Film Review: “The Unheard”

Starring: Lachlan Watson, Michele Hicks and Shunori Ramanathan
Directed by: Jeffrey A. Brown
Rated: NR
Running Time: 125 minutes
Shudder

Our Score: 1.5 out of 5 stars

Sound is key in horror. The jump scares are always accompanied by a sound blasting quickly out of the speakers, but in “The Unheard,” the film utilizes the terror of silence. Chloe (Watson), who lost her hearing as a child after having meningitis, is undergoing an experimental procedure to regain her hearing. To know if the procedure is a success, she must remain near her doctor and does so by staying in the secluded house she grew up in. Technically speaking, “The Unheard” is on par with the Oscar-nominated “Sound of Metal.” That’s about as far as glowing compliments go for this film though.

“The Unheard” establishes tension early on, but does nothing with it. Chloe begins to experience odd sounds, lights and things in an old VHS tape featuring her mother, who disappeared when she was little. All these storytelling breadcrumbs taste great, but have the worst aftertaste. Without revealing too much of the plot, the film makes the mistake of creating about a half dozen different subplots outside of the main plot, which makes it incredibly difficult at times to decipher which of the plots is the main plot and which plot is just a red herring. Is it her regaining her hearing and experiencing these weird auditory moments? Is it her doctor who seems off? Is it the boy in town that she’s told to stay away from? Is there something on the VHS tape? Is something going on at the house next door? The film asks a dozen questions and then doesn’t really answer any of them.

A lot of the issues in “The Unheard” wouldn’t technically be an issue if the film was drastically shorter. Since “The Unheard” clocks in at over two hours, that means we get to spend a lot of time with Chloe and all the strange side characters. While there’s nothing wrong with the acting, the film does become quite dull when Chloe investigates a strange sight or sound…again. Or when she uncovers something she can’t explain…again. Or when a character implies knowing more than they’re leading on…again. It almost becomes a parody of itself by the time the third act rolls around, because even the seemingly third act is just a misdirect before the actual third act.

The film makes the payoff so crucial to the overall film, that when it turns out to be a letdown, it kind of cheapens everything else in the film that works, like the cinematography, the audio manipulation and the acting. The film also has a problem sticking to a genre, or, at the very least, creating a mish mash of genres that flows evenly. “The Unheard” is choppy, unnecessarily confusing and bloated. I wish I could unsee “The Unheard.”

Film Review: “Leave”

Starring: Alicia von Rittberg, Herman Tommeraas and Stig R. Amdam
Directed by: Alex Herron
Rated: NR
Running Time: 106 minutes
Shudder

Our Score: 2 out of 5 stars

Did being cooped up during the pandemic make us hate or miss our family, or both? I ask this question in light of Shudder’s latest release, “Leave,” a film about a woman attempting to track down her parents. Hunter White (Rittberg) was found abandoned in a cemetery as an infant. That’s not the strangest part though. The blanket she’s wrapped in are covered in Satanic symbols and she’s also wearing a Satanic looking necklace. Those are all the clues White has to go on as she does an at-home DNA test where she finds out she’s of Scandinavian descent. So White is off to Norway to track down her roots and it’s about as exciting as my explanation.

I think the biggest issue I had throughout “Leave” is that the film tells you from the get-go that what White will be dealing with is religious, or at the very least, Satanic in nature. So with that element of mystery undone in the first minute, the movie has to rely on White’s personality and story to carry the rest of the film, which also doesn’t work. White is immediately a sympathetic character because she’s an orphan with absolutely nothing to go on when it comes to her own parents and lineage. The issue with White as a character is that she lets that fact control her personality, mood and persona. I can’t pinpoint anything about White that isn’t somehow related to the fact that she’s an orphan. We never get a sense of who she is, which is unfortunate since Rittberg does a good job in the role.

White’s personality, which is as vanilla as her last name, is made weaker by stronger secondary characters that she encounters in Norway. The other thing that happens during the film are spooky instances of spirits that appear to be warning or scaring White away from her goal. I would have mentioned that earlier, but the spirit things really aren’t scary and White doesn’t even act scared sometimes because…she’s an orphan?

Technically speaking, “Leave” should be a good film. The cinematography is astounding; you can feel the Scandinavian winter nip at you through the screen. Other than that, the movie is meandering, bloated and pawing at nothing as it reaches a surprisingly climactic ending. The ending is actually another bright spot, but since it takes almost an hour-and-a-half to get to those juicy 15 minutes, I felt like the payoff should have been grander and sooner. Also, because we don’t connect with White, the ending doesn’t feel as impactful as the film and director thinks it does. Ultimately, Shudder has enough content that you’re better off leaving “Leave” off your list.

Film Review: “Spoonful of Sugar”

Starring: Morgan Saylor, Kat Foster and Myko Olivier
Directed by: Mercedes Bryce Morgan
Rated: NR
Running Time: 94 minutes
Shudder

Our Score: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Rebecca (Foster) is looking for a babysitter to help out with her non-speaking son, Johnny (Danilo Crovetti), who suffers from about every allergy on the planet. Rebecca is enamored with Millicent (Saylor), a 21-year-old college student who’s taking a break from school to work on a thesis about children with allergies. This sounds like a match made in Heaven for Rebecca, who’s busy as an author and whose husband, Jacob (Olivier), is ill-equipped to deal with the couple’s son, probably because Jacob spends all his time doing carpentry, yard work and household chores without a shirt on. That shirtlessness triggers Millicent and what seems like a great scenario for all slow burns into a lucid nightmare.

