacher boy, Isaac (Preston Bailey). No adults have been allowed to live in the small town of Gatlin in decades, and the kids are out to make sure that things stay that way.

Written and directed by Donald P. Borchers (with, of course, no small amount of help from Mr. King), this movie stinks as bad as many of the other corny kid movies to have been released over the years. It's so bad that it seems to have been designed that way.

Take everything that you enjoyed about the original movie - the cast, the opening bit of nastiness, the strange vibe of the middle section - and just keep those things in mind as you struggle through this, because it's removed all of those things.

Anders and McClure are ill-served by the script, stuck with portraying characters who are unlikable from their very first scenes together. The fact that there aren't even any attempts to get the audience to warm to them as the situation they find themselves in becomes clear is testament to how flawed the script is. And then, in the final third of the movie, Anders is stuck with at least one memorably bad moment, which will at least make viewers laugh. Bailey and Daniel Newman (Malachai) are both okay, I guess, but they just don't measure up to the performances that John Franklin and Courtney Gains gave in the same roles.

There are one or two moments that are average, at best, if you're in a charitable mood (as I often am) and that's why I've given this a rating that I view as a generous one. There are many other people who wouldn't be so kind.

3/10

http://www.amazon.com/Children-Corn-David-Anders/dp/B002KH4KSY/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1382299117&sr=8-4&keywords=children+of+the+corn

Creepshow 2 (1987)

Following Creepshow was always going to be a tough job, but I'm pleased to say that Creepshow 2 holds up as a decent little sequel. It's not on a par with the greatness of the original movie, but there's something for everyone and the mix of horror drawn from comic tales is once again nicely evoked, this time with animated sequences in between each tale.

Slimming down from five tales to only three, things begin with Old Chief Woodenhead, which is all about a nice, elderly couple (played by George Kennedy and Dorothy Lamour) who are sorely wronged. But their fates will be avenged. The second tale is my favourite of the three. The Raft, a tale of four young folk who swim out to spend some time on a raft and end up trapped by . . . . . . . . . something that looks like an oil slick but devours animals like The Blob. Last, but not least, comes The Hitchhiker, the tale of an unfaithful wife (Lois Chiles) driving home from her latest tumble between the sheets and hitting a hitchhiker (Tom Wright) in her haste. She drives off, but it turns out that the hitchhiker still needs a lift.

Based on stories by Stephen King, this was written for the screen by George A. Romero (with some uncredited help from Lucille Fletcher, apparently) and directed by Michael Gornick. It lacks the commitment to that gaudy E.C. Comics style that the original movie had but the crudely animated sequences linking each of the tales do enough to remind viewers of the thrill felt when encountering these horror tales for the first time.

The cast all do a decent enough job. This was the last movie role for Dorothy Lamour, and she and George Kennedy make such a sweet pairing that it's not the worst swansong she could have gone for. The stars of The Raft - Paul Satterfield, Daniel Beer, Jeremy Green and Page Hannah - are there to play second fiddle of the featured creature, and that's what they do. Lois Chiles is saddled with too many moments that have her filling out backstory by talking to herself during her drive, but Tom Wright fares better with the main line that he gets to repeat, catchphrase-like. Tom Savini appears, although he's pretty much unrecognisable, as The Creep and Stephen King is fun to spot as a helpful truck driver.

While it doesn't ever hit the heights of the first movie, this is still a lot of fun for horror fans and it just manages not to outstay its welcome. It's an easy watch, nothing more and nothing less.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Creepshow-2-DVD-Domenick-John/dp/B003H9MXRE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380213121&sr=8-1&keywords=creepshow+2

 

Children Of The Corn (1984)

Linda Hamilton and Peter Horton play a young couple who end up stranded in a small, isolated American town that has actually been taken over by the children and doesn't tolerate the presence of adults. This is largely due to the preachings of young Isaac (John Franklin - AKA the scariest kid on screen ever) and the enforcement of rules by his main henchman, Malachai (Courtney Gains - AKA second-scariest kid on screen ever). The situation goes from bad to worse for the adults and it's a tense battle of wits to see if they can save themselves from being sacrificed to the mighty corn god.

