Film Review: “In a Violent Nature”

Starring: Ry Barrett, Andrea Pavlovic and Cameron Love
Directed by: Chris Nash
Rated: NR
Running Time: 94 minutes
IFC Films and Shudder

Our Score: 4 out of 5 Stars

Is it possible to reinvent the slasher genre in the 21st century? I think there’s always a discussion about it, but I ultimately think it’s incredibly difficult, especially since some confuse reinvigorating with reinventing. It’s hard to transform the slasher genre because it’s solely built on the singular purpose of seeing people killed in brutal ways. I’m not saying it’s too simplistic, but I’ve rarely seen instances of films attempting to reinvent one of horror cinema’s greatest wheels. The most recent occurrence of reinvention is when Wes Craven unleashed “Scream” upon the world. That being said, “In a Violent Nature” comes pretty damn close.

I wasn’t sold immediately as “In a Violent Nature” opened on a deteriorating structure in the middle of a lush summertime forest. We hear a few men off-screen talking over the sounds of nature; birds, the rustling of trees in the soft breeze and the like. Then we see a locket necklace removed from a pipe shooting out of the ground. That removal is what causes our main character to emerge from the hardened, yet seemingly fresh dirt below. Johnny (Ry Barrett) crawls out of the Earth from his undead slumber and begins to shamble around the pristine woods around him. The cameras follow Johnny throughout “In a Violent Nature,” sometimes methodically, sometimes suspensefully, but ultimately with an unspoken purpose.

It’s easy to compare “In a Violent Nature” to a film like the remake of “Maniac,” where we see not only have a first person view of the killer’s world, but hear his internal monologue. “In a Violent Nature” is third person and we never get to hear what Johnny is thinking. You could almost say that we more or less see what happens during other slashers as our main killer lumbers towards an unspeakable goal or illogical destination. You can joke that in other slashers, the killer is generally just twiddling their thumbs or possibly checking their Instagram notifications as they await another teenage victim to slash and gash. Instead, we’re left to ponder for several long lapses what Johnny is doing. Revenge? Bloodlust? Boredom?

Come to think of it, I really wasn’t sold on “In a Violent Nature,” until the film’s second kill. The film juxtapositions these moments of brutality with Johnny calmly walking about. We see him as he encounters the stereotypical group of teenagers looking to camp in a place they shouldn’t be, and how he reacts. Johnny doesn’t necessarily react the way we’ve imagined Jason Vorhees or others before Johnny. Vorhees jump scares into the picture, machete in hand, and quickly mutilates his victims. Johnny just walks up. Is that what Vorhees, Krueger and Myers have been doing all along? Casually strolling up? Like slashers before him, Johnny seems focused on a singular notion, but what is that notion? What drives Johnny? At a certain point, does Johnny’s backstory answer our burning questions or merely attempt to explain the unexplainable? “In a Violent Nature” performs an autopsy and you’re left to wonder what all the different organs are and why some are disfigured while others aren’t.

The film checks all the slasher boxes, a memorable killer, creative and gruesome kills, the drowning feeling of isolation, and a pace that balances viciousness with quiet curiosity. Is “In a Violent Nature” a deconstruction of the genre, much like “Cabin in the Woods?” It’s difficult to say because the silence breeds speculation and ultimately makes the viewer deconstruct the film more than the genre. “In a Violent Nature” starts out as an homage and slowly becomes a social commentary like great slashers before it. Slashers have always tapped into societal trauma, like the breakdown of safe spaces, whether it be a pristine lake in the woods or the safety of a suburban community on Halloween. The main thing it tapped into was a fear of the unknown. It’s very human to be fearful or anxious of the uncertainty and unseen around us. It’s what made “The Strangers” so effective, murderers can come for you just because. So, in today’s digital age of data where we have access to a wide range of sources and information, we fail to remember one thing that “In a Violent Nature” reminds us of, some things will never be explained. Johnny, just like the universe, may just be random and cruel. While some may suffer fates worse than death, survivors will be haunted by its unanswered questions.