Not everything is at it appears in “Spoonful of Sugar.” Millicent finds out that Johnny may not have the allergies Rebecca claims he has. Rebecca, despite opening her home to Millicent, is a territorial lionness, forgiving everything little bizarre thing that Johnny does while snarling at Millicent who seems to connect with Johnny. But Rebecca has a right to be suspicious of Millicent, she’s developing an attraction to Jacob and is also microdosing LSD to an extent that she’s experiencing hallucinations. The movie appears to be developing a toxic throuple, but the longer “Spoonful of Sugar ” goes on, the harder it is to decipher who, if anyone, is the good person in this scenario.

“Spoonful of Sugar” begins on uneven footing, mainly because so much information is jammed down our throat that we barely have time to settle in. The movie begins with the idea that Millicent is the fox in the hen house, but as we relax into the narrative, it becomes very obvious that something else is going on, regardless of Millicent’s emotional instability, Jacob’s loose morals, Rebecca’s knee jerk reactions and Johnny’s general weirdness and odd psychotic tendencies that come out in quick stabs, quite literally.

“Spoonful of Sugar” condensed seasons worth of soap opera drama into a 94-minute psychological horror that will make you question what exactly is going on and what exactly is going to happen in the final frame. The film also slams in several themes like womanhood, motherhood, sexuality, coming-of-age, mental illness, drugs, and probably a bunch more I didn’t take notice of or that I’m currently forgetting as I write this. Some of those themes do work in outstanding fashion, but the overarching problem is that there’s too much going on without any dose of logic to help ground the story and its themes in reality. “Spoonful of Sugar” has too many moments that force the viewer to suspend reality. It could be explained away by LSD or general horror film cliches, but the pace is sometimes so fast, you either take something away from a scene or leave and enter the next scene in a state of confusion.

There’s a lot of intentional shocking moments, whether an injection of violence or a visual attempt to make you feel uncomfortable. For instance, Millicent says she’s 21, but she may actually be a teenager. She also might be older. That confusion conflicts with the visuals on-screen, when Millicent looks like a college student, looks well past her prime, or simply looks like a teenager with her pigtails. The film is good at unsettling the viewer and when it does shock, it’s not without meaning or a rightful attempt to make viewers queasy over the implication. I found “Spoonful of Sugar” to be very rewarding and I’m mulling over a second watch just to see if some of the themes introduced were simply red herrings to distract viewers away from several twists and ideas presented.

As the film entered its final act, I thought about what the strongest theme of the film could be since, as I stated before, the film is dripping with theme after theme. Children. Johnny may be a representation of all the ails that afflict parents when raising children. Johnny is unpredictable, vindictive, loving, curious, mean and bizarre. If you and your partner are thinking about bringing another life into this world or adopting, give “Spoonful of Sugar ” a watch. You’ll probably end up deciding on a vasectomy or tubal ligation before the credits roll.

 

Film Review: “Nocebo”

Starring: Eva Green, Mark Strong and Chai Fonacier
Directed by: Lorcan Finnegan
Rated: NR
Running Time: 96 minutes
Shudder

Our Score: 2.5 out of 5 stars

The first 15 minutes of “Nocebo” could serve as a summary for the film. When we meet Christine (Green), she is a successful English fashion designer for children’s clothes. At work one day, she receives a troubling phone call. Even though we can’t hear what she’s being told, the contortions of fright on her face tell us she’s receiving horrific news. Compounding the scenario, is a tick infested dog that wanders into the office building, staring at her with blind milky eyes. The film cuts to months later, where Christine is sick at home, suffering from an unknown illness and struggling to find work. That’s when Diana (Fonacier), a Filipino woman, knocks on the door.

“Nocebo” effectively draws you in, making you wonder why a tick infested dog is in an office building, haunting Christine after she receives presumably terrible news over the phone. Diana’s entrance serves as an even stranger rabbit hole to stumble down because she says Christine has summoned her, even though Christine doesn’t remember this and her husband Felix (Strong) is equally suspicious. Unfortunately I’ve watched enough horror films to deduce what’s going on and the rest of the movie just serves as an exercise in style over substance.

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing when your movies are predictable because inherently a lot of films can be figured out through a very analytical lens. The problem with “Nocebo” is it doesn’t do anything new with it’s folk horror cliches and instead kind of drifts towards the predicted ending without any kind of red herrings or diversions that make you second guess the nature of the film. That being said, “Nocebo” does work in some surprising ways, mainly atmosphere and acting.

While there are no jump scares, “Nocebo” creeps around Christine’s house as Christine works with Diana and Felix watches suspiciously in the background. In these instances, it’s fascinating watching the perception of Christine’s reality change, and it helps that Green ravenously gnaws on scenery with wild hunger. Green is like a female Nicolas Cage, the movie she’s in is immediately elevated simply by her presence and willingness to immerse herself in even the most absurd stories, plotlines or scenarios. “Nocebo” would effectively be weaker without Green penetrating every scene with her acting chops.

Ultimately the film feels more telegraphed rather than a natural flow. “Nocebo” has the right ingredients, but director Lorcan Finnegan can’t combine them all into a cohesive treat. At times I found myself unable to look away from “Nocebo” while at other times the itch to look at my phone creeped into the back of my mind.

