Starring: Sophie Kathleen Kozeluh, Michael Smulik and Annie Weiner
Directed by: Johannes Grenzfurthner
Rated: Unrated
Running Time: 81 minutes

Our Score: 4 out of 5 Stars

One of the most scathing, yet hilarious lines on “Mystery Science Theater 3000” for me is from the episode about “Mac and Me.” There’s a scene where we see several old time radios explode and one of the robots asks, “What is that?” Jonah responds, “It’s a radio,” to which the robot asks what a radio is. Then Jonah delivers the best summary of radio before the 21st century, “It’s like a podcast you can’t control.” So what does this have to do with “Razzennest?” Well, if you ever wanted to know what it was like to sit around in the 1940s and listen to a radio play, then this is the most entertaining way to find out.

To say this film is unique is a disservice to how original and off-the-beaten path this film truly is. “Razzennest” is basically the recording of an audio commentary track for a documentary called “Razzennfest.” Through dialogue, we’re introduced to the narcissistic film director, along with several members of his crew, as well as a less narcissistic film critic. We hear them meet and greet as the audio engineer in the studio gives them direction. The two then begin to rant, rave and bash one another over endless images and b-roll. As the inauspicious conversation continues, the images and b-roll continue to cycle as we wait to see why this is a horror. To my benefit, and yours, I’ll stop with the plot right there.

I avoided as much as possible about this film, which in a lot of ways isn’t a film. Most of the action is articulated through sound, so the video portion of this film is almost secondary. When it began, it felt like what some podcasts do on Youtube, which is loop imagery or videos over the entire audio track. While some of the b-roll and images do reflect and play off what’s happening during the recording, mostly in the third act, it’s sometimes difficult to fuse both together when the images of a quaint village are smothered by the audible yells and screams happening in the recording booth. However, the juxtaposition is intentionally jarring.

I’m not sure if I’d classify this film as a horror because I wasn’t necessarily scared nor do I think most people would be. The audible terror can only do so much when the visual terror is nearly unnoticeable. Also I watched this at home and was mindful of my apartment neighbors so the volume wasn’t that of a 150-seat theater. I do see this film more as an experimental dark comedy. The first 15 minutes are clearly for comedic effect as we listen to the critic and director attempt to make off-the-wall remarks about the documentary, films in general and life. The director is clearly a blow-hard who reads too much of his own positive reviews while the critic is a clout chaser, heaping praise on a director and a film she knows little to nothing about. Listening to these two is like listening to your two worst enemies discuss topics they’re either misinformed on or triumphantly overconfident about. So when the horror finally hits, it’s hard to feel any sympathy for these self-absorbed doofuses.

Because “Razzennest” relies so much on your interpretation of what’s being said and heard, it’s difficult to parse what exactly the meanings are as the story unfolds. That’s why I found myself chuckling and wondering if this is all just a big middle finger to an industry of snobby film artists and their fart sniffing critics chasing their own form of fame and fortune. The scathing commentary is less and less noticeable as the horror elements drip in, but even during the film’s final act, it seems like the horror is also used to further demonize the director and critic as part of a flawed entertainment industry. It’s also possibly stating that the critics and media surrounding the film industry is some kind of codependent toxic relationship. I would say the meta commentary is a bit too narrow in its attacks, but I also believe most people recognize the obnoxiousness of artists and critics quibbling over artistic merits while the world burns.

Not to sound like the film critic dork in “Razzennest,” but this is the kind of indie film that could easily be the definition of an indie film. It’s hard not to think and believe that Director Johannes Greznfurthner brilliantly orchestrated a lot of what’s happening on film, even if it feels pointless and almost unnecessary at times. As I stated before, the film footage seems inconsequential at the beginning, but more purposeful at the end. I believe Greznfurthner did one of two things, he either purposely did that or all the footage is intentional. Because the film is commenting on my freelance work, I’m in a bit of a pickle attempting to critique a film that’s simultaneously critiquing people in my field. I do know that Greznfurthner also directed “Masking Threshold,” one of my favorite horror films of last year; another film with commentary on life and the effect media has on it. I’m sure by the time I finally figure out just what in the hell was going on in “Razzennest,” he’ll be ready to show me his next mind fuck of a film. And I’m ready for it.

• EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE
• Starring: Michelle Yoeh,
• Directed by Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert
• Rating: R
• Running time: 2 hrs 19 mins
• A24

Starring: Alyssa Sutherland, Lily Sullivan and Morgan Davies
Directed by: Lee Cronin
Rated: R
Running Time:  97 minutes
Warner Bros.

Our Score: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Sometimes it’s hard to keep track of what exactly is going on in a horror franchise. The “Halloween” franchise has about five different timelines now, the “Hellraiser” franchise seemingly builds on it’s own mythos while constantly changing it’s own established rules, and the “Friday the 13th” franchise is such a mess, I could probably spend an entire article attempting to piece it together with summer camp craft glue. Meanwhile, the “Evil Dead” franchise always asks, “Will Ash/Bruce Campbell be in it?” For “Evil Dead Rise,” no, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a fitting addition to one of the meanest horror franchises known to man.

When I say mean, I generally mean sadistic. In the first and second “Evil Dead” films, Ash has to kill the possessed corpses of his friends, girlfriend, sister and others within one horrible night. Pronunciation is the meanest thing about “Army of Darkness.” In 2013’s “Evil Dead,” which is a remake/sequel, the demonic entities suck on one character’s crippling drug addiction. In “Evil Dead Rise,” the deadites feast on a family. Beth (Lily Sullivan) decides it’s time to visit her older sister Ellie (Alyssa Sutherland), mainly because she’s pregnant and struggling at adulthood. Not to be done, Ellie is also struggling at adulthood as she raises three children, including two teenagers, in her dilapidated apartment building that’s going to be shuttered in a month. On top of that, Ellie’s partner, the kid’s father, recently left. However, an earthquake is about to make these problems seem like a quaint afterthought.

The apartment sits on top of an old, sealed bank and the earthquake opens a hole into one part of the old bank. I’m unsure what part of the bank because I’ve never been to a bank where hundreds of crosses hang adorned from the ceiling and menacing voices whisper in the dark. Ellie’s son, Danny (Morgan Davies), finds a few records and a mysterious book with actual razor sharp teeth. Yes, you read that right. Teeth. Fans of “Evil Dead” know what happens next, but newcomers will get to experience a fresh kind of hell that only “Evil Dead” can portray to perfect gory effect.

“Evil Dead Rise” doesn’t skimp on the blood, gore and cruelty. At moments when you think the movie couldn’t possibly go there, it does. The demonic force goes after Ellie and then sets its sights quickly on her kids and Beth. What makes “Evil Dead Rise” unique is that this is the first instance of kids being used as potential deadite fodder. Sure the past movies have been “teens” at a cabin in the woods, but you and I know that everyone involved in those films wasn’t a “teen” or looked remotely close to that age. Just like the previous film, “Rise” tries to replace Bruce Campbell, a mistake that these new “Evil Dead” movies should stop right now. Unless you’re building towards an epic crossover, let the hero character naturally occur instead of forcing them down the same path as Ashley J. Williams. That path is for one, and one only. I digress though because “Rise” does a lot of things right, like bringing the “Evil Dead” into the modern world, taking the horror out of the cabin and injecting it into the city, all the while never relinquishing the brutality Raimi patented in 1981.

