Panic Fest Film Review: “The Third Saturday in October Part V” and “The Third Saturday in October”

Starring: Kansas Bowling, Darius Willis, Poppy Cunningham, K.J. Baker, Taylor Smith and Lew Temple
Directed by: Jay Burleson
Rated: Unrated
Running Time: 89 and 97 minutes
Dark Sky Films

Our Score: 4 out of 5 stars

Never seen or heard about “The Third Saturday in October: Part V” or the prior four films in the franchise? Don’t worry, no one has. The text crawl at the beginning of “Part V” tells us all we need to know about the franchise. It states that the first film in the series was created as a cash-in on the popularity of “Halloween” in 1978. It became a cult classic, spurring several slasher sequels over the next decade and a half, but the first film has been lost to time. Thankfully for you and I, “Part V” has been found.

Anyone who has read, heard or seen anything about this film knows that the first film is available. But for reasons I’ll explain later, you should watch “Part V” first. The killer of this non-existent, made-up franchise is Jakkariah “Jack” Harding, a scarred killer who appears every third Saturday in October to kill unsuspecting teens and other morons in the fictional town of Hackleberg. Both films basically have Jack murder his way through a group of high, drunk and horny high schoolers, and other random character clichés, gathering together to watch the iconic football game between Alabama-Mobile and the Tennessee A&M Commonwealth. In “Part V,” Jack wears a never before seen clown/child mishmash mask that isn’t scary or menacing. What this film is, is plenty of cheese dripping at the corners of your screen, a budget so low it’d make Lloyd Kaufman tear-up and comedy good enough for the “Scary Movie” franchise (at least the good movies in the franchise).

“Part V” is an homage and parody dropped into a blender with discount guts/gore, horror movie tropes and easily disposable caricatures. “Part V” was allegedly released in the early 90s and it definitely shows in the characters, using vernacular of the time with the style of goth kids from that era. The actors are clearly older than the “teens” they’re playing, adding to the overall goofiness of the film. There are several winks at movies outside the “Halloween” franchise, such as “Misery,” “Friday the 13th,” and “Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” The one thing the movie really nails is the odd thematic mix that was “Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers,” the main film being spoofed here. Without making this a laundry list of references, “Part V” is not only pure entertaining fan service, but also a retro throwback to early 90s horror which was ultimately a cash grab that failed to recognize or continue the story of the iconic slashers from the late 70s.

So what about the first film? “The Third Saturday in October” serves as the true beginning of the franchise, but watching “Part V” first gives you a sense of who the killer is while the first tells you the what and why of the killer. I won’t go too much into the first film, but it’s still a comedy-horror. Instead of relying solely on laughs, the film takes a bit of a more serious edge just like most slasher films did in their first franchise creating film. Everyone who’s watched “Nightmare on Elm Street” knows that Freddy Krueger is all menace and no jokes in the first of the franchise. The chuckles and one-liners don’t make an appearance until the third film, “Dream Warriors.” This happened a lot in franchises and 80s horror.

With his tongue firmly planted in his cheek, director Jay Burleson makes the most spot-on representation of two different time periods in horror cinema. He manages to take the best parts of those screenshots into history while ridiculing the parts that have aged about as well as 3D technology in late 80s horror films. He makes his supposedly menacing killer, who giggles behind the mask while maiming and killing, even trashier and goofier than Pinhead in 1992’s “Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth.” Burleson has done his research stylistically and writing wise, making “Part V” walk and talk like every other early 90’s horror that failed to do its horror icon justice. But since we’ve never been acquainted with Jack, we don’t necessarily feel the same way when Pinhead and Freddy focused more on one-liners than kills. With Jack and the cast of dopey teen characters, we relish the intentionally awful concept.

“Part V” is an insane amount of fun if you’ve ever grown up watching slashers or were like some 90s kid and watched one of those God awful 90s slasher films looking to capitalize on the success of its predecessors. I believe that’s the intent of Burleson, who most likely grew up as I did or knew someone who did. Growing up in the 90s, I didn’t have a lot of access to late 70s/early 80s horror content, so a lot of times with horror franchises, I would work backwards. Burleson does this with his franchise as an homage and meta commentary on the whole notion that regardless of when you start a horror franchise, if you vibe with the killer, you will ultimately like it all. It also may be a commentary on horror purists, who believe the sequels are inferior to the original, whereas someone like me watched “New Nightmare” before the original “Nightmare.” So sue me, I like “New Nightmare” better. Would that theory hold true if you watch the first “Third Saturday in October” before “Part V?” That’s another potential piece to this metaphorical puzzle. If you went to the video store back in the day and wanted a horror movie night, you were at the mercy of what’s available. So, maybe all you had upon your return home was the first “Friday the 13th” and “Jason Goes to Hell.”

I’m sure there’s some people rolling their eyes at the prospect of an intentional double feature that has to be watched out of order. That’s a fair point and one that I can’t really fault people on, especially when horror movies often tease a gimmick only to fail at making the gimmick work. Burleson not only makes the gimmick work, but I think it’s safe to say that without the internet or smartphones, he could have easily fooled people into believing this was some kind of diamond plucked from a Blockbuster dumpster. Even then, Burleson understands everything about these eras of horror, from how they were lit, how they were portrayed and the overall tone they were going for. He’s like a horror historian that decided to show his knowledge with his funny bone.

I wouldn’t be taking these two films as seriously if it wasn’t for how spot-on this film is at the decades and genres it’s lampooning. What makes this low budget, poorly acted film such a delight, is that everyone and everything is committed. The little girl who plays the trope of being too smart for her age along with the stereotypical babysitter are delightful along with their gaggle of friends that represent every high school teen stereotype. It’s also fun watching the douchebag jocks in each film get their cruel karma after they dish out some insults to the geeky kids. Because of that, we’re glad to see them meet their end at Jack’s hands. I tried as best I could to stay away from some of my favorite gags in this film (there are a lot) because each passing minute is a chance for Burleson to pay homage to one film, while ridiculing another, and then doing the complete opposite in another scene later on. If Burleson plans on doing the next logical thing, an early 2000s reboot, I’m all-in. Then of course we’ll need the 2020s approach, just make a sequel to the first and ignore all the other sequels. I wanna see what Jack does next and you should definitely see what he does in “Part V” and his origin story.

Panic Fest Film Review: “Razzennest”

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.

 

Film Review: “Evil Dead Rise”

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.

 

Panic Fest Film Review: “Sisu”

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.

Film Review: “Summoning Sylvia

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.

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.