Film Review: “Attachment”

Starring: Sofie Grabol, Josephine Park and Ellie Kendrick
Directed by: Gabriel Bier Gislason
Rated: NR
Running Time: 105 minutes
Shudder

Our Score: 3 out of 5 stars

On paper, “Attachment” reads like a meet-cute sitcom episode. Maya (Park) is a washed up Danish actress making ends meet as a children’s entertainer at a library when she bumps into Leah (Kendrick), a youthful Jewish student who is exploring the world in her studies. The two immediately connect as they go back to Maya’s place for some cute glances and steamy sex. Things are off to an incredibly fast and amazing start when Leah suffers a bizarre seizure at night which results in a leg injury. So Maya goes with Leah back to her home in London where Maya meets Leah’s overbearing mother, Chana (Grabol). Definitely a meet-cute formula that’s about to get gobsmacked by something evil.

Without spoiling anything, “Attachment” is a movie we’ve seen before, utilizing several clichés to move the plot along, but what elevates the story is the unique qualities it brings to the table. Very rarely do we see these kinds of films with LGBTQ+ characters and Judaism as the subtext. That’s not to say the film intentionally includes these elements to be unique. Matter of fact, the film interweaves the nuances of these elements with clichés so that the clichés don’t feel nearly as prevalent. They’re still there, and at times give away what’s happening in Chana’s home.

The biggest thing I enjoyed about “Attachment” is how deep, even with how brief it sometimes is, we go in-depth with these characters. We learn more about Maya to where we understand why she feels the way she does about Leah. We also begin to recognize the toxic codependency between Leah and her mother. It’s difficult at first to tell which one is the most toxic and which one is potentially responsible for the increasingly paranormal things happening in the house. But like I stated before, if you’re a horror aficionado, you might be able to figure out what’ll happen in the final act because of the clichés.

Thankfully the film focuses more on mood than jump scares for its horror so that the film never feels cheap. Even when the runtime begins to feel a bit too long, the story continues to chug thanks to an effective atmosphere and believable performances. For me, it was difficult at times to figure out if this film works better as a horror with romance elements or a romance with horror elements because at times the film does both effectively and sometimes poorly. For the sake of the genre argument, I’ll say that this is a fine addition to the growing LGBTQ+ and Judaism horror collection. Maybe it’s because we haven’t seen these kinds of people in these stories, but “Attachment” feels fresh, even when it’s doing a juggling act we’ve seen dozens of times before.

 

Film Review: “The Last Deal”

Starring: Anthony Molinari, Sala Baker and Gigi Gustin
Directed by: Jonathan Salemi
Rated: R
Running Time: 91 minutes
Scatena & Rosner Films

Our score: 1.5 out of 5 Stars

Very rarely do I start a film and begin to wonder how long it’s been sitting on a shelf, whether it’s the finished project or just the mere concept of the film “The Last Deal” is about Vincent (Molinari), a black market marijuana dealer who goes from being the king of the street to just another cog in the machine when marijuana is legalized in California. Doesn’t this seem like the kind of film you’d hear about or see pre-pandemic?

“The Last Deal” opens with Vincent narrating the first 10-15 minutes so that we can understand his life and business. As to why we need Vincent to narrate what we’re already seeing or having it take that long is a telltale sign that the film is going to have a lot of head scratching narrative and storytelling choices. The issues that arrive in Vincent’s life is when he realizes that he can’t play the marijuana game legitimately. So before being squeezed out of the market he decides to make one final score with rotten money from a rotten person. That’s where things begin to take a nosedive for Vincent.

How do we know Vincent borrowed money from the wrong person? That person, in the credits, is named “The Boss” (Baker). He’s such a bad guy, supposedly, he has a henchman for when he plays poker, for when he enjoys a beverage on his patio outside and even a henchman that watches TV while “The Boss” messes around in another room. He also threatens to kill Vincent and everyone he knows when the money and drugs are suddenly stolen from Vincent. It’s not that the story or even the idea of the whole story is bad, it’s just executed poorly.

For one, we never really care about Vincent. At times he seems to lack a personality. I say that because the only time we get an inside view into his mind and life, he’s complaining about how difficult it is and how it lacks certain joys. He has a girlfriend and a place to live, but he doesn’t like living in an apartment and the relationship with his girlfriend is on the rocks; so much so that at multiple points in the film, Vincent seems to view her as an afterthought. I’m sure there is an intention to make it seem like his life is nothing but drug dealing or that he’s unable to see its beauty, but even in casual interactions, Vincent seems devoid of basic human emotion. The only time we see him emote is when one of his colleagues is murdered, but even that rare instance of emotion is brief. I would generally say it’s the acting, but when I think about Vincent as a character, he really is a one-dimensional creation.

When the film’s third act finally rolls up, you should know what’s going to happen because the story is very painted by numbers. There are several surprises, however, they feel more like plot convenience than anything. I really wanted to sit back and enjoy this film because the plot allows for that, but the film has too many noticeable issues for me to ignore and mindlessly enjoy. “The Last Deal” should be your last option when picking what to watch.

Film Review: “Eo”

Starring: Sandra Drzymalska, Lorenzo Zurzolo and Isabelle Huppert
Directed by: Jerzy Skolimowski
Rated: NR
Running Time: 88 minutes
Janus Films

Our Score: 4 out of 5 stars

You hang around animals long enough, you begin to notice things like expressions in their face and how much personality they have. Despite the obvious language/species barrier, it’s fascinating that animals and humans alike are able to understand certain aspects of each other whether that’s happiness or fear. We’re also able to recognize each other’s body language when we’re angry, depressed or joyful. You’d think we’d get along better, but a film like “Eo” shows how that bond is at times oceans apart or beautifully close.

