Category Archives: horror movies

THE BOOGEYMAN (2023) – Too Derivative to Be Scary

0
Posted on by

Although it is based on a Stephen King short story, the new horror movie THE BOOGEYMAN (2023) is an exercise in lazy storytelling that suffers from overused horror movie tropes and weak character development.

It also has a horrible title. THE BOOGEYMAN? Not only is it lame, but it calls to mind BOOGEYMAN (2005) which was an absolutely dreadful horror movie. THE BOOGEYMAN is at least better than BOOGEYMAN, so I’ll give it that.

THE BOOGEYMAN is the story of a family— the dad Will Harper (Chris Messina), who’s a psychiatrist, his high school-aged daughter Sadie (Sophie Thatcher), and his youngest daughter Sawyer (Vivien Lyra Blair)— who are all grieving over the recent death of Will’s wife and the girls’ mom, but just how recent and more importantly how she died is never explained. So, while we get to see this family behaving somewhat dysfunctionally early on, we don’t really get a feel for their angst since so little is known about it, other than the general “loss of a loved one.”

When a strange and obviously disturbed man shows up unexpectedly at Will’s practice, which is located inside the Harper home, the man, Lester Billings (David Dastmalchian) tells Will that his children are all dead and that while he will be blamed for their deaths, it wasn’t him, but some creature who his kids tried to tell him about, but he obviously didn’t believe them. Unnerved, Will sneaks out and calls 911, leaving Lester alone, or so he thinks. Apparently, Lester isn’t alone, as the murderous creature shows up and kills Lester, leaving him hanging in a closet, making it look like a suicide. Hmm, a clever boogeyman!

Anyway, soon after, the Boogeyman begins to haunt Will’s own children, and the rest of the movie tells the story of their efforts to defend themselves against the Boogeyman. Which unfortunately sounds better than it is. A lot of the screen time is spent on scenes of characters walking alone through empty hallways hearing strange noises, asking “Is anyone there?” These are the absolute worst kinds of scenes in horror movies. We’ve seen them so many times before. Or scenes where young Sawyer hears noises under her bed and in the dead silence of night looks underneath. Look, there’s nothing there! Wait for it! The big loud scare will happen momentarily. And it does. But it’s all so predictable.

And just how did the Boogeyman make the jump from one family to the other? No idea. The story doesn’t tell. We just can assume that this boogeyman can go wherever it pleases.

The characters also discover that this monster can bleed, so they assume they can kill it. Makes sense. But if it can bleed, does that make it a physical monster? If so, how is it going from one place to another without anyone seeing it? Does it know magic? Can it become invisible? Is it traveling through different realities? Again, no idea. Because on these topics the movie is silent.

While the characterizations may be weak, the acting at least is very good. Sophie Thatcher is convincing as teen daughter Sadie, who pretty much is the main character in the movie. She’s certainly the strongest character. As she finds answers, so does the audience, but sadly, most of the answers aren’t very satisfying. When she discovers that the thing bleeds, she says aloud that she’s guessing this means it can die. And that’s the best the movie has to offer in terms of answers. Guesses.

Chris Messina as daddy Will is sufficiently sad and gloomy, depressed over the loss of his wife while questioning his ability to care for his kids on his own. He’s kinda in a stupor throughout. He’s not a particularly effective dad. A far more effective story would have made the boogeyman in this one an entity threatening his role as dad, because his character is pretty vulnerable throughout.

Messina is a good actor who’s made bigger impressions in other movies, films like AIR (2023), where he had a field day playing Michael Jordan’s cutthroat agent David Falk. He’s been in a ton of movies, and going back a ways he was in ARGO (2012) and the weak horror movie DEVIL (2010).

Young Vivien Lyra Blair as Sawyer does “frightened” well, and a shout out should go to Maddie Nichols who in a very small role plays Natalie, one of Sadie’s school mates, who is as mean and as bitchy as they come. She makes Natalie the most frightening character in the movie, far scarier than the Boogeyman, mostly because she comes off as so real. Blair was equally as impressive in my favorite movie of the year in 2022, EMERGENCY (2022), an underappreciated gem from Prime Video.

And David Dastmalchian in what turns out to be just a cameo, makes for a very unsettled Lester Billings. Unfortunately, he’s only in one scene in this movie. Dastmalchian impressed as Polka-Dot Man in THE SUICIDE SQUAD (2021). He also plays Kurt in the ANT-MAN movies.

The best thing that THE BOOGEYMAN has going for it is that its monster, the Boogeyman, is rather cool looking, mostly because it’s always seen in the dark, since it hates the light. Why does it hate the light? No idea. Like everything else in this movie, you just have to guess. As I said, lazy storytelling. But it looks cool, and as a monster movie fan, I can’t take this away from the movie.

But other than creating a somewhat frightening looking monster, there’s not much else that director Rob Savage does here that works all that well. As I pointed out earlier, there are lots of dull scenes of characters walking through dark hallways. Boring.

The screenplay by Scott Beck, Bryan Woods, and Mark Heyman is by far the weakest part of THE BOOGEYMAN. The characters are cliche, the monster isn’t clearly explained, and the situations are all from countless other horror movies we have seen before. The whole thing is exceedingly derivative. Beck and Woods also co-wrote 65 (2023), a dinosaur movie which also had an awful script which also contained very little details. Yet, these guys also worked on the screenplay for A QUIET PLACE (2018), which was an exceptional horror movie. Which just goes to show you how difficult writing is. Sometimes you nail it. Other times you don’t.

For the most part, THE BOOGEYMAN is watchable. The acting is decent, and the monster is cool looking, but if you’ve seen as many horror movies as I have, you reach the point where you are bored of seeing the same story elements and ways of telling them over and over again. And that’s the biggest knock against THE BOOGEYMAN. There’s nothing in it that I haven’t seen done better in countless other horror movies from years gone by.

It’s all pretty standard horror movie fare.

As a result, I give THE BOOGEYMAN two stars.

—END—

RATING SYSTEM

Four stars – Perfect, Top of the line

Three and a half stars- Excellent

Three stars – Very Good

Two and a half stars – Good

Two Stars – Fair

One and a half stars – Pretty Weak

One star- Poor

Zero stars – Awful

THE LAKE (2023) – Giant Monster Movie from Thailand Is So Bad It Makes Ed Wood Look Good

0
Posted on by

Let’s get this out of the way right now.