Panic Fest Film Review: “Oddity”

Starring: Carolyn Bracken, Gwilym Lee and Tadhg Murphy
Directed by: Damian Mc Carthy
Rated: NR
Running Time: 98 minutes
Shudder

Our Score: 4 out of 5 Stars

At the 2021 Panic Fest, “Caveat” was one of the many films I missed. It wasn’t until last year that I gave it a watch on Shudder and couldn’t believe I had missed this film, and waited so long to watch it. Looking not to make the same mistake again, I saw that director/writer Damian Mc Carthy’s second film, “Oddity” was coming to this year’s Panic Fest and it’s another high recommendation.

Darcy (Carolyn Bracken) is home alone at her and her husband’s fixer-upper country home. The reconstruction process is so intense, the couple sleep in a tent in the living quarters while repairing it. Well, she at least sleeps alone at night because her husband, Ted (Gwilym Lee) works nights at a mental hospital. Settling in for another lonesome night, Darcy hears a frantic knock at the door to find one of her husband’s former patients warning her in the dead of night, “Someone is in there with you.”

Cut to one year into the future, Darcy is dead, believed to be murdered by that patient, but that story doesn’t sit right with Dani (Carolyn Bracken again), Darcy’s twin sister. However, Dani is blind and takes care of the family’s oddity shop. She serves as a medium for the store, seeing the power and spirits behind every object in the store. Dani, believing something is up, visits Ted’s rural home with one of the most horrifying wooden mannequins you will ever lay eyes on.

In lesser hands, a film like “Oddity” would have failed. The story would have gotten in the way of the spook house scares or the spook house scares would have overwhelmed the developing mystery. Either way, Mc Carthy is a master with this winding thriller. He has an extreme knack for effective and claustrophobic settings. Most of “Oddity” takes place at the rural renovated country home and you never feel comfortable any moment you’re there. Even when the sun is up and the lights are on, you constantly sense that something angry and vengeful is there.

Bracken turns in a fantastic performance as the twins. While we don’t get too much screen time with Darcy, we get plenty of it with Dani. Bracken is able to make Dani menacing even if she can’t see and is at times helpless. Her ferociousness is comedic, relatable and sometimes unnerving. Dani, as a character, is flawless. Complimenting Bracken’s performances is Lee, who plays a healthy skeptic, even if everything happening in the house is beyond any explanation he can think of.

All the haunted house thrills are scattered throughout “Oddity,” so you never feel comfortable, but you’re always being thrilled in some capacity. That’s why I believe the storytelling in “Oddity” shows how much Mc Carthy has grown as a writer since “Caveat.” While “Caveat” was hard to follow at times, “Oddity” is all red meat as it will make you laugh, peek between your fingers, and keep you on the edge of your seat. “Oddity” is sure to end up on some best of lists this year.

Panic Fest Film Review: “Infested”

Starring: Theo Christine, Sofia Lesaffre and Jerome Niel
Directed by: Sebastien Vanicek
Rated: NR
Running Time: 106 minutes
Shudder

Our Score: 4 out of 5 Stars

It’s interesting that Panic Fest 2024 is bookended by spider movies. The first being “Sting,” a fun B-movie about an adorable spider that gets bigger and bigger, while menacing an apartment complex. The second is almost a shade similar, but first you need to take out the B-movie fun and replace it with midnight terror. As for the adorable spider, go ahead and replace that with terrifying spiders that come in all shapes and sizes. Now you have the Shudder instant classic, “Infested.”

“Infested” takes place at a rundown, urban French apartment complex. The 14-story building appears to only be maintained by a short, frail Asian woman and inhabited by impoverished young adults. Kaleb (Theo Christine) struggles financially, making very little off the high-end sneakers he sells, while living with his sister Manon (Lisa Nyarko) who is prepping their inherited home to sell. The two are constantly bickering, but their differences percolate while we watch Kaleb buy an illegal spider from one of his shoe supplies. Kaleb is a creepy crawler lover, so he doesn’t suspect much about the spider. He’s going to add it to his growing collection which features a scorpion, centipede, and other multi-legged bugs and creatures. But as soon as he turns his back, the spider escapes. He simply thinks it’s taking refuge in his apartment, but it’s about to turn the apartment complex into it’s new nest. But first it’s got a lot of breeding and growing to do.