“Eo” is pretty straightforward. It’s about a donkey named Eo, who is a circus donkey when we first meet him. He has a loving owner and doesn’t seem to mind the outdated spectacle, but some animal rights activists are about to “free” him. There’s something comical about watching Eo quietly roaming around amongst angry humans yelling for it to be free, even though the concept of freedom is probably alien to Eo. After being “freed,” we see the folly of the animal rights activists who believe their job is done and let Eo roam freely to potentially be harmed or maimed. The rest of the film serves as a journey that’s heartwarming, tear-jerking, thoughtful, sad and ultimate meditation about life.

Despite being a donkey, Eo should have probably earned an Oscar nomination for delivering a world of emotion through his eyes. At times the camera hovers just inches from Eo’s eyes and we see thousands of words etched into them as he encounters friends, foes and the utterly bizarre, like a soccer match where Eo becomes the focal point through no actions of his own. The film is brief which helps with a lot of the moments where the camera simply follows Eo on his voiceless journey in Europe.

I found myself entranced by Eo’s journey even though there wasn’t anything specifically thrilling about it. It is just a donkey, after all, but Eo is more than that. He represents that soft spot that all humans have for animals. Even when we don’t like a specific creature, we still don’t necessarily wish them harm or want to see harm come their way. I think that’s what makes Eo so fascinating to watch and that’s because his encounters would tell you no person is safe, but all humans you encounter could be potentially safe. Eo sometimes feels like a representation of humanity, going through the motions, encountering adventures that may or may not be the best thing for our soul. We blindly go through life hoping everyone and everything we encounter is good-natured, but unfortunately that’s not always the case.

“Eo” is a film I thought about for days after watching. Personally I know it’s because I attempt to view humanity through these kinds of films. I feel like there’s poor ways of conveying the importance of creatures and the bond we share with them, like “A Dog’s Purpose,” but films like “Babe” help ground us in the reality of coexisting with creatures on this blue marble. “Eo” goes way deeper than I thought. What does coexistence mean when one side mistreats the other? What does life mean when sometimes a singular purpose for one’s existence is ultimately the consumption of the other? What does coexistence mean when we attach ourselves to them in toxic ways? Sure, some animals that aren’t donkeys have a poor temperament and just aren’t cuddly or loveable, but neither are all humans. “Eo” will make you smile, cry and ponder what exactly is going on in this crazy world and you’ll be a better person after all of it. Good donkey.

Film Review: “Women Talking”

Starring: Claire Foy, Jessie Buckley and Rooney Mara
Directed by: Sarah Polley
Rated: PG-13
Running Time: 104 minutes
United Artists Releasing

Our Score: 4.5 out of 5 stars

George Carlin once said, “There’s no such thing as rights. They’re imaginary. We made ’em up. Like the boogie man.” I open my review with that quote for two reasons. First being that 2022 was the year that women experienced the loss of their body autonomy rights. Second being that the women in “Women Talking,” never had rights because of the boogie man.

“Women Talking” opens with a group of women in an unnamed religious colony discussing the revelation over the prior days/weeks that ghosts or Satan aren’t behind the drugging and raping they’re experiencing. Nope. It’s the men who live among them. Their friends, their neighbors, their fathers, their spouses, etc. For years, those men have been the ones who have been drugging the women so that they can sneak in at night and rape them only to tell them the next day it’s the boogie man. With this revelation, something has to happen, right? The men are caught and arrested, but the rapists post bail and are on their way back home as if nothing happened. The women at this discussion represent different houses of thought on what to do before the rapists return. Some women believe they should do nothing and continue to be the subservient class in this community. Others believe it’s time to stay and get their fists and noses bloodied. A good portion believe that it’s simply time to leave.

Unfortunately the above scenario is not the work of Hollywood, it is based on a book written by Miriam Toews, a former Mennonite girl who fled her Canadian Mennonite community when she turned 18. “Women Talking” isn’t looking to bash one of the more peculiar sects of Christianity though. Outside of showing the horrific reality that women are still second-class citizens in portions of the world, “Women Talking” also examines a very key question in trauma, “What now?” The three options above spur fascinating on-screen discussions that cross the proverbial universe of these women. The revelations are handled differently, with some women still drinking the flavor aid that the best option is to ignore the crimes because…God’s “wishes?” Other women want to leave, but then wonder if that means taking their children. Some of their children are boys, does that mean their boys will grow up to become rapist monsters? Do they leave the boys? Can any man be trusted? If the women stay and fight, how will the community as a whole react? What will stop the men from banding together and retaliating if it’s a war between the sexes?

A film like “Women Talking,” which thankfully spares the audience the visuals of the rapes, relies heavily on its actors and script, and both are a cannon shot across the bow. Not only are the perpetrators called out in the story, but the real world is called into question by these discussions. I could break down the stellar performances and moments, but “Women Talking” is truly a film that demands attention and silences you with the power of words. At times the film is an emotional wrecking ball, making the words of these women more powerful than any scene featuring the crimes themselves. The casting is truly spotless because even the lone man (played by Ben Wishaw) in the community, who is helping the women by keeping record of their discussions and chiming in when called upon, adds emotional layers to the women debating something they’ve probably never debated or even discussed before.

In a lot of ways, “Women Talking” plants its feet in the past and in the present day. In some regards you can view the film as a historic look at how women finally release themselves from the shackles of their oppressors to give rise to a movement and help create the birth of a new society, one in which both sexes are equal. You can also see the modern commentary hidden in the tearful debates between our characters. Either that or the old idiom is true, history is doomed to repeat itself. Foy, Buckley and Mara lead the way for this ensemble cast tasked with not only conveying a powerful message, but doing it in a riveting way where the viewer will either find themselves teary eyed, aghast or silent. For some viewers, those who have already seen the movie, “Women Talking” bookended a rough 2022 for women in America, and for some viewers, this film is your rallying cry in 2023.