THE LAKE (2023), a new giant monster movie from Thailand, is not only the worst movie I’ve seen this year, but the worst I’ve seen in a long time!

THE LAKE was released to theaters back in March and is now available to rent on Prime Video at a reduced price— gee, I wonder why?— but sadly the version that is available is dubbed in English, which is the number one reason why this one is so bad. I don’t think I’ve ever seen dubbing so bad before. It makes the goofy Toho Godzilla movies from the 1960s and 70s seem like high art.

The plot of THE LAKE is pretty standard giant monster movie fare. A monster emerges from a lake and terrorizes a small village in Thailand. Then, in a twist right out of the classic giant monster movie GORGO (1961), a larger monster emerges from the lake which happens to be the smaller monster’s mommy, and it attacks the village to get its baby monster back.

But none of this matters because the dubbing is so bad and completely sinks this movie. And by dubbing I’m not talking about the technical aspects of it, but the translation aspects. I have to believe that a lot was lost in translation, that the original Thai screenplay by Lee Thongkham, who also directed, couldn’t possibly be this bad. Could it?

The dialogue is nearly all exposition. For example, near the end of the movie, the villagers are all trying to escape, and they’re in a bus, and there’s a traffic jam, and panic ensues. There’s a conversation between a police officer and her superior which goes something like this:

Officer: Why is everyone leaving the bus?

Superior: Everyone is leaving bus?

Officer: Everyone is leaving the bus. They are running into the street. (While we see this happening on screen) They shouldn’t be leaving the bus. It is safer to be on the bus. Why are they leaving the bus?

Superior: It is safer to be on the bus. They should not be leaving the bus.

Officer: It is dangerous to be leaving the bus.

Superior: Yes, it is dangerous to be leaving the bus.

The entire movie is filled with conversations like this, that aren’t really conversations. They’re characters speaking but saying nothing, other than describing things that we are seeing playing out on screen. Another example: Are you hurt? Yes, I am hurt. I will call a doctor. I am calling a doctor. I am taking you to the doctor. We are almost at the doctor.

It’s horrible. The movie only runs for 90 minutes, yet it felt like three hours. The writing here reminds me of what I would expect A I -created content to be like. There’s no imagination or emotion. The actors are showing emotion, but the dubbed dialogue doesn’t speak to it. At all.

The story is a disaster as well. The movie opens with voice over narration that implies that the monsters and the humans are the same, and in fact, later, one of the characters becomes “connected” to the monster, and suffers the same injuries, but the script never explains how or why this happens. It does try to make the admirable point that people react out of fear, and that if we took the time to learn about beings that are different, we wouldn’t react that way, that we’d all be better for it, but the script fails at making this point as well.

The special effects aren’t bad, and the fact that CGI is minimally used is fun, but the final results are mixed. The monster looks best in the pre-credits sequence, which is shot in the rainy dark, which makes the monster look more menacing than when we see it later in full light. It looks like Alien and the 1998 Godzilla got together and had a baby. Until later when we get a better look at it, and at that point it looks like a giant Gremlin on steroids. At times it looks menacing, and at other times it looks like a guy in a rubber suit.

The characters are completely forgettable.

THE LAKE belongs in the Ed Wood category of movies. The only way to watch this one is if you’re drunk or high and want a few good laughs. For serious fans of giant monster movies, THE LAKE will disappoint.

It’s the worst movie I’ve seen in years.

I give it 0 stars.

—END—

RATING SYSTEM

Four stars – Perfect, Top of the line

Three and a half stars- Excellent

Three stars – Very Good

Two and a half stars – Good

Two Stars – Fair

One and a half stars – Pretty Weak

One star- Poor

Zero stars – Awful

IN THE SPOOKLIGHT: THE MUNSTERS (2022)

0
Posted on by

Rob Zombie’s reboot of THE MUNSTERS (2022) has been shown very little love by fans and critics alike since its release in September 2022.

Sure, the jokes are bad, the characters silly and over the top, the plot completely goofy, and the feel that it is all intended more for kids than for adults is prevalent throughout, but lest we forget, this is exactly how the campy original 1960s TV series THE MUNSTERS (1964-66) played out. Zombie has captured the exact feel of the show, and yet he seems to have been criticized for doing so. While I’ve always enjoyed THE MUNSTERS, I’ve never found the show all that funny because its humor was always purposefully awful, the canned laughter forced and annoying, and the situations more amusing than comical. This was how the show was, and how many of the 1960s comedy series were. The folks laughing the hardest were the ones on the laugh track! But this didn’t stop me and plenty of other fans from loving these shows.

And Zombie’s reboot isn’t just a rehash of the series. It’s an origin story and explains how these characters got together in the first place. There are also lots of homages and neat bits of casting, and it’s all wrapped in a lively exceedingly colorful package that makes this one a hoot to watch with or without your kids. I mean, you’ll love it on your own, but if you have kids, they can watch it, too. It’s not often you can say that about a Rob Zombie movie. In fact, this PG rated film is the first Rob Zombie movie not to be rated R.

In THE MUNSTERS, Lily (Sheri Moon Zombie) lives with her father The Count (Daniel Roebuck) in his castle, and she is actively searching for the “man of her nightmares.” Her latest date with the vampire Orlock (Richard Brake) doesn’t go so well, as he is more interested in rats and the plague than in her. Meanwhile, Dr. Wolfgang (also played by Richard Brake) and his assistant Floop (Jorge Garcia) are busy trying to create life, and their creation, Herman (Jeff Daniel Phillips), thanks to their mistaken use of a brain belonging to a failed comedian, awakens thinking he’s funny, and so he can’t stop telling bad jokes while trying to entertain people.

When Herman and Lily meet, they instantly fall in love, and the rest is history. And when the Count loses his castle, Herman moves them all from Transylvania to California, paving the way for their future family adventures on THE MUNSTERS.

Everything in THE MUNSTERS is completely silly and over the top, which is exactly how the show used to be. My favorite part of Zombie’s THE MUNSTERS is its exaggerated color scheme. The entire look of the film is bright, showy, and pretty darn impressive. It looks like a live action cartoon.

Zombie’s screenplay isn’t going to win any awards for best comedy, as the jokes are goofy and lame, the plot silly, and the characters absurd, but since it captures the spirit of THE MUNSTERS TV show, it’s ultimately successful.