“Infested” throws us into a fresh new arachnophobia hell, as the few spiders that are spotted in the background begin to double in number and size. Soon the spiders become emboldened and we see them in all their detailed horror. While our characters bicker amongst themselves over past issues, their current situation is rapidly deteriorating, but they don’t know it until it’s too late. Every moment someone in the apartment complex peers into the dark, sticks their hand in a hole or generally does something they shouldn’t, the jump scares come fast and heavy. It may be my own arachnophobia speak, but every scare is earned and unique. The movie implements the creepy crawling speed and ferociousness with a heart pounding soundtrack. It’s the kind of film that might even scare the biggest of spider lovers.

While the spiders pick off the tenants, a growing sense of French society begins to come into focus. While they could just leave the apartment, the government has barricaded everyone inside, most likely finding out a spider infestation of apocalyptic proportions is happening. But the police quickly reveal their hand, showing they don’t care if everyone dies inside. “Infested” is also a movie about societal failure, and how the poorest of society are forgotten and easily disposable. That theme isn’t a big factor though because most of the time our heroes are attempting to escape the grasp of thousands of eight-legged freaks.

Sebastien Vanicek, the director of “Infested,” has already been tapped for the next “Evil Dead” movie and it’s easy to see why. “Infested” is the kind of film that gets your adrenaline pumping, your heart racing, and your fears running high. It also manages to squeeze in some hearty laughs, even as you know death and terror are right around the corner. If you aren’t seeing “Infested” in a crowded dark theater, not only are you doing yourself a disservice, but you risk feeling the spiders on you as you watch one of the best horrors of the year at home.

Film Review: “The Sacrifice Game”

Starring: Mena Massoud, Olivia Scott Welch and Gus Kenworthy
Directed by: Jenn Wexler
Rated: Unrated
Running Time: 90 minutes
Shudder

Our Score: 3.5 out of 5 Stars

My partner and I enjoy doing a Christmas movie marathon every year in December. Generally, she picks the Christmas movies and I find a horror Christmas film that she’ll actually enjoy. While any horror fan would think that’s easy, she’s not really the kind of person who would enjoy “Silent Night, Deadly Night” or “Black Christmas.” It needs to have a heartwarming element or some form of character redemption. Thankfully I may have found this year’s pick with “The Sacrifice Game.”

You wouldn’t think a film like “The Sacrifice Game” could be heartwarming after it’s opening minutes, where we witness the brutal murder of a happy couple three days before Christmas. Jude, played by Mena Massoud who I last saw play Aladdin in the 2019 live-action adaptation, and three others make-up the cult that’s traveling about the 1971 countryside, cutting the flesh off people as part of an ancient ritual to summon a demon. We cut to an all-girls boarding school where we find students, Clara (Georgia Acken) and Samantha (Madison Baines), along with a teacher and her boyfriend. Clara and Samantha bond over their abandonment. We learn that Samantha was intentionally left behind at the school for holidays and that the loner Clara suffers from self-harm. The unlikely duo become friends as teacher tries to make things cheery for the two, even getting them gifts. Then the cult shows up for Christmas and all hell, quite literally, breaks loose.

Despite the gruesome kills, yuletide bloodlust and viciousness of the cult, I will reiterate that “The Sacrifice Game” is surprisingly heartwarming, much like how “Bad Santa” found humanity in a booze-soaked Santa. While the film may feel familiar, it does a fantastic job of twisting the narrative in the latter half of the film. “The Sacrifice Game” does an admirable job of warming your heart after forcing you to endure nearly an hour of brutality. It also helps that it’s one of those films where you can just tell that the group of murderers will get their comeuppance.

The film is also bolstered by the performances of the killers, specifically Massoud who chews on the scenery so ravenously, you begin to hate him for how good he is at portraying a sociopath. Acken and Baines work well with each other. I’m always impressed how horror films can find good child actors that don’t outstay their welcome or get on your nerves. Acken and Baines play such a delightful budding duo as they bring their own outcast misery to the table. Acken outshines Baines when it counts though.