“Rise” does justice to a franchise built on carnage as it assaults all the senses at once like a chainsaw with a megaphone. Raimi’s dark comedy, which became a staple of the franchise in “Evil Dead II,” isn’t quite there. Making up for a lack of chuckles is Sutherland who is effectively brilliant, horrifying and admirable as the central deadite of the film. We see her as the loving mother who instantly panics about where her kids are when the earthquake hits at the beginning before evil turns her into a malicious mother that would give Casey Anthony a run for her money. Sutherland is believable when she’s thirsty for her children’s blood, making moments with her character ultimately chilling, moreso when she smiles. Even with an unnecessary bookend and a lack of Bruce (an immediate half-star dedication), “Evil Dead Rise” is a bloody good time, emphasis on bloody.

Starring: Jorma Tommila, Askel Hennie and Jack Doolan
Directed by: Jalmari Helander
Rated: R
Running Time: 91 minutes
Lionsgate

Our Score: 3 out of 5 Stars

When we meet the rugged dirt-covered Aatami (Jorma Tommila), we don’t know anything about him, not even his name. In the opening, wordless minutes of “Sisu,” we learn that Aatami is a prospector in northern Finland, digging around a stream with his trusty dog and horse, as the waning days of WWII are heard and seen in the distance. Aatami strikes gold, digs it out and triumphantly cheers towards the Heavens. He goes about his merry way through the bitter remnants of the Finnish countryside. It’s only until Aatami crosses paths with Nazis that we learn who he is and why you should never cross him.

Giving more information about the plot of “Sisu” would ruin a film that’s equal parts grindhouse, “Mad Max” and “Rambo.” Aatami shows multiple times throughout why he’s a one-man killing machine that should be feared instead of hunted. It’s slightly comical that everyone knows who he is, even the Finnish prisoners that are being taken who-knows-where by the dimwitted Nazis know that it’s only a matter of time before their freed. At least the persistence to kill Aatami and take his gold are explained reasonably, before we see some unrealistic and graphic kill scenes.

Unfortunately for the film, the desolate landscape doesn’t offer enough exciting action pieces for Aatami and the Nazis to play hide and seek in. It does force the director to utilize several unique escape plans for Aatami while simultaneously finding more and more bizarre yet infinitely creative ways to slice, dice and blow up Hitler’s stooges. The leader of the Nazi platoon, an SS officer played by Askel Hennie, plays a great opposite to Aatmi, sometimes having to pick up the slack when the film needs an exposition dump.

For me, the benefit of watching “Sisu” was the crowd. Anytime a Nazi blew up, got knifed, got shot, got run over, got…well…viciously killed, the crowd erupted in laughter and applause. I’m not too sure how this movie would fare at home by myself. That’s not to say that Tommila and Hennie aren’t a great WWII version of “Tom and Jerry” or that the ultimate goal of this film is to be entertained at the expense of history’s greatest foe being massacred. If you’re going to see “Sisu,” see it with a big crowd because everyone loves watching Nazis get their comeuppance. Will we ever tire of seeing Nazis killed? Probably, but not in my lifetime. I’m grateful for that and grateful for films like “Sisu,” even if it doesn’t go as balls to the wall as it could have.

• AIR
• Starring: Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Viola Davis
• Directed by: Ben Affleck
• Rated: R
• Running time: 1 hr 53 mins
• Amazon Studios
• (Five stars out of Five)

It’s been 26 years since a couple of kids named Ben Affleck and Matt Damon took Hollywood by storm when they won an Oscar for their original screenplay “Good Will Hunting.” In the time since winning, the two have battled through career ups and downs and today are among the most respected people in Hollywood. Especially Affleck, who went from being a punchline to becoming one of the best directors in the business. His non-nomination for directing the Oscar winning Best Picture, “Argo,” is a true mystery that I don’t even think Scooby Doo and his pals could solve.

Not including a brief appearance on the “set” of “Good Will Hunting 2’ in Kevin Smith’s “Jay and Silent Bob Save Hollywood,” the two have no appeared on screen together since GWH. That all changes now with the release of “Air.”