He also includes various homages, like Herman’s fur vest, which is an homage both to the iconic Frankenstein Monster ads in 1960s comic books and to Boris Karloff’s Monster attire in SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939). The vampire character Orlock is a dead ringer for Count Orlok from the silent classic NOSFERATU (1922), and the scenes between Dr. Wolfgang and Floop leading up to Herman’s creation parody situations and conversations from the 1931 FRANKENSTEIN.

The cast is fun. Jeff Daniel Phillips cracked me up throughout as Herman, and he captures Fred Gwyne’s goofy persona when he played the character. Herman is a hoot throughout this movie. Likewise, Sheri Moon Zombie captures the spirit of Yvonne De Carlo’s Lily from the series. And ditto for Daniel Roebuck as The Count, who also embodies Al Lewis’ performances as Grandpa.

Jorge Garcia, probably best known for his role as Hurley on the TV show LOST (2004-2010) enjoys lot of comedic moments here as the mad scientist’s assistant Floop. The cast also includes Catherine Schell, known to genre fans as Maya on the TV show SPACE 1999 (1975-77) as a gypsy woman, and Cassandra Peterson, aka Elvira, Mistress of the Dark, as a real estate agent. And original MUNSTERS cast members Butch Patrick and Pat Priest both have voice cameos.

THE MUNTERS isn’t high art. It’s not even a very good comedy. But neither was the original TV show. What it is, however, is a colorful and very amusing salute to the 1960s horror comedy series.

If you want to know how the Munsters first got together, and you want to enjoy a trip down memory lane, in one extremely colorful and cartoonish package, you should check out Rob Zombie’s THE MUNSTERS. It completely captures the undead spirit of the original. The only thing missing is the canned laughter.

And that’s a good thing.

—END—

RENFIELD (2023) – Nicolas Cage Rocks as Dracula; The Rest a Mixed Bag

0
Posted on by

Horror comedies are a dime a dozen and are incredibly difficult to do.

The best ones play the horror straight and include spot-on humor. The worst are over-the-top silly and show no reverence towards the horror elements.

RENFIELD (2023), a new horror comedy which stars Nicholas Hoult as Dracula’s long-suffering servant Renfield who in 2023 joins a self-help group to give him the confidence to break ties with his narcissistic master, does show respect to its source material, Dracula, and does include moments of well-timed and clever humor, but overall is bogged down by a stale plot of gangsters and police corruption that sadly takes center stage and definitely gets in the way of the better story of Renfield and Dracula, making this one a mixed bag for sure.

The best part of RENFIELD is Nicolas Cage’s performance as Dracula. At first, it might seem with the obvious connections that this movie makes with Universal’s DRACULA (1931) that Cage’s performance is a direct homage to Bela Lugosi, but Cage doesn’t stop with Lugosi, as his interpretation also at times captures the essence of Christopher Lee. And director Chris McKay also shoots some scenes where Cage even resembles Carlos Villarias who played Dracula in Universal’s Spanish version of DRACULA (1931). But as good as Cage is, and as expected, he’s very good, he’s not enough to save this movie.

RENFIELD gets off to an impressive start as both Nicholas Hoult as Renfield and Nicolas Cage as Dracula are inserted into scenes from Universal’s DRACULA (1931) which both serves as an homage to the Bela Lugosi classic and also shows the origins of the relationship between Dracula and Renfield, making this movie a sequel of sorts to the 1931 movie. It’s a great way to start, and it had me excited about what was to follow.

The action then switches to present day where we see Renfield (Nicholas Hoult) joining a self-help group in New Orleans and listening to these people’s stories of how they are being abused by narcissistic companions. Since Renfield is still finding victims for Dracula, he targets these people’s abusers, hoping to do some good as well, by ridding the world of some pretty awful people by turning them into food for Dracula. Usually, a vampire’s victims turn into vampires themselves, and so Renfield would actually be making the world worse, when these folks turn into vampires, but the movie doesn’t go there.

Instead, the movie goes to places which frankly just aren’t very interesting. Renfield’s selective victim process inadvertently lands him in the path of a very powerful crime family who has nearly the entire police force in their pocket. The one honest cop— seriously, nearly everyone else in this movie who wears a badge is corrupt— Rebecca (Awkwafina) constantly finds her efforts to take down this family thwarted by her corrupt superiors.

The more interesting storyline follows Renfield’s efforts to distance himself from Dracula (Nicolas Cage), especially after opening up to the others in the support group who encourage him to stand up for himself, as well as Dracula’s efforts to keep Renfield as his slave. Whenever Dracula is on screen, the movie fires on all cylinders.

Unfortunately, and strangely, the film instead leans heavily on the crime family and police corruption plot, and even when Rebecca and Renfield team up, and Dracula joins forces with the crime family, things never become all that interesting.

The screenplay by Ryan Ridley and Robert Kirkman, a screenwriter for THE WALKING DEAD TV series, has as its centerpiece the support group sequences where Renfield talks about his relationship with the narcissistic Dracula. These are the best scenes in the movie and play out like a Saturday Night Live sketch. Unfortunately, neither Ridley nor Kirkman do much to build a movie around this idea. The crime family/police corruption plot is flat out awful, and why the movie spends so much time on this cliched claptrap is beyond me. And while the Renfield/Dracula storyline is better, the script is largely repetitive, as the same ideas are churned over repeatedly. As a result, the humor is not overly sharp. There are some moments and some jokes that land, but for the most part, the screenplay is a one trick pony that gets old long before its end credits run, which is pretty bad, since RENFIELD clocks in at a brief 93 minutes.

Director Chris McKay, who directed THE LEGO BATMAN MOVIE (2017) and the science fiction flick THE TOMORROW WAR (2021), which I really liked, does a nice job with the visuals here. The aforementioned use of scenes from DRACULA (1931) were fun to see, and he does a terrific job shooting Nicolas Cage as Dracula, who is quite menacing. As I said, at times Cage resembles Lugosi, and he speaks like him, but at other times when he’s violent and hissing, he calls to mind Christopher Lee.

There are also a ton of action scenes in this movie, and they are polished and slick. Renfield inherits superhuman strength whenever he eats bugs— who knew! — a trait that comes in handy whenever he has to fight armies of bad guys or corrupt police officers. But while these scenes are handled well, they are all rather dull and unexciting. They are also incredibly bloody. You can probably fill multiple tubs with the amount of blood spilled in this movie, which brings me to another complaint. So much blood, yet both Renfield and Rebecca always seem to walk away without one ounce of the red stuff on their clothes or bodies. It’s all way too neat and sanitized.