While the movie does feel a tad too long, director/writer Jenn Wexler squeezes out of every drop of blood from her cast and every ounce of Christmas cheer from the ending exclamation point. There’s also a hint of girl power throughout the film, mainly because I would describe the male characters as all muscle and no brain while the women manage to be both. While “Sacrifice Game” may not become a yearly holiday watch, you won’t be disappointed if it winds up under your Christmas tree.

 

Film Review: “Night of the Hunted”

Starring: Camille Rowe and Stasa Stanic
Directed by: Franck Kahlfoun
Rated: NR
Running Time: 95 minutes
Shudder

Our Score: 3.5 out of 5 Stars

As the credits for “Night of the Hunted” began to roll, I wondered about all my unanswered questions. I had plenty during the 95-minute cat and mouse game. In “Night of the Hunted,” Alice (Camille Rowe) spends a hellacious night over walkie-talkie with a Sniper (Stasa Stanic) at a remote gas station. Is it just bad luck? Is Alice being targeted? Is God punishing her for an unknown crime? Who is the Sniper? There are no answers, but maybe that’s the point.

Before being thrown into the mayhem, we meet Alice, who runs social media for a pharmaceutical giant, in a hotel room that she’s sharing with a male colleague. We wouldn’t think anything of it if she didn’t abruptly stop talking to her husband before her colleague enters the room. Are they lovers? The duo, who appear to have unsettled business, are on their way out of the room after a business convention. The pair stop at a 24-hour gas station for menial supplies and a tank fill-up. A nearby billboard says “GODISNOWHERE,” which feels ominous no matter how you view it, whether it’s “God is now here” or “God is nowhere.” Alice, noticing nothing at first, begins to realize no one is working in the store. As soon as she looks for an employee, she sees blood splattered on the wall behind the cash register, but the realization intertwines with a sniper bullet gashing her arm. Her colleague rushes in, only to be gunned down in front of her.

The back and forth between Alice and her would-be killer fill the rest of the film as passers in the night stop at the gas station to either meet their untimely end or fill their tank before going about their life. You could honestly comment on why certain people were killed and why others weren’t, more than they noticed the carnage or were oblivious to it. I digress though, Alice and the Sniper prod each other, trade insults, and attempt sympathetic comments about their lives. The more we learn about both, the more we wonder whether either is truly telling the truth. Alice has reason to make things up, she’s fighting for her life. The Sniper has reason to make things up, he’s a sociopath. This leads to Alice and the Sniper assuming things about each other, seemingly right, but also seemingly false.

My overarching belief is that “Night of the Hunted” is a commentary on 21st century discourse. We believe things about each other simply because we begin to attach others to different tribes. We pick at each other over perceived stereotypes and use those same beliefs to find reasons to hate. We also look to make the other party feel guilty for their own presumptions as we make our own. The Sniper drives a lot of that narrative, not only because he’s the killer, but because he seems to relay his own philosophy of being anti-vax, anti-government, anti-woke, etc. It’s a bit on the nose, but like I said, we’re never led to believe that either Alice or the Sniper is 100% true. Are they both mischaracterizing each other for their own goals or are they hitting each other like nails on the head?

A lot of people are going to be disappointed by the ending because of the lack of answers. Personally, it feels to match the verbal jarring and bloodletting throughout the film. Regardless of how you feel as the credits arrive, “Night of the Hunted” is a violent, tense, entertaining flick that will twist your stomach up in knots.


 

Film Review: “When Evil Lurks”

Starring: Ezequiel Rodríguez, Demián Salomón and Silvina Sabater
Directed by: Demián Rugna
Rated: NR
Running Time: 99 Minutes
IFC Films

Our Score: 4 out of 5 Stars

On the same weekend that “When Evil Lurks” hits theaters, audiences will also be treated to “The Exorcist: Believer,” which is kind of ironic. That’s because 1973’s “The Exorcist” created the book on demon possession tropes. While I’m sure “Believer” has the book in hand throughout most of its film, “When Evil Lurks” clearly skimmed through and decided to make its own unflinching and unforgiving rules.