It may be hard to believe, but there was a time when Nike was almost an afterthought when it came to sneakers. Back in my youth the popular brands were Adidas and Puma. Sure, Nike was big with runners but, where I once as a kid asked my parents to buy me a pair of Lou Brock-model Keds, I cannot remember ever asking them for a pair of Nikes. Enter Sonny Vacarro (Damon), hired by the Beaverton, Oregon company to help increase the brand.l The 1984 draft has just been held and he is charged with finding three players to hopefully sign sponsorship contracts and get the word out. But Vacarro, going against everything he has been told, decides to put all of Nike’s eggs in the baseke of a certain young man from the University of North Carolina, one Michael Jeffrey Jordan.

Packed with great performances and backed by a killer soundtrack of 1984 tunes, “Air” asumes the audience knows that Jordan and Nike now go hand in handl, but are curious to know how they got together.

Damon is his usual solid self, giving Vacarro an empathy that you might not normally have for someone in his position. It is his persistance, as well as his genuine belief that Jordan is truly a once-in-a-lifetime talent, that keeps the film moving. Damon is joined by director Affleck, who plays Nike founder Phil Knight as a man who must balance his employee’s beliefs with the wishes of his stockholders. Also contributing: Jason Bateman, Chris Tucker and Chris Messina, who plays Jordan’s agent, David Falk. Messina’s scenes with Damon are comic gold, somehow making characters who should be unlikable anything but. And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the award-worthy performance by Viola Davis, who plays Jordan’s mother, Deloris. Her quiet strength, and true belief in her son’s ability, give the film a great compass.

The script is tight and Affleck has given the film a quick, but even, pace. I’d put “Air” on the same shelf as “Argo” in both style and execution.

I know it’s only April, but I am not afraid to state for the record that “Air” is – nd will be – one of the best films of the year.

As a guy that watching “The Joy of Painting with Bob Ross” daily, I knew that PAINT was a film that I needed to see for sure. Owen Wilson has always been a favorite of mine, even dating back to “Bottle Rocket” days (anyone remember that one?). Although this has nothing to Bob Ross, I am sure that the inspiration for Carl Nargle doesn’t steer far, especially with that signature perm and Carl’s gentle whisper while speaking to his audience.

PAINT is written and directed by Brit McAdams, whose credits include “Katt Williams: American Hustle” and TV series “Tosh.0” and that’s about it. Besides Owen Wilson (“Wedding Crashers”), the film co-stars Michaela Watkins (“Werewolves Within”), Wendi McLendon-Covey (“The Goldbergs”), Ciara Renee (Hawkgirl from CW’s “Arrowverse”), Lusia Strus (“50 First Dates”) and Stephen Root (“Office Space”). No shortage of talent that’s for sure.

Official Premise: In PAINT, Owen Wilson portrays Carl Nargle, Vermont’s #1 public television painter who is convinced he has it all: a signature perm, custom van, and fans hanging on his every stroke… until a younger, better artist steals everything (and everyone) Carl loves.

Owen Wilson doesn’t disappoint but this “comedy” overall feels a little to dry for me personally. I definitely would call this more a dramedy if anything. What saves it for me is it’s tight 96 minute run time. It doesn’t waste any time. I really wanted to love this but alas I just didn’t fall in love with it. The beginning starts off solid, the middle lost me but the ending was decent for sure. So I guess you can say this one is a bit uneven. I would call this a one-timer, not likely to watch again but didn’t hate it.

3 out of 5 stars

Starring: Travis Coles, Michael Urie and Frankie Grande
Directed by: Wesley Taylor and Alex Wyse
Rated: R
Running Time: 74 minutes
The Horror Collective

Our Score: 3 out of 5 stars

You’d think after writing for years and years I would have figured this out by now, but how exactly do genres get their assignment? Like, how does one decide if a film is a horror comedy or comedy horror? Does it make a difference? I always thought the first descriptor was ultimately what the film is while the second descriptor was the underlying genre. Regardless, for this review, let’s say that’s what is actually happening. While “Summoning Sylvia” is listed as a LGBTQ+ horror comedy, I would say it’s way more of a LGBTQ+ comedy horror.