Like I said, the best part of this movie is Nicolas Cage’s portrayal of Dracula. He takes the role seriously, and he plays the vampire king quite menacingly. He’s definitely not a spoof of the character. He makes Dracula downright evil throughout. But that’s not to say he’s not funny, and that may be the greatest strength of Cage’s performance, in that he is both funny and serious. He is able to make the audience laugh as Dracula without sacrificing the integrity of the character. Cage is so good here; he deserves to be in a better movie.

Nicholas Hoult is okay as Renfield, but the character is much less interesting here than Dracula. Hoult does his best to make Renfield a good guy, but the script lets him down. His efforts to free himself of Dracula never rise above the superficial. We just saw Hoult play a less than good guy in THE MENU (2022), a supporting performance that I actually enjoyed a bit more than his portrayal of Renfield.

Awkwafina is fine as Rebecca, but she is stuck in a horrible cliched storyline that drags down the entire movie.

I did really enjoy Brandon Scott Jones as the leader of the self-help group who in the movie’s best sequences gets some of the best moments and lines.

One other disappointing note. While this movie is a wonderful homage to Dracula, thanks to Cage’s performance, what it’s not is a wonderful homage to the title character, Renfield. Dwight Frye as Renfield is one of the best parts of the Lugosi DRACULA, and once you’ve seen that movie, you will never forget his performance. RENFIELD, in spite of being about Renfield, treats Frye as merely an afterthought. Which is all the sadder because even after nearly 100 years, no other actor has played Renfield in a movie the way Frye did. His performance remains the gold standard for the role, and yet, he died young and poor in 1943, and Hollywood has never really given him his due. He deserves better here.

RENFIELD rocks whenever Nicolas Cage is onscreen as Dracula, and its support group scenes are the only ones in this movie that go for the throat and really resonate. They’re hilarious. The rest of the movie features a dull subplot that actually grows into a main plot, and even the better storyline featuring Renfield and Dracula struggles to move forward, as it gets stuck repeating the same points over and over. This is one movie that really could have used… well, some self-help and support.

I give RENFIELD two stars.

—END—

RATING SYSTEM

Four stars – Perfect, Top of the line

Three and a half stars- Excellent

Three stars – Very Good

Two and a half stars – Good

Two Stars – Fair

One and a half stars – Pretty Weak

One star- Poor

Zero stars – Awful

IN THE SPOOKLIGHT: ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1953)

0
Posted on by

Bud Abbott and Lou Costello had a habit meeting monsters.

It all started in 1948 with their highly successful horror comedy monster mash, ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (1948), which had Bud and Lou meeting up with the Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange), Dracula (Bela Lugosi) and the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr.) The film was wildly successful, and a major hit for the comedy duo.

They would repeat the formula three years later with ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE INVISIBLE MAN (1951), followed by today’s movie ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE, and they closed out their monster meetings with ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE MUMMY (1955)

Their initial outing meeting Frankenstein remains their best, as it has the funniest script, and one can make the argument that the quality dropped off with each successive movie. But there’s still a lot to like about ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE.

For starters, it stars Boris Karloff in the dual role as Jekyll and Hyde, and like his horror star predecessors in the previous Abbott and Costello monster films, he plays things straight. While he gives it his all, it ends up being just a decent performance, mostly because he’s overshadowed by the previous actors who played the role. Both Fredric March (who won an Oscar for playing Jekyll and Hyde) in the 1931 version, and Spencer Tracy in the 1941 remake deliver two of the strongest performances in a horror movie ever, and so the bar had already been raised quite high. But it’s Karloff, and so he still turns in a deliciously dark performance. One interesting tidbit regarding Karloff’s performance is unlike his predecessors, he portrays Dr. Jekyll as rather evil as well. Karloff’s Jekyll uses Hyde when he wants to kill people. Not exactly an exercise in good vs. evil. It’s more like evil and more evil!

The most memorable thing about ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE is the frightening make-up on Mr. Hyde by Bud Westmore. Mr. Hyde here is quite hideous and monstrous. In fact, he’s referred to throughout the movie as “the monster.” He’s certainly more of a werewolf type character than some of the other Mr. Hydes. Westmore used similar make-up on the diseased scientists in TARANTULA (1955), and on the monster in MONSTER ON THE CAMPUS (1958).

While I often say that one of the best parts of ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN is that the monsters play it straight, here in ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE, director Charles Lamont takes things a step further and for much of this movie plays the whole thing straight! There are some genuinely scary scenes in this movie, and while it is funny of course, I’ve always enjoyed this one more as a horror movie.

It opens with a very creepy murder scene on the foggy streets of London, where we witness Mr. Hyde emerge from the shadows to murder a man. Each time Hyde shows up, the film is scary. There are memorable scenes with him looking through a window, popping out in a jump scare, and creeping up behind the heroine. There are also plenty of action-packed chase scenes in this one.

The plot is quite simple, as Bud and Lou —- oh yeah, Abbott and Costello are in this movie! —-play detectives, goofily named Slim and Tubby, who are on the case to help hunt down the monster. The jokes are okay. Both ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN and ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE INVISIBLE MAN are funnier films than this one. Here, there’s a lot of physical comedy, including the aforementioned chase scenes, with one memorable one in particular over some rooftops.

The screenplay by Lee Loeb and John Grant is more amusing than funny. While director Charles Lamont helmed a bunch of Abbott and Costello movies, including some of their best, he seems more interested here in directing a monster movie, which has always been fine for me! I enjoy Abbott and Costello, and they’re fun in this movie, but they are certainly funnier in other flicks. There’s just not a lot of memorable gags or one-liners. There is one very goofy sequence where Tubby gets turned into a human-sized mouse, which in spite of taking place at a bar plays like a scene out of a children’s movie.

Helen Westcott makes for a fine heroine, Vicky Edwards, while Craig Stevens plays the dashing leading man, and Reginald Denny, who I always remember as Commodore Schmidlapp in what would turn out to be his final role in the Adam West BATMAN (1966) movie, plays the very British inspector.

Boris Karloff makes for an unusually villainous Dr. Jekyll, and gives the role his signature Boris Karloff treatment, meaning he’s soft-spoken yet sinister.

The true stars of ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE however are make-up artist Bud Westmore and stunt man Eddie Parker, who played Mr. Hyde. The monster in this flick is quite menacing.