Film Review: Deadstream

Starring: Joseph Winter, Melanie Stone and Jason K. Wixom
Directed by: Joseph and Vanessa Winter
Rated: R
Running time: 87 minutes
Shudder

Up until recently I’ve shrugged off the found footage genre. During the 2000s I was blasted with advertisements of audiences watching the latest found footage film shrieking in terror with the ad assuring me that it’s the scariest film ever. While I can chalk that up to obnoxious and misleading advertising, the genre also suffered from several other things. For instance, screen distortions for cutaways, bothersome shaky cameras, predictable jump scares and flawed storytelling issues like, “Why is this being filmed? Why are they still recording?” My negative assumptions about the genre were thrown into an open grave in 2022 because of films like the surprisingly terrifying “Outwaters” and the journey into insanity, “Masking Threshold.” Now “Deadstream” has arrived with a shovel.

When we meet Shawn Ruddy (Winter), the host of the wildly popular Youtube show “Wrath of Shawn,” he’s attempting a comeback after being canceled. The practical joker, like a lot of real-life Youtubers, enjoys putting himself and others through crazy stunts like dog sledding in his underwear or crossing the Mexican border illegally in a trunk. The stunt that got him canceled though, he’s not upfront about. The stunt he’s going to do to put the woke mob at ease will be staying the night by himself in an abandoned Utah home known for paranormal activity simply referred to as the “Murder Manor.”

Shawn is ready to film and impress though. He has various cameras in tow that he sets up around the house, he removes spark plugs from his vehicle and locks himself in the house, and quite literally throws the key away. This is all to prevent himself, a self-professed scaredy cat, from escaping. I know you’re already thinking back to the first paragraph where I complained about found footage logic. But alas, “Deadstream” has a fantastic reason why Shawn is staying the night in a building with murder in it’s name. Money. To keep his few remaining advertisers happy, he is setting rules like investigating every ghostly sound or sight he encounters and allowing his advertisers to drop him like a sack of potatoes if he flees the premises.

Money aside, Shawn isn’t smart and is a legitimate coward. You think locking yourself in a home would be enough, but to completely immobilize your transportation to a home in remote Utah? Also, while deathly afraid of the unknown, he certainly doesn’t have any issues doing or saying things that might antagonize a ghost. He walks around with creepy Halloween music to play while he narrates the surroundings and stories about what haunts the Murder Manor. All that being said, Shawn is a real scummy individual, prioritizing profits and followers over his own well-being and those around him. So when the ghosts come out to play, we don’t necessarily feel sorry.

However, Winter, who not only plays Shawn, but directs and wrote the film with his wife, crafts Shawn to be oddly likable. His girly cries of terror made me laugh every time it happened and he manages to have a few agreeable jabs at the woke audience that has forced his hand. Given the circumstance, he does seem to channel the thoughts and reactions of an individual exploring the abandoned house of death. As someone who explores abandoned buildings on occasion, I’ve never explored a building that has death in its nickname, nor would I do it alone. It’s also obvious that the reason Shawn was canceled in the first place, continues to weigh on him consciously.

“Deadstream ” is what happens when the “Blair Witch Project” and “Evil Dead II” design a haunted house. The first third of the film has plenty of creepy moments and the inevitable jump scares that are more fun than annoying (he shrieks like a Kindergartener on a playground). The brisk first half of the film helps give way to a nightmarish funhouse bathed in blood and body parts as Shawn scrambles, fights and cries for safety. Funny moments range from the macabre ghouls that attack Shawn to Shawn interacting with the audience that’s watching on the livestream. Not only do they bait him into doing stupider things, but also remind him of his own fallacies as he begins to realize the direness of his situation. “Deadstream” is a fun found footage film that will make you laugh and cheer at the follies of an attention seeking Zoomer douchebag who deserves every ounce of terribleness heading his way.

Film Review: “The Munsters”

Starring: Jeff Daniels Phillips, Sheri Moon Zombie and Daniel Roebuck
Directed by: Rob Zombie
Running Time: 109 minutes
Rated: PG
Netflix

Growing up in the 90s I would watch Nickelodeon. For me and most people I knew at school, we would watch all the cartoons until the clock struck 7 p.m. and then we would keep watching, but it wasn’t cartoons that Nickelodeon would be showing at night. Nick at Nite, the counter kid programming, would air reruns of beloved classic sitcoms like “I Love Lucy,” “The Jeffersons,” “Gilligan’s Island,” and “The Munsters.”It would not surprise me if I ended up watching every single episode of those shows as a kid, and the astounding thing is my memory of all those shows is fond, but gray. The specifics of the shows, like individual plot lines, is fuzzy, but I remember the characters, their house, their catchphrases and all the other things that delighted audiences during their original run and those kids in the 90s that grew up on them. It’s fascinating when adoration for something churns about cinematic abortions like “The Munsters.”

I struggle writing this review because I do like Rob Zombie, as a musician and director, but more as a musician. Just like kids in the 90s my first taste of Zombie was playing “Twisted Metal” games and through that I would end up interested in buying some of his albums and would sometimes play “Twisted Metal” ad nauseum just to hear “Dragula” one more time. I’ve also seen Zombie live at least half a dozen times and I always recommend seeing him to fellow rockers and metalheads because he’s a very theatrical and explosive performer. As for his movies, I have a soft spot for “Devil’s Rejects” and “The Haunted World of El-Superbeasto,” and I don’t necessarily hate him like some horror fans do for rebooting “Halloween.” I can respect his vision and see what it was he envisioned, and appreciate it. That being said, “The Munsters” is still a cinematic abortion.