Larry’s (Coles) three best friends have jokingly kidnapped him and taken him to a haunted Victorian home for his bachelor party, or, as the synopsis says, a gaycation, which is a fantastic word choice. I assume these actors are all and actually all know each other because the camaraderie oozes off the screen. However, Larry is put in a weird predicament because instead of having fun with his adorkable buds, he actually promised his hubby-to-be that he was going to hang out with his awkward, extremely hetero future brother-in-law, Harrison (Nicholas Logan). In a poor attempt to kill two birds with one stone, Larry, unbeknownst to his friends, invites Harrison to the party which gets stranger when one of Larry’s friends performs a seance in an effort to awaken the ghost of the home, Sylvia.

As not to spoil some of the twists and comedy of the film, “Summoning Sylvia” excels as a comedy, and mildly fine as a horror. The jump scares aren’t scary and almost feel a bit shoehorned in as if they were viewed as legitimate scares more so than a parody of jump scares, which would have worked better. The comedic moments are baked into the premise of friends having their house party weekend ruined, almost like a gay version of “Rough Night.” In fact, the best part of the film is one of Larry’s friends, Nico, played by Frankie Grande. Grande gnaws on scenery as much as he spits out comebacks and quips to his friends and Harrison’s homophobic remarks.

Not to be outdone, Coles shows his comedic timing as he plays negotiator between Harrison’s off-kilter persona and his flamboyantly gay friends. He also manages to be the emotional core of the film, handling the duty with nuance. A lot of the characters get their own moments to provide laughs and emotion, all working even when the acting isn’t up to par. That’s mostly because the characters feel genuine and real. Even when the paranormal activity amplifies, the actors never detach themselves from the reality of the situation unless it’s for belly laughs. While the ending doesn’t necessarily come together as well as the film probably thinks it does, the journey was worth it for the laughs. While the comedy is quite refreshing, it’s also very refreshing to see a predominantly LGBTQ+ cast, especially since the community has been a part of horror for decades. “Summoning Sylvia” is a quick, breezy, funny comedy dripping with horror cheese and cringe-inducing laughter.

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.”

There’s bad movies and then there is SMOKING CAUSES COUGHING, which easily just scored the worst film I have seen all year…and I have watched some real crap. I knew going into this that Quentin Dupieux’s type of filmmaking isn’t for everyone but I have seen RUBBER and was a big fan of that one…but this film is basically unwatchable. The poster has a quote from John Waters (PINK FLAMINGOS) calling it one of the best films of the year, I should have taking that as a sign and steered clear from this trash.

Official Premise: A wildly inventive new comedy from Quentin Dupieux (RUBBER), SMOKING CAUSES COUGHING follows the misadventures of a team of five superheroes known as the Tobacco Force – Benzene (Gilles Lellouche), Nicotine (Anaïs Demoustier), Methanol (Vincent Lacoste), Mercury (Jean-Pascal Zadi), and Ammonia (Oulaya Amamra). After a devastating battle against a diabolical giant turtle, the Tobacco Force is sent on a mandatory week-long retreat to strengthen their decaying group cohesion. Their sojourn goes wonderfully well until Lézardin, Emperor of Evil, decides to annihilate planet Earth.

Trust me after reading that premise, you might be interested but let me warn you that this movie is that farthest thing from a superhero movie and doesn’t have any action outside of the opening scene. I would have loved to gone deeper into the powers of the Tobacco Force and their purpose instead we are left with them going on retreat and telling stories, which takes up most of the running time, and end up being pointless and rather boring. I wish I could have gotten my 80 minutes back.

1 out of 5 stars

• TAR
• Starring: Cate Blanchett, Noémie Merlant
• Directed by: Todd Field
• Rating: R
• Running Time: 2 hrs 38 mins
• Focus Features

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.

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.