While everyone else is tuning in for the laughs, I’m tuning in for the horror. In fact, this one gave me nightmares as a kid. Mr. Hyde was that chilling!

Are you up for some monster thrills with a few chuckles thrown in for good measure? Then check out ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE.

It’s one creepy comedy!

—END—

LEADING LADIES: MIA GOTH

0
Posted on by

Welcome back to LEADING LADIES, the column where we look at the careers of actresses in the movies, especially horror movies.

Usually, this column is a retrospective of actresses from the past and serves as a look back at their remarkable careers, but today we’re doing something different, as up today on LEADING LADIES it’s Mia Goth.

Goth is just starting her career, and she is enjoying enormous success, and since she is so young, just 29, I’m surmising that in the future there will be lots of updates to this column as her career continues. My favorite part of Goth’s roles thus far is that while she has appeared in numerous horror movies, she’s no scream queen. She’s usually the person causing the screaming!

So, let’s get started. Here’s a partial look at Mia Goth’s young career so far:

THE SURVIVALIST (2015)- Milja- Mia Goth’s first screen credit is in this thriller about a man who lives off the grid whose farm is discovered by a mother and a daughter, and what happens when he strikes a deal with them to live on his property.

A CURE FOR WELLNESS (2016) – Hannah- this is the first movie in which I saw Mia Goth, a superior horror movie by writer/director Gore Verbinski about a wellness center that isn’t quite what it seems. Jason Isaacs plays the creepy doctor, while Goth plays a mysterious woman who resides there. Goth is terrific in the role and made an immediate impression, as she was one of the best parts of this film, which had the look and feel of a classic Hammer horror movie.

SUSPIRIA (2018) – Sara – supporting role in this remake of the horror classic. Also starring Tilda Swinton, Dakota Johnson, and Chloe Grace Moretz.

EMMA (2020) – Harriet Smith- another supporting role in this version of the Jane Austen novel, starring Anya Taylor-Joy in the title role of Emma, and Bill Nighy. This was the last film I saw at the movie theaters before Covid shut everything down in March 2020. I found this one to be somewhat of a misfire, but Goth is very good in the film.

X (2022) – Maxine/Pearl – horror movie by writer/director Ti West features some of Goth’s best work as she plays dual roles here. The film is about a group of filmmakers in the 1970s who set out to make a porn film on a farm, but once the elderly farmers discover what they are doing, they become unhinged and react very badly as X becomes quite the bloody and violent horror movie. Goth plays two roles, Maxine, the young star who wants to make a porn film as a first step to becoming a famous actress, and Pearl, the elderly woman who owns the farm and who goes full blown Norman Bates in the film’s second half. One of the best horror movies from 2022, and Mia Goth is a major reason why.

PEARL (2022) – Pearl – Mia Goth reprises the role of Pearl in this Ti West prequel to X, in which we learn Pearl’s back story. I enjoyed X more than PEARL, but Mia Goth is once again tremendous and fascinating.

INFINITY POOL (2023) – Gabi – another fabulous performance by Mia Goth in another terrific horror movie, this one by writer/director Brandon Cronenberg, David Cronenberg’s son. Alexander Skarsgard plays a struggling novelist who vacations on a remote island with his wife hoping to beat back his writer’s block. There, he meets a young woman, Gabi, played by Mia Goth, who with her husband invites James the author and his wife out to dinner, claiming to be a fan of his work. As they get to know each other, Gabi leads James on a horrific odyssey that leads to violence, murder, and depravity. And if that’s not enough, she seduces him as well.

Next up for Mia Goth is the final installment of Ti West’s X trilogy, MAXXXINE, in which Goth will once again play Maxine in a story that will take place after the events in X. I can’t wait!

In such a short time, Mia Goth has become one of the most dynamic actresses working in horror movies today.

That’s it for now. Thanks for joining me for this edition of LEADING LADIES. Join me next time when we look at the career of another leading lady in the movies.

As always, thanks for reading!

— Michael

IN THE SPOOKLIGHT: CHAMBER OF HORRORS (1966)

0
Posted on by

“Beware the fear flasher! And the horror horn!”

If you’ve seen CHAMBER OF HORRORS (1966), you know what these words refer to, a gimmick used in this 1966 film to warn its audience of upcoming scenes of violence that were so horrific that you just had to turn away!

Except that they weren’t. None of the violence is shown on camera. Shhh!!!

When I was a kid, CHAMBER OF HORRORS showed up on television quite a bit, both during the day and in the wee hours of the night. It was one of my favorite horror movies back then, and it still is today, even with its silly fear flasher/horror horn gimmick, where the picture would freeze, and the screen would flash red while a loud sound effect blasted. Even as a little kid, I never averted my eyes, so I saw pretty quickly that this was just a gimmick, and the violent murders were not shown. But I still loved it!

CHAMBER OF HORRORS was actually meant to be the pilot for a TV series called “House of Wax” in which the proprietors of the wax museum, the dashing Anthony Draco (Cesare Danova), the very British and intellectual Harold Blount (Wilfred Hyde-White), and the diminutive dwarf Pepe (Jose Rene Ruiz, or as he was billed in the film, Tun Tun), who were all also amateur detectives, would solve various crimes. In this movie, the villain is Jason Cravatte (Patrick O’Neal, in a devilishly scene-stealing performance) who chops off his own hand to escape the police and returns to Baltimore months later to seek revenge on those who sentenced him to prison, including our hero, Anthony Draco.

The film received a theatrical release rather than play on television because it was considered too gruesome for TV back then, How times have changed!

CHAMBER OF HORRORS is wonderfully atmospheric, and while it takes place in 19th century Baltimore, it has the look and feel of a Hammer Film. And while the murders aren’t shown on camera, they are lurid and creative, as Cravatte purchases a series of unique attachments for his missing hand, including a hook, an axe, and even a gun. Yup, Cravatte is an imaginative killer and even whistles while he works in this dark little thriller with a good sense of humor.

Most of the humor comes from Patrick O’Neal’s performance, in a role which would have suited Vincent Price quite nicely. O’Neal is terrific here, and while he did appear in other villainous roles, mostly on television, it’s a shame he didn’t star in more horror movies. He’s really, really good, and for my money, he’s the best part of this movie.