The 2022 film serves as a prequel, but don’t expect to learn how a Frankenstein’s monster and vampire ended up with a werewolf son. Dr. Wolfgang (Richard Brake) is putting together his perfect creation, but slip-ups along the way create Hermann (Phillips), who has the body of a giant lumbering oaf with the brain of a failed comedian. Hermann garners the attention of Lily (Moon Zombie), despite the objections of her father, the Count (Roebuck). It’s actually not a bad idea for a prequel, but the storytelling problems pop-up early before they become frequently obvious and annoying. While the material is faithful to the original, on the surface, it misses the point entirely. The black and white TV show featuring monsters on the outside, but a loving family on the inside has been rebooted into a 70s cartoon looking universe with characters that feel more like fan fiction bastardizations than they do actual representations of the originals. It brings to mind other failed films that missed the point of the original TV entirely, like “Wild, Wild West” and “Inspector Gadget;” similar cinematic abortions I might add.

The characters, who feel more like caricatures as opposed to living, breathing people monsters, are stuck in the proverbial “old country” for the first hour of the film and we’re never given a reason to care about their lives or the meaningless conflicts that arise. It’s impressive watching Zombie drag the wedding almost into the second hour of the film when we all know that’s the inevitable point that needs to be reached. The first hour of this film could have been whittled down to 20 minutes in capable hands, but instead we’re treated to bad jokes, odd montages, and scenes that just don’t fit, like Hermann being in a punk rock band. All of this adds up to an unenjoyable experience that makes you question every single moment as if you’re being fed a lie.

I hate to fault the acting, but I have to. At a certain point I wonder if Phillips and Moon Zombie recognized they were doing poor performances. They’re both talented, but in this film they’re barely able to move past being one dimensional characters. If you were to ask me about my impression of their attempts at recreating iconic TV show characters, I’d tell you that Phillips needs to sound less prepubescent when delivering Hermann’s lines and that Moon Zombie says “Hermy” so much I began to wonder if she was channeling Ms. Piggy saying “Kermy” more than anything.

I want to tear apart nearly everything I witnessed, but I don’t want to do that because I don’t believe it’s fair. This movie is obviously low budget and when listening to Zombie, you can tell that this vision came from a great place of adoration. That being said, I think it’s fair to ultimately place the blame for this trainwreck of a film at the feet of Zombie. I think he’s still an incredible talent, but it’s clear that “The Munsters” is his rock bottom as a director. The creativity on display, mainly in cameos and set designs, is overshadowed by lapses in creativity, like lumpy dialogue, jokes that feel more like aliens attempting human humor, bizarre misplaced acting and a plot that insults basic human intelligence. Let’s hope this is the last time someone attempts to resurrect a dead piece of entertainment property. I’m now left wondering if this is how all those “Halloween” fans felt back in 2007.

Film Review: “To the Moon”

Starring: Will Brill, Madeleine Morgenweck and Scott Fiend
Directed by: Scott Fiend
Rated: NR
Running Time: 82 minutes
1091 Pictures

Dennis (Fiend) and Mia (Morgenweck) are having problems. The couple is dealing with a tragic loss as well as Dennis’ substance abuse issues. Instead of breaking up or attending a marriage counselor, the duo head to Dennis’ family cabin to repair their broken marriage. Not too long after their arrival, a third wheel arrives. Roger (Brill), Dennis’ estranged and “out there” brother, has been vacant from the couple’s life, but seems ready to insert himself into it because he believes he can help them overcome the losses they’ve experienced and the quarrels they’re having. Well, depending on who you believe or what scenes you believe are real, the answer is difficult to find.

“To the Moon” makes us a question who to trust throughout it’s runtime. Whether we can trust the new-age, peculiar tag-a-long, Roger, or the disturbed and not all there, Dennis. Both have their flaws and both seem to be willing and ready to throw the other under the bus. The brothers, even if they never admit it, are very much the same in this psychological thriller despite the differences in how they’re approaching this bizarre scenario. Both of them appear to be manipulating Mia when they discuss one another or themselves, slipping half-truths in between regular truths without ever saying anything that is an outright lie.

Outside the personal drama, there are several things that create this aura of doom. Roger seems to have too much fun, sometimes at others expense and keeps crafting a special tea for his brother that seems more nefarious each time he goes out to the woods to forage for berries. Dennis, despite having some of his flaws laid out to be picked at, is never upfront. What drug or drugs is he recovering from and why are some of his waking nightmares so in tune with his moods and emotions?

At a brisk 82 minutes, the trio never outstay their welcome, nor do they run out of things to squabble, bicker and hate each other over. While all three manage to gnaw and thrash amongst the gloomy scenery, the audience attempts to piece together the final truth before the film closes out. That being said, the film’s premise eventually pays off, but not without lingering questions. At least the questions it leaves unanswered allow us to plug in the gaps of the madness that just unfolded on-screen. Even those who have a bad time might walk away with a nagging curiosity.

Film Review: Clerks III

Starring: Brian O’Halloran, Jeff Anderson and Jason Mewes
Directed by: Kevin Smith
Rated: R
Running Time: 100 minutes
Lionsgate

Just like Kevin Smith, I can vividly remember the mundaneness of every menial customer service job I’ve ever had, whether it was stocking shelves with products, cashiering in a store by myself for hours on end or helping customers with useless commercial products that I could care less they bought or not. Maybe that’s why the “Clerks” franchise resonates so much with me and others. Not only because it feels like such a spot on representation of the minimum wage rage in America, but because we sympathize more realistically with Dante (O’Halloran) and Randall (Anderson) more than we do Tony Stark or Shrek.