The Argentinian film opens on two brothers in a rural village hearing gunshots in the night. They speculate what it is, but decide to investigate in the morning. Their investigation leads them to half a corpse and then to a house where they find a putrid, bloated, rotting, but still alive human referred to as “the rotten.” The woman of the household urges them to leave it alone even though the obese creature is on the verge of birthing evil itself. The brothers also suspect the evil inside is the reason their rural village has been befallen by death, bad luck, bitter dirt, wilted crops and starving livestock. We eventually learn that a demon inhabits the rotten and simply killing the rotten unleashes the demon to go after other prey.

While the demon possession rules are a bit confusing, we’re told throughout that there are seven rules when encountering evil. Seven is a big number in Christianity, whether it’s how it took God seven days to create the Earth or the Book of Revelation in which there are seven seals. The film is rich in Christian theology, but a lot of times the rotten seem like more than just demons from Hell. There are several contagion themes, including the obvious idea that you truly never know who has been possessed until it’s too late. I also found it interesting that the gut reaction of every man in the film was to immediately shoot and kill the rotten (a big no-no in the seven rules). Meanwhile, the women know of the seven rules, know what to do and ultimately hold the potential key to ending the reign of terror. Themes aside, the movie is absolutely brutal.

From the corpse that you can smell from the screen at the beginning to the visually gruesome deaths of several characters throughout the film, “When Evil Lurks” could care less about your sense and sensibilities, much less your morals. Once we understand that evil will kill and cannibalize any human it comes across, every scene has a palpable tension, especially since animals, children and women seem to be the favorite target of the rotten. Adding to the shocking effect is practical effects that add to the general unease sprinkled throughout the film.

“When Evil Lurks” is an unholy assault on your senses with sudden nihilistic violence and an overall feeling of hopelessness. There is no silver lining or light at the end of the tunnel for our characters. Early on we understand that nothing good will happen and that no one will be saved. In a lot of ways that’s what makes “When Evil Lurks” a massive surprise. Even when it reveals its bleak cards, we want to see how it uses them.

Film Review: “V/H/S 85”

Directed by: David Bruckner, Scott Derrickson, Gigi Saul Guerrero, Natasha Kermani and Mike Nelson
Rated: NR
Running Time: 110 minutes
Shudder

Our Score: 4 out of 5 Stars

Found footage has really hit its stride lately and that’s carrying over into one of the most unlikely ongoing franchises in the horror landscape, “V/H/S.” When the original came out in 2012, it didn’t necessarily light the world on fire, but since 2021, the “V/H/S” franchise has become a yearly tradition. 2021 saw the franchise become more chaotic as these movies became more memorable for breaking the mold and rules of found footage films. The latest addition, “V/H/S 85,” not only serves as an homage to the 80s, but finds the franchise tinkering with the clichĂ©s and found footage style once again with gloriously gory results.

The entire film plays like a dozen people recorded different things over the same VHS tape. The wraparound story, individual stories, are sometime interrupted by snippets of commercials that are so borderline realistic, I have to wonder if they’re from dead brands. “V/H/S 85” opens with our wrap around story, “Total Copy,” an “In Search Of…” and “Unsolved Mysteries” style TV show about a group of scientists studying a bizarre piece of intelligent life they name “Rufus.” The blobby shape-shifting creature is isolated in a room with American TV shows running 24/7. The idea, according to the scientists, is that the creature will eventually learn how to communicate with scientists, even though half the time the TV shows it appears to be watching are generic infomercials. Certainly, the wraparound story serves as a commentary on TV consumption, but we immediately know these scientists won’t have long to live if their idea of communicating with a suspicious lifeform is butt enhancing workout infomercials.

Busting out of the wraparound is “No Wake,” a tale of seven friends heading off to a lake for camping, swimming, drugs and sex. I immediately thought, “Oh, I’m about to watch an homage to an 80s slasher,” but once the blood squirts and the guts begin spilling, I really didn’t know what was happening or what was going to happen next, at all. The other interesting aspect to this short is that it kind of ends abruptly. Just as it’s about to hit its climax, it cuts to the next short. The conclusion to “No Wake” comes later in “V/H/S 85.” Without spoiling the set-up, you’ll be smiling ear-to-ear by the time “No Wake” wraps up its delightfully bonkers set-up.