Cesare Danova is the handsome hero, and the film does a nice job pitting the two leads against each other. I mentioned Hammer Films, and there’s a Peter Cushing/Christopher Lee vibe throughout, as Danova’s Draco is in pursuit of O’Neal’s Cravatte but remains one step behind the killer, until the film’s final reel, which plays out in exciting fashion as the two battle it out on the floor of the wax museum.

Speaking of the museum, CHAMBER OF HORRORS utilizes many of the same wax museum sets used in the Vincent Price movie HOUSE OF WAX (1953).

Wilfred Hyde-White and Tun Tun are also very entertaining as the two other members of the crime solving team. It’s a shame this movie didn’t catch on and spark the TV series, as it would have been a lot of fun. Not really sure what happened, because supposedly CHAMBER OF HORRORS did very well and made a lot of money back in 1966.

Future M.A.S.H. star Wayne Rogers is also in the cast as police sergeant Jim Albertson, and he turns in a memorable performance. The leading lady is Laura Devon, who plays Marie Champlain, a young woman hired by Cravatte to lure his intended victims to their doom.

There are a lot of neat scenes in CHAMBER OF HORRORS, directed by Hy Averback, including the opening scene where Cravatte forces a trembling minister to perform a marriage ceremony between Cravatte and a woman he murdered; the confrontation between Cravatte and Sgt. Albertson, and the climactic battle between Cravatte and Draco.

Stephen Kandel wrote the screenplay based on a story by Ray Russell. It has an exciting plot, contains memorable and oftentimes humorous dialogue, and also creates neat characters.

The film has an atmospheric and energetic music score by William Lava.

CHAMBER OF HORRORS may not have spawned a follow-up TV series, or gone on to be a classic of the genre, but it is more than just a gimmick movie, in spite of the fear flasher/horror horn. It’s a damn fine horror movie, one of the more atmospheric thrillers from the 1960s not made by Hammer Films.

It was one of my favorite horror movies as a kid. It remains so today.

Looking for a museum to visit? Check out CHAMBER OF HORRORS. But remember, when you see the fear flasher and hear the horror horn, look away! Yeah, I know. There’s nothing to look away from. But it still makes for a bloody good time!

—END—

COCAINE BEAR (2023) – Campy Horror Comedy A Dud

0
Posted on by

Killer bear movies are a thing.

Probably the most famous is GRIZZLY (1976), which in spite of being a complete rip-off of JAWS (1975), is a highly entertaining and gory killer bear on the loose horror movie, and it made a killing at the box office back in the day. Before that you had NIGHT OF THE GRIZZLY (1966), a well-made western about a family trying to protect its farm from a marauding bear, and there have been many others over the years, films like INTO THE GRIZZLY MAZE (2015) which tried and failed to be a more contemporary killer bear horror movie.

Now comes COCAINE BEAR (2023), which is loosely based on a true story from 1985, when bags of cocaine were dropped from a plane by a drug dealer who died when his parachute didn’t open, and the cocaine which landed in the forest was ingested by a black bear. This movie is very loosely based on that story, as in real life the black bear promptly died, which is what you would expect to happen to an animal after overdosing on massive amounts of cocaine. Here, the film imagines what the bear would have done had it not died, which is, go on a murderous rampage.

The movie follows a set of quirky characters as they converge in the Georgia forest and have to contend with the cocaine bear.

Two children, Dee Dee (Brooklyn Prince) and Henry (Christian Convery) skip school and decide to spend the day in the forest. Dee Dee’s mom, Sari (Keri Russell) goes into the forest in search of the children. Drug dealer Syd (Ray Liotta, in his final film role) sends his son Eddie (Alden Ehrenreich), who’s still grieving over the death of his wife, and fellow drug dealer Daveed (O’Shea Jackson, Jr.) into the woods to retrieve the cocaine. A cop named Bob (Isiah Whitlock, Jr.) is also in the woods searching for the drugs, and then there’s a forest ranger Liz (Margo Martindale) who is more interested in her boss Peter (Jesse Tyler Ferguson) than helping Sari find her daughter and her friend. There are more characters as well, and they all have one thing in common: the cocaine bear!

COCAINE BEAR, as its title suggests, has all the makings of campy comedic horror classic, and that’s what I hoped this one would be.

Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Try as it might, COCAINE BEAR isn’t much of a black comedy. It works a bit better as a horror movie, because there are some gruesomely gory bear attack sequences, but the rest of the film isn’t serious enough for it to work completely on this level, and it doesn’t work as a comedy either because the humor isn’t even close to being sharp.

The screenplay by Jimmy Warden fails to bring any of the wide array of characters to life. They’re not well-written, we know little about them, nor is the dialogue memorable. Most of the characters are caricatures of characters we’ve seen in other movies, the generic drug dealers, a mom searching for her daughter, precocious children, etc.

Elizabeth Banks’ meandering direction doesn’t help. COCAINE BEAR has very little pacing and no momentum. Rather than building to a climax, the story just moves from one bear incident to another. Characters come and go and have their encounters with the bear, but the film doesn’t build on any of it. There’s also not a likable character in the entire movie because the characters we are supposed to like are not fleshed out, and the characters we could love to hate are dull.

Jimmy Warden also wrote the screenplay to the horror sequel BABYSITTER: KILLER QUEEN (2020), which I thought was pretty dreadful. COCAINE BEAR is equally as dreadful.

Elizabeth Banks, whose work as an actress I enjoy, also directed the reboot CHARLIE’S ANGELS (2019), which most people hated, but I actually enjoyed. Banks’ work here with COCAINE BEAR is a mixed bag. The bear sequences are intense and scary, while the rest of the movie which was aiming for dark comedy misses its mark by a long shot.

The cast is also a combo of hits and misses.

Young Brooklyn Prince who was amazing in THE FLORIDA PROJECT (2017), doesn’t get to do a whole lot here as Dee Dee other than be scared. Christian Convery fares better as Dee Dee’s friend Henry. He is able to inject a lot of personality into the role and has some of the better lines in the film, which he handles very well.

Keri Russell as mommy Sari plays things straight and as such makes very little impact here, even with her heroic stand at the end. Alden Ehrenreich, who played Han Solo in SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY (2018), makes drug dealer Eddie a sympathetic character, but he’s also a rather dull sympathetic character. O’Shea Jackson Jr. makes more of an impact as Eddie’s buddy and fellow drug dealer, Daveed. The scene where he’s jumped by three teens in a restroom is one of the more entertaining scenes in the movie.