“Clerks III” more or less picks up after “Clerks II,” even if it is a decade and a half later in the real world and fictitious View Askew Universe. Nothing has seemingly changed as Dante still runs the Quick Stop with Randall. When we last saw Randall in “Clerks II,” he was ready to reopen the video rental portion of the incredibly short strip mall, but the RST Video is now a dispensary run by Jay (Mewes) and Silent Bob (Kevin Smith). Jay and Silent Bob, who are now legal drug dealers, are more soft spoken and less zany, whereas Dante continues to seem lost in life and Randall simply mocks life. Of course, not everything stays the same as Randall suffers a near fatal heart attack. That reality check has Randall focusing on his own mortality and he gets the idea to film a movie about his and Dante’s life at the Quick Stop.

“Clerks III” is for fans of Kevin Smith, more or less. I wouldn’t expect a lot of filmgoers who haven’t seen the first two films to get much, if anything, out of this third helping. It’d be like hopping on board the Star Wars fan train at “Return of the Jedi” and asking everyone what a Chewie is. So since the film is solely for fans, I do believe you’d be hard pressed to find a fan who doesn’t leave “Clerks III” with a smile on their face and a tear in their eye. Not only because of how much we’ve watched these characters grow, but because in a lot of ways we’ve grown with these characters.

For those who don’t know, Kevin Smith has always been a writer/director who wears his emotions on his sleeve and in 2018, suffered his own nearly fatal heart attack. It’s safe to say “Clerks III” is a reflection of that incident, but it’s more than that. “Clerks III” is a lot of different things rolled into one doughy, but delicious mess. It’s sometimes a self-referential retelling as well as a nod, wink and jab to the ribs of viewers. Not all of the scenes work or make logical sense sometimes, but that’s the warped view we’ve become accustomed to over the year in Smith’s films. At moments it is so all over the place, you forget that the fun eventually has to come to an end in the final act.

I don’t want to spoil too much of a film that I believe will be a surprise to most fans who give it a watch. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t worried about going into “Clerks III.” I worried that these two slackers discussing nerdy pop culture and ridiculing others would out stay it’s welcome and ruin the good will built up by Smith himself. I’m glad I was wrong. “Clerks III” establishes the emotional stakes early on, laying visual and conversational groundwork for the film’s, and this trilogy’s, final act. Thank you Smith and crew, I didn’t know I needed more Clerks in my life and it’s been a blast.

Film Review: Glorious

Starring: J.K. Simmons, Ryan Kwanten and Tordy Clark
Directed by: Rebekah McKendry
Rated: R
Running Time: 79 minutes
Shudder

Wes (Kwanten) is hungover. Pantless and puking in a rest stop bathroom is probably not how he imagined ever meeting someone, but he does. As Wes tries to wash out puke from his mouth in the sink, he hears a disembodied voice (Simmons) coming from the stall in the corner. In that pitch black area we can only see the outline of the stall, but see no feet nor hear any kind of shuffling; just the voice. To talk back with the voice, Wes goes to the stall next to the disembodied voice’s stall and (no joke) communicates with him through a glory hole. “Glorious” is weird, funny, haunting…and kind of glorious.

I’m not sure if it’s a product of the pandemic or the declining budgets for films across the board, but “Glorious” is a bottle show that works better than its premise promises. In a lot of ways it reminds me of “Tales from the Crypt” where the setting is seedy and at times pornographic while the horror is cosmic and comedic. Despite spending most of the time with Wes and the glory hole, the film makes a lot of great use out of the surroundings of the cramped shitter. If the premise and setting isn’t enough to keep you thoroughly entertained, then you can always rely on Simmons’ powerful, yet comforting deep voice to guide you through this rest stop maze of madness.

So ultimately the question becomes what is happening to Wes? Before his hangover, Wes torches remnants of a romantic relationship outside the rest stop with a bottle of booze in hand. He’s clearly attempting to wipe the memories of something and those memories don’t seem to be a factor in his bathroom predicament. As for the bathroom predicament, is the talking glory hole an intergalactic creature torturing Wes? Is it God? Satan? Thankfully it all comes together in the end, so I will avoid any more plot point discussion since the movie delightfully reveals more and more about Wes and the glory hole with each passing minute.

One big key element to “Glorious” is its comedy, which barely skips a beat and finds the perfect punchline in every scene, even in the most tense of moments. Wes and glory hole manage to poke, pry and joke with each other even as the stakes of the scenario continue to increase with the drama simmering with rage in the background. I’m actually kind of surprised this isn’t getting a theatrical release of sorts (although it did premiere at Fantastia Fest) because the comedy that’s baked into the plot would work better with a crowd as opposed to my experience in my recliner in my living room.

“Glorious” isn’t perfect. The runtime, which is brisk, hints at the lack of enough set pieces or the inability to expand upon a lot of philosophical discussions within the confinement. I also think the ending works, but not as well as the film thinks it does. Overall I’m not upset that films like this are made. I love films that push the boundaries of expectations within their own genre. For horror, you expect to be rattled and rocked, and instead, “Glorious” manages to jar and joke with its audience. “Glorious” isn’t a film that lingers with you, but instead has a beer and some fun with you while discussing pathological darkness and the cosmos. Just ignore the bathroom smell.