After the camping trip to hell, we go south of the border to Mexico for “God of Death,” a bit of art mimicking life. The backdrop is the real-life 1985 Mexico City Earthquake, but the story opens before the quake in a news studio getting ready for one of its early morning reports. The earthquake hits and the staff are buried under rubble. Rescue workers show up to find that only a cameraman is left alive (of course). Their escape through the maze of rubble takes them down a path of blood, gore and coming face-to-face with the God of Death. As someone who’s never heard of this destructive event, I can’t help but think this short may be about how the God of Death, metaphorical or real in terms of government inaction, is just lying in wait for the next big one to kill thousands and thousands.

The next segment, “TKNOGD,” is difficult to describe because too much information kind of spoils the whole thing, but it feels very much like a punk rock avant garde art exhibit experimenting with technology. A performance artist is making a commentary on technology and God, something that oddly feels super relevant right now, before the predictable chaos and carnage of horror happens. It’s a short that still works like the previous ones because of its commentary, violent practical effects, and dark humor. It’s also the shortest of the entries, which is perfect for the story that it’s attempting to tell. It’s also a great lead-up to maybe one of the best shorts in “V/H/S” history.

“Dreamkill” is like an indie David Lynch teaming up with Wes Craven for a grisly and vicious tale. “Dreamkill” is about a police detective who keeps receiving VHS tapes showing a first-person view of violent murders, some of the more gruesome we’ve seen in the “V/H/S” series. The catch though, is that the murders happen days after the police detective receives them. He arrives on scene, already knowing how the killer got in, how he moved about and how he mutilated the victims, having watched the gonzo first-person footage. It’s one of those shorts that you could easily see becoming a full-length film, especially as we find out the person behind the footage and who the killer is. Even though I had a sneaking suspicion of who the killer was, I don’t think it took away from “Dreamkill” because of how everything unfolds. At times it’s very unsettling, dropping a bit of realism into the absurdity of it all. Like the killer’s knife, it’s likely to get under your skin.

Just like the previous installment, “V/H/S 99,” the found footage rules are broken left and right, but because of the unique choices that footage is incorporated into the overall product, it makes us forget some of the more nagging questions we might otherwise have. It’s really difficult to pinpoint a weakness in this anthology film. There’s always that one short that kind of sticks out like the ugly stepchild, but all the shorts in this work. I’m not sure if it’s because they all take place in 1985 or if one of the directors overlooked every product in an attempt to create a cohesive brutal vibe. If you’re a first timer to the anthology, or maybe stopped sometime after “V/H/S: Viral,” now is definitely the time to pick the franchise back-up. “V/H/S 85” is the best of the franchise; it’s a retro blast utilizing blood and guts to ingenious levels. It also stands to be one of the grittiest and best horror films of this year.

 

Film Review: Bad Things

Starring: Gayle Rankin, Hari Nef, Rad Pereira and Annabelle Dexter-Jones
Directed by: Stewart Thorndike
Rated: NR
Running Time: 83 minutes
Shudder

Our Score: 2 out of 5 Stars

I’m generally wary of movies that get compared to great films. Enter “Bad Things,” which bills itself as a female-version of “The Shining.” The early reviews reference how similar in vein it is to Kubrick’s 1980 film. So, I guess I’ll be the proverbial turd in the punch bowl by saying that, yes, it is similar to “The Shining” in a lot of ways, mainly visuals and hotel specters, but that’s about it since it’s far from being a horror classic, much less a horror film I can even recommend.

Ruthie (Gayle Rankin) has inherited her grandmother’s closed and aging hotel, somewhere in New England (most likely). Ruthie is just looking to sell the mid-century modern hotel because of bad childhood memories involving her mother, but Ruthie’s girlfriend Cal (Hari Nef) doesn’t quite see it like that. Cal sees an exciting business opportunity and organizes a girl’s week, inviting two pals, Maddie (Rad Pereira) and Fran (Annabelle Dexter-Jones). So, for the next 80ish minutes, we’ll be treated to gossip about a potential love rectangle between the four ladies, rumors of the hotel being haunted, and visuals that may or may not be real.