Isiah Whitlock, Jr. has a thankless role as Bob the policeman, in a case where he is simply let down by the writing.

The same can be said for Ray Liotta as drug dealer and main villain in the movie, Syd. It’s a terribly written role, and it’s kinda too bad that this was Liotta’s final movie role. He died a week after completing work on this movie, in May 2022.

There are other quirky characters here as well, but none of them are developed. They show up for one sequence with the bear, and that’s pretty much it. Some of these sequences include a tense standoff inside the ranger’s cabin, a scene where the bear actually chases an ambulance, and a sequence where characters climb trees to escape the bear which doesn’t end well. All of these sequences have their moments, but none of them work as well as they could.

The bear itself is pretty frightening looking for a CGI creation, and the fact that it moves so quickly also helps make it scary. Interestingly, the killer bear movies I mentioned above were all about grizzly bears, while COCAINE BEAR is about a black bear, which traditionally does not attack humans, but this one does, because it’s high on cocaine.

I thought I was going to have a fun time watching COCAINE BEAR, but that simply wasn’t the case.

There’s certainly a story here to be told, an imaginative one about what might happen if a bear high on cocaine didn’t die and went on a crazy killing spree in the forest…

But sadly, COCAINE BEAR isn’t it.

I give it one and a half stars.

—END—

RATING SYSTEM

Four stars – Perfect, Top of the line

Three and a half stars- Excellent

Three stars – Very Good

Two and a half stars – Good

Two Stars – Fair

One and a half stars – Pretty Weak

One star- Poor

Zero stars – Awful

IN THE SPOOKLIGHT: SNOWBEAST (1977)

0
Posted on by

For some reason, during the 1970s, made-for-TV horror movies were a thing.

And many of them were really, really good, films like THE NIGHT STALKER (1972), THE NORLISS TAPES (1973), and TRILOGY OF TERROR (1975), to name just a few.

I recently watched a made-for-TV horror movie from the 1970s that I had never seen before, either on TV back in the day or on VHS/DVD/Blu-ray, SNOWBEAST (1977). I watched it because I noticed it was streaming on Amazon Prime.

Well, after watching it, the mystery is solved, as now I know why I never caught up with this one before.

SNOWBEAST sucked! And then some!

Of course, unlike a bad comedy, which as a movie is the absolute worst because if a comedy isn’t working, you’re not laughing, you’re just bored, a bad horror movie because it’s so bad eventually becomes laughable, and so you have that at least. And that’s what happened while watching SNOWBEAST. I found myself laughing out loud at its ineptitudes.

SNOWBEAST tells the story of a Bigfoot-like creature terrorizing a ski resort community. On its surface, the story isn’t half bad, and it shouldn’t be, since the screenplay was written by Joseph Stefano, the man who wrote the screenplay for Alfred Hitchcock’s PSYCHO (1960), adapting Robert Bloch’s novel for the screen. It was Stefano’s idea to focus the first half of Hitchcock’s movie on Marion Crane rather than on Norman Bates. If only he had had a similar creative idea for this movie!

Most of the ideas found in SNOWBEAST are not that original. In fact, the plot is curiously similar to another horror hit from just two years earlier, JAWS (1975), but rather than on Amity Island, the action here takes place at a ski resort, which the powers that be want to keep open in spite of the monstrous murders being committed. And like in JAWS, the three main characters eventually get together to hunt down the Snowbeast!

But unfortunately for SNOWBEAST, Steven Spielberg wasn’t at the helm. Instead, the directing duties were performed by Herb Wallerstein, who seems to have been allergic to monsters because the actual Snowbeast is onscreen for about three seconds! For the rest of the movie, he’s either absent, heard growling on the soundtrack, or the action is viewed from his perspective through his eyes. The result is a movie that has somewhat interesting characters, decent acting from some, awful acting from others, an okay yet unoriginal plot, and some truly horrible direction. The title for this one should have been NO-BEAST!

This film needed a monster so badly I would have been happy if the Abominable Snowman from RUDOLPH THE RED-NOSED REINDEER (1964) had shown up!

SNOWBEAST actually has some name actors in its cast. Leading the way was Bo Svenson as a depressed skier named Gar Seberg. Gar actually has a somewhat interesting backstory, as he was an Olympic skier who retired early because he wanted to retire on top, but then found himself stuck in an unfulfilling life. Later in the movie, he gets to use that dormant ski talent to take on the Snowbeast. As stories go, this one is rather interesting, but don’t expect a climactic ski chase with Gar chasing the monster. Instead, you’ll see Gar ski by, and you’ll hear the monster growl. Oooooh! Scary!!!!

Yvette Mimieux plays Gar’s wife Ellen, who is a reporter who just happens to be an expert on Bigfoot. How convenient!

Robert Logan, known for his resemblance to Robert Wagner, plays Tony Rill, a ski patrolman who sort of represents Roy Scheider’s Chief Brody character, as he has the most common sense and takes the lead in the “we have to hunt down this beast” department.

And Clint Walker plays Sheriff Paraday, who at first refuses to believe that a Bigfoot-type creature is responsible for the murders, but he eventually changes his tune.

I liked all these characters. And they find themselves in a somewhat interesting storyline. Except that the titular monster doesn’t do his part and forgets to show up to terrorize these people!

And it’s these main characters who combine forces to take on the dreaded Snowbeast in the film’s conclusion, which would have been fun if only the director had decided to actually film some scenes featuring the friggin Snowbeast!

SNOWBEAST is a terrible monster movie, the type that is so bad you will find yourself laughing, out loud.

While the 1970s was a decade filled to the brim with topnotch made-for-TV horror movies, SNOWBEAST is not one of them, and it serves a reminder that while the 1970s produced many memorable horror films, it also produced disco and the leisure suit.

Up your nose with a rubber hose!

—END—

INFINITY POOL (2023) – Mia Goth Best Part of New Horror Movie by Writer/Director Brandon Cronenberg

0
Posted on by

INFINITY POOL (2023), the new horror movie from writer/director Brandon Cronenberg, the son of David Cronenberg, is reminiscent of the works of the elder Cronenberg. It feels like a movie written and directed by David Cronenberg.