 

Film Review: “When I Consume You”

Starring: Libby Ewing and Evan
Directed by: Perry Blackshear
Rated: NR
Running Time: 90 minutes
1091 Pictures

Siblings Daphne (Ewing) and Wilson (Dumouchel) are each struggling in their own ways. They appear to both live in squalor and there are hints that both also struggle with drugs. They provide support for each other in the face of unspeakable entities and shadows that have haunted their lives, while Daphne and Wilson within their own sibling relationship are appearing to keep secrets from one another. “When I Consume You” opens up Daphne and Wilson’s closets and asks you to start searching for the skeletons.

Skeletons range from crime, drugs, family and abuse. The phrase, “the universe is random and cruel,” is a perfect descriptor for Daphne and Wilson’s struggles, but Daphne isn’t so sure. While my overall experience with the film was positive, something kind of nagged at me. I  watched “When I Consume You” at Panic Fest, but it didn’t necessarily stick out to me as much as other films. It may or may not be the reason I find myself on the fence. For perspective, I watched around two dozen and a half films as a part of Panic Fest. When you push yourself through a proverbial gauntlet of horror, films have to be unique to stick out. Either that or my mind isn’t what it used to be. So while “When I Consume You” is slightly unique and visually haunting, it almost gets a bit lost in itself.

There are all these interesting set pieces, sometimes taking place in the past, while others may just be a figment of imagination. Trying to figure that out is sometimes amusing since the film provides a lot of visuals for the audience to munch on. Regardless of the context, what is revealed inside sometimes feels demonic, Satanic, cryptic, or as if someone or something is pulling the strings of misery. Other times, the revelations are all too real, at least for those who’ve dealt with trauma and the lacking support structure that sometimes accompanies that.

“When I Consume You” is a puzzle, forcing audiences to put it together as the film goes along. That may sell or kill whoever watches it while someone like me just may end up indifferent, constantly thinking about negatives for every positive thought I had about the film. The acting is spot-on, yet the actors sometimes seem like they have nothing to work with in terms of clues towards the ultimate answer. Hopefully you find that answer when you turn this movie on.

Film Review: “Prey”

Starring: Amber Midthunder, Dakota Beavers and Dan DiLiegro
Directed by: Dan Trachtenberg
Rated: R
Running Time: 99 minutes
Hulu

Just like the “Alien” franchise, I’m always a little surprised when another “Predator” movie comes out. It’s not that I don’t like the “Predator” franchise, (I’m actually a little bit too forgiving on its weaker elements) but I’ve always struggled to find other people who’ve watched the films or even enjoyed the films. It’s not hard to find people who’ve watched and treasured the 1987 Arnold Schwarzenegger film, but now I feel a new generation is about to watch and treasure 2022’s “Prey.”

For “Predator” fans, the first question is going to be: “So is “Prey” a sequel, prequel or what?” The answer is uncertainty. The film takes place in 1717 in the northern Great Plains (Montana? Canada?), about 250 years before Scharzenegger and his crew of macho men gets torn apart by an unseen creature in the jungle. Naru (Midthunder) is an aspiring Comanche hunter, despite the eye rolling done by her fellow tribesmen, hunters and even her Comanche hunter sibling. All that’s about to change with the arrival of an invisible extraterrestrial who’s made Earth its hunting ground.

Just like the first “Predator,” “Prey” spends the first third of the movie building up our hero’s backstory and arc while showing us flashes of the invisible to the naked eye space monster slashing and shooting his way through wildlife. As previous “Predator” films have established, this isn’t just a bloodthirsty creature, it’s a being that enjoys the hunt; much like Naru. So, throughout the film, there is this anticipation and build-up towards these two fighting to the death. Until then, we have some interesting character development…and a lot of blood and gore to get through.

If there’s been one complaint about each film in the franchise, it’s the humans; never the trophy hunting creature. Thankfully the humans aren’t obnoxiously flawed sacks of meat or overstay their welcome, or in the case of 2018’s “The Predator,” has a subplot where autism is a superpower. Naru not only moves and flows with her tribe, but she encounters French fur trappers who are about as likable as a wasp in summer time. So, their deaths are ultimately enjoyable and welcome. In that regard, “Predator” and “Prey” are similar in that the humans we like remain alive while the disposable flesh and blood is given to the least likable of the bunch.

That being said, this is the first time the protagonist has been a woman, but you’d never know it from the way the movie ebbs and flows. Instead of calling attention to itself or virtue signaling, the film uses Predator mythos to explain why Naru is the perfect match for this galaxy traveling warrior. It also helps that she plays into the film trope of, “We can’t believe what the woman/child says or sees, right?” It also helps that she immediately recognizes the danger while each man in the film puffs his chest and charges ahead before being ripped apart, stabbed, shot or any other myriad of horrific ways to die. It reminds me a lot of Linda Hamilton’s work in the “Terminator” films. Not only do Naru and Sarah Connor radiate confidence, but they both prove their intellect and action-movie badassness each time they encounter their foe.

The one thing that’s kind of always fascinated me about the franchise, even in its highs and lows, is how much the directors and writers stay true to the creature itself, rarely rolling the dice on a bizarre character development, but instead attempting new things within the realm of logic for this fictionalized species. Director Dan Trachtenberg proves that he can provide an equal balance of substance and style, hopefully breathing life into a franchise that was nearly left for dead by director/writer Shane Black four years ago. Not only does Trachtenberg give us a neat origin story about the first Predator hunting expedition on Earth, but gives us hope that maybe, for once in this franchise, we’ll start to have a string of decent Predator films.