The film’s brief runtime and the hope that there’s a decent payoff kept me engaged throughout most of “Bad Things,” even if I found myself wondering what the purpose of any of it was. Cal seems so focused on reopening the hotel, but never really articulates why, which becomes annoying as Ruthie’s mental health declines as she’s constantly reminded about her mother’s parental shortcomings. If Cal was an actual caring partner to Ruthie, you’d think she’d drop the whole idea, much less convince her to have a gal pal weekend in it. As for Maddie and Fran, it seems like there’s skeletons in their closet when it comes to their prior relationships to Ruthie and Cal. It’s almost as if Cal has intentionally planned a weekend to sabotage her own relationship or is that willfully ignorant of other people’s emotions.

References to “The Shining” are sprinkled throughout, but never really feel like an homage or slice of true terror, coming off more like a cringy wink at the camera. The worst moment is when one of the characters sees ghosts eating breakfast in the hotel’s dining area, much like Wendy Torrance encountering a ghoulish party in the final act of “The Shining.” It doesn’t help that, unlike “The Shining,” the girls can leave at any time and are literally a block away from a strip mall. The isolationism that’s perfectly encompassed in Kubrick’s film is nowhere in sight of “Bad Things.”

Despite my frustrations, I was never bored, which is fascinating in of itself. Despite never being scared, the cinematography really makes the hotel a fascinating character. While you’re most likely to have your suspicions that the ghosts aren’t real, the hotel is filmed in such a way that you never feel like the characters are safe from something paranormal. Even in the bitter, snowy cold, the hotel doesn’t seem welcoming or the last place you’d want to be stuck in. Keeping things moving is the cast, which is constantly gnawing on the stale, peeling scenery of the hotel. Rankin steals the show by the end of the film, but Nef, Pereira and Dexter-Jones each have individual scenes they can add to their highlight reel because of how convincing they are in those moments.

I have to wonder how much better “Bad Things” would have been if the film’s promotional material wasn’t attempting to tell me how Kubrickian it was. There’s a lot going for it, including the cinematography, the acting and several ideas that are placed throughout. Even the ideas that I came to enjoy ultimately failed because they were never fully realized. I can’t help, but wonder how much better the film would have been if it leaned more into psychological horror or even implemented more slasher tropes. There’s definitely a way better film in this tangled mess, but “Bad Things” can’t overcome being a bad thing.

 

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: 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: 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.

 

Panic Fest Film Review: “Watcher”

Starring: Maika Monroe, Karl Glusman and Burn Gorman
Directed by: Chloe Okuno
Rated: R
Running Time: 91 minutes
Shudder

During “Watcher,” I was reminded of a scene from the first season of “Master of None.” It shows the carefree nature of a man walking home from a night of drinking, as he giggles and dances sloppily on his way home. The flipside, which we see, is a woman, walking home, after that same night of drinking with the man, petrified because she can hear footsteps behind her. Instead of a joyous walk home, she speed walks without revealing to her potential captor that she knows she’s being followed. “Watcher” doesn’t take place in one night nor is the fear immediate, it creeps in over an hour and a half as we watch Julia (Monroe) sense and fight back against someone who may or may not be watching her from afar.

Julia, an American, starts out of her element. She’s in Romania’s capital, supporting her boyfriend who’s so busy at work, he hardly has time to see her, much less show up for dinner on time. Julia spends her days walking about town, having trouble communicating since she doesn’t speak Romanian, and wondering what is happening across the street. At night, she stares out her window and sees the lives of others, whether they’re at the dinner table, in front of a TV, or staring right back at her. She knows he’s there, even when she can’t see him. Her boyfriend shrugs it off, becoming more concerned about her mental health and damn near everyone around her seems content on brushing things off even as a serial killer stalks the streets as evident by his murders being details on the news.

The “Watcher” is a slow-burn, as it lets Julia and the audience settle into Eastern Europe, without ever making us feel fully comfortable with some affective jump scares and lingering shots that have us holding our breath. The influences are clear for this film as director/writer Okuno utilizes elements from films, like “Rear Window,” but I’m a little disappointed she never twisted any of those elements in an attempt to modernize or fool the audience. While “Watcher” is a great thriller homage that taps deeply into paranoia, it never quite does anything unique that makes it stand out as an instant classic, even though it’s shot and feels like it should be one.