It’s a disturbing horror movie, the type that will have you feeling uncomfortable and on edge throughout. So, for my horror friends who hold this criterion as the gold standard for horror movies, they will no doubt really enjoy INFINITY POOL. While I’m totally okay with a movie that is disturbing, I am a story guy, and so if a film struggles with its story, usually it’s not going to work for me. The story told in INFINITY POOL is intriguing to be sure, at least at first, but as it goes along, it becomes far less interesting.

The main reason I wanted to see INFINITY POOL wasn’t because of Brandon Cronenberg, but because the film starred Mia Goth, one of my favorite actresses working today, especially actresses in horror movies. Goth has made her mark in such horror films as A CURE FOR WELLNESS (2016), X (2022), and its prequel PEARL (2022). While the story in INFINITY POOL may not have completely worked for me, Mia Goth is once again phenomenal in this movie. The best part about Goth in these horror films is that she’s no scream queen. She’s the one making others scream. Which is really, really cool. And scary!

INFINITY POOL with its ability to disturb and disgust also reminded me a little bit of the movie MIDSOMMAR (2019), in that it tells a story about people dealing with horrors in a foreign land with people they don’t quite understand, and that it’s a slow burn of a descent for the main character. I enjoyed MIDSOMMAR more, as it had a tighter story, but the two films share a similar vibe, even though INFINITY POOL is less of a slow burn and more of a methodical journey into pain and despair.

In INFINITY POOL, struggling author James Foster (Alexander Skarsgard) and his wife Em (Cleopatra Coleman) are vacationing on a faraway island in the hopes that the time away will help James beat back his writer’s block. While there, James is approached by a young woman, Gabi (Mia Goth) who introduces herself as a fan of his first book. She invites James and Em to join her and her husband, Alban (Jalil Lespert) for dinner that evening. Dinner goes well, and Gabi and Alban next invite James and Em to join them for a ride to a secluded spot on the island. This is problematic because the island is extremely dangerous with a high crime rate against tourists, and so the resort forbids its guests to leave the premises. Em wants no part of this excursion, but James says he trusts the couple and convinces Em to take the trip.

Should have listened to your wife, James.

On the drive back, with James behind the wheel, they inadvertently strike and kill a man crossing the road. Em wants to call the police, but Gabi warns them that the police are corrupt, and if the law is called, the four of them will be arrested, the women raped, and they all will die. Gabi tells them to get back inside the car and that she and Alban will deal with everything in the morning. This plot point reminded me of a similar one in the movie THE FORGIVEN (2021), a much better movie by the way, where the same thing happens to characters played by Ralph Fiennes and Jessica Chastain. The events in THE FORGIVEN took a much more realistic and believable path than the one taken here in INFINITY POOL.

Anyway, the next day James and Em are arrested and separated in a police jail. James is informed that the penalty for what he did is death, but…and here comes the big plot point— the government on the island isn’t interested in executing tourists, but to keep the locals in line, the perception of the execution must be kept. So… on this island they have perfected the ability to create “imposters,” beings who look exactly like the convicted criminal, and then that person is executed. All of this of course comes at a high monetary cost, which is why the government does it. And one more thing. James and Em must watch the execution. Of course, panicked, alone, and afraid, James agrees.

After the execution, Em wants to leave the island as quickly as possible, but James can’t find his passport, and Gabi explains that if James joins her and her friends again, they will help him find his passport, which they believe the police have taken. James agrees.

So far, the plot has been genuinely intriguing, and it’s around this point that James learns from Gabi and her friends that they are free to do whatever they want on the island, commit whatever crime, regardless of how violent, because they know they will not be executed. As long as they have money to pay the government, they are home free. Someone else will be executed instead… hence, the infinity pool. And it’s here where the film sort of becomes a GROUNDHOG DAY for horror movies.

It’s also here where I started to lose interest. When Em learns about this, she is horrified, but strangely, James is not. The point here that the film seems to be making is that James would rather be with Gabi and her friends than his wife, who the film implies is kinda part of the reason he’s experiencing writer’s block. This decision is all well and good for James, but as things continue, I cared less and less about the character. I stopped being interested in going along for the ride with him, mostly because each crime leads to more pain and horror at his expense at the hands of Gabi and her friends. The story just becomes an exercise in how much misery can one man take yet still somehow be open for more of the same.

There’s one point where the question is raised about the possibility that the imposter replaces the original person, and it’s the original person who is executed, because the imposter also receives the original person’s memories. But as one character points out, since you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference, why does it even matter? This compelling plot point is touched upon only briefly and then sadly dismissed outright.

The result is that the second half of INFINITY POOL is much less compelling than its first half.

The best part of INFINITY POOL is for me Mia Goth. She’s terrific once again, and she makes Gabi quite the frightening woman. Gabi is the scariest part of this movie, mostly because she is a temptress, possessing the ability to convince James to trust her and pretty much do anything she wants him to do, and all of it is for her own satisfaction, with nothing at all to benefit him.

Alexander Skarsgard is also very good as James, although it ends up being a rather thankless role. The character becomes little more than a punching bag for Gabi and her buddies. He’s beaten to a pulp both literally and figuratively by film’s end. Which is another reason the second half of the film didn’t work as well for me. It was no fun watching a character get beat upon relentlessly and repeatedly. Even the fact that James chooses this fate doesn’t help. He purposely chooses to distance himself from his wife, which I get, but on the flip side, to keep agreeing with what Gabi was offering was frustrating to watch.

I can’t say I was a huge fan of the script by Brandon Cronenberg. It takes a rather clever concept and by film’s end doesn’t do a whole lot with it other than put its main character through hell. Cronenberg scores higher here as a director. The film works visually. Early on, you really get the feeling that these folks are in jeopardy in a foreign land. The sense of isolation, especially during the early scenes in the police jail, is palpable.

Later, when things get trippy, when Gabi introduces James to some island drugs, the film becomes appropriately dreamlike and nightmarish. There’s one sensual sequence in particular that is very effective, where Gabi and James start kissing, and an entire orgy seems to follow although one can’t quite tell what is real and what is imagined. Visually, I really enjoyed INFINITY POOL. The movie also scores highly for its ability to instill a sense of dread, foreboding, and disgust to its viewers. But its story doesn’t hold up all that well, nor does it go in a direction which takes full advantage of the possibilities it offers at the beginning.

INFINITY POOL for me therefore is a mixed bag.

I give it two and a half stars.

—END—

RATING SYSTEM

Four stars- Excellent

Three stars- Very Good

Two stars- Fair

One star- Poor

Zero Stars- Awful