Adapted from a short story by Stephen King, this horror movie impresses more than it should thanks to its central subject matter - killer kids. You can do a lot in horror movies but you rarely show animal cruelty or child fatalities, those are just major no-nos in mainstream horrors, so having a bunch of kids out to kill adults and being retaliated against is refreshing in itself. Things are helped immensely by the fact that all of the young actors are very good (with Franklin and Gains being the most memorable) and Hamilton and Horton aren't too bad either.

Narration is provided by a youngster (played by Robby Kiger) and this is quite a big negative point, it just feels lazy and the viewpoint and speech used is now more than a little cliche when in the context of a Stephen King story.

Okay, so the short story, made into a screenplay by George Goldsmith, doesn't really provide enough decent material for director Fritz Kiersch to make a classic and there's definitely a sagging middle section but you also get a fantastically eerie opening sequence, some goosebumps raised every time Isaac preaches, decent tension throughout despite the diminutive size of the baddies and even an okay ending only really marred by the budgetary limitations that are so obvious in the special effects of the climax.

Looking slightly deeper into the material, whether it's intended or not (and I think it is), you also have an interesting look at religious dogma, how it is interpreted and preached to others in a way that can cause great harm if not questioned or kept in check. In fact, this is a cult movie in every sense.

It's a fun horror - no more, no less - and one that my nostalgic fondness for is shown in my, admittedly generous, rating.

P.S. I have yet to see ANY of the sequels but they will be viewed and the reviews appearing here very soon, for better or worse.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Children-The-Corn-Boxset-3-DVD/dp/B0046YWTV4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345456988&sr=8-1

Silver Bullet (1985)

Based on a novella by Stephen King, Cycle Of The Werewolf, this is an enjoyable, if unspectacular, horror movie with a distinct 80s charm to it and a decent cast with many familiar faces.

The tale is narrated by a reminiscing Jane Coslaw (Megan Follows is the actress depicting the younger version of Jane onscreen) but the main events focus on her wheelchair-bound brother, Marty (Corey Haim), and the fear that encases the small town that they live in after a series of violent and random murders. Marty starts to consider the possibility that the killer is a werewolf but nobody really wants to believe him. He can only hope to convince Jane and perhaps his Uncle Red (Gary Busey).

Fondly remembered by horror fans who caught this movie when it first hit cinemas and then video shelves, Silver Bullet is one of many movies that seems to keep getting a lot more love than it deserves. It's certainly not a bad movie but it falls quite far down the ladder when compared to other films in the werewolf subgenre.

The direction by Daniel Attias is unspectacular, and the screenplay by Stephen King includes a lot of his favourite tropes (the narration by someone recalling their youth, the small town residents turning on each other, the use of religion to defend some horrible actions, etc), but there are a few moments that keep the movie just above average. A search party looking for a killer as they wander through mist-covered ground is an undoubted highlight, anything showing actual werewolf activity is pretty good and the whole third act is a great mix of tension and fun.

However, the most fun comes from simply seeing such a great cast going along with all the furry fun. Corey Haim had so much success as a youngster that revisiting any of his past performances makes you remember with sadness just how much of his life he wasted before his death in 2010. The young lad was likeable and capable and starred in a number of firm favourites in the 1980s. Megan Follows is a fine young actress who does well but, despite the film being told from her point of view, things always liven up when it goes back to the male cast members. Gary Busey is great as Uncle Red, a man who gains the disapproval of his sister (Robin Groves) but retains the adoration of his nephew. Terry O'Quinn isn't given all that much to do, he's the typically ineffective small town sheriff that King loves to write, but he's always good to see onscreen. Lawrence Tierney may only have a small role but he's as tough as usual and Everett McGill is very good in the role of Reverend Lowe.

If you remember Silver Bullet with fondness then you won't revisit it and find that you now absolutely hate it, not at all, but I do think that you may find your reaction similar to mine - the movie is a bit of fun, an amusing "time capsule" for a number of reasons, but it's nothing worth going out of your way to rewatch.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stephen-Kings-Silver-Bullet-DVD/dp/B00005OCVN/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338072574&sr=8-1