Tag 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: 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—

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

KNOCK AT THE CABIN (2023) – M. Night Shyamalan’s Latest Intriguing but Not Intense

0
Posted on by

Acclaimed writer/director M. Night Shyamalan burst onto the scene with his super successful debut film THE SIXTH SENSE (1999), and in the years since has enjoyed an up and down career with a variety of hits and misses.

For me, most of Shyamalan’s movies have been misses, but when he’s on his game, and the story is as strong as his direction, and the film isn’t done in by a superficial plot twist, the results are pretty darn good.

KNOCK AT THE CABIN (2023), Shyamalan’s latest, fall into this latter category. It’s pretty darn good! And he’s helped here by superior source material, as the screenplay by Steve Desmond and Michael Sherman is based on the novel The Cabin at the End of the World by Paul Tremblay. Those of us from the New England horror community know Paul very well and are overjoyed that his writing is being adapted by Hollywood and turned into movies. Way to go, Paul!

So, KNOCK AT THE CABIN has a strong story, and M. Night Shyamalan does right by it.

KNOCK AT THE CABIN opens with a little girl Wen (Kristen Cui) playing alone in the woods catching grasshoppers, when she is approached by a very large yet softspoken stranger who introduces himself as Leonard (Dave Bautista). Although Wen tells Leonard she doesn’t talk to strangers, he has a gentle way about him, and soon they are talking. The conversation begins innocently enough, but when three other strangers arrive, Leonard tells Wen that they are there to talk to her and her parents and they are going to have to make a difficult choice, words that frighten Wen and cause her to run back to her cabin where she finds her two “dads,” Andrew (Ben Aldridge) and Eric (Jonathan Groff) and warns them that four strangers are on their way to the cabin.

Andrew and Eric immediately become alarmed when they see these four people at the door holding various sharp tools and weapons. Leonard asks to be let in, but Andrew and Eric refuse. Eventually, the four strangers force their way in, and after a scuffle, Andrew and Eric are tied to chairs and find themselves at the mercy of these four people. The two men immediately believe that they have been targeted because they are gay, but the softspoken Leonard assures them that is not the case, that they didn’t even know they were a same sex couple until they arrived at the cabin.

When Leonard starts speaking of shared visions that the four have had, and of the oncoming apocalypse which will wipe out all humanity, Andrew and Eric then believe that they have been overpowered by a group of religious fanatics. Things get worse when Leonard explains that the only way the apocalypse can be avoided is if there is a sacrifice, and that sacrifice will have to be made by Andrew, Eric, or Wen.

One life to save humanity.

While the story told in KNOCK AT THE CABIN is refreshing, in that it’s not about attacking a same sex couple because of extreme homophobia, and early on the audience is thinking the same thing that both Andrew and Eric are thinking, that they have been targeted because they are gay, it’s not without flaws. For starters, strangely, considering the premise, this movie is nowhere near as intensely disturbing as expected. Part of it is the plot itself. When Leonard goes on and on about the apocalypse, Andrew and Eric both think he and the others are simply crazy, and rightly so! I’m right there with them, as most others would be. Leonard and the three others are trying to convince Andrew and Eric to make an impossible sacrificial choice, but really, it’s not so impossible, because Andrew and Eric don’t believe it.

Unless you do this, the world will end!

Okay, I don’t believe you. So, we’re not doing it! End of story.

Also, the idea that Andrew and Eric have control over the decision is much less intense than if they had zero control, where the four strangers were going to do something horrible to them, but that’s not case. The point, of course, is the question, would you make that sacrifice for your fellow humans? The problem is there is no way that most folks here in 2023 are going to buy this premise. The apocalypse? I’ll wait till God shows up in person, thank you very much!

And neither Andrew or Eric ever ask the question, who is asking them to make this choice? God? Really? It makes no sense religiously. Sure, there are sacrifices throughout the Bible, but for Christians, at least, those sacrificial days are over, because of Jesus.

Also, as the movie goes on, Andrew begins to poke holes in their story and makes a strong and convincing argument that the four themselves are being manipulated by a group delusion and are experiencing a shared psychotic disorder, but the story doesn’t go there, and so at the end of the day, things are a bit murky, because what Andrew said made sense, and he even offers proof, but nothing comes of it.

Still, KNOCK AT THE CABIN is intriguing and enjoyable. It also features some solid acting performances.

Dave Bautista is perfect as Leonard, the gentle giant, who explains that he is an elementary school teacher and that one reason he is doing this is he doesn’t want his young students to die. Bautista has been fun as Drax in both the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY and THE AVENGERS movies, and he’s been memorable in a bunch of other movies as well, but his performance here in KNOCK AT THE CABIN is one of his best. The only knock against him… heh, heh!… is his consistent calm demeanor and the fact that he promises not to harm the family removes a heck of a lot of tension in this movie.

Ben Aldridge as Andrew, the more hot-headed of the two parents, and Jonathan Groff as Eric are also superb. They really make you care for these two guys, and that’s one of the more emotional parts of this movie. The audience really feels their love for each other and doesn’t want to see anything happen to either one of them. Groff of course is known for his work in HAMILTON (2020) and FROZEN (2013), but my favorite Jonathan Groff role remains his FBI character Holden Ford on the short-lived yet superior Netflix TV series, MINDHUNTER (2017-2019).

Rupert Grint, known to Harry Potter fans as Ron in the HARRY POTTER movies, is really good here as Redmond, the least balanced of the four strangers, and the one who makes the family the most uncomfortable. Nikki Amuka-Bird as Sabrina and Abby Quinn as Adriane round out the four strangers and do decent jobs in the roles.

The other phenomenal performance in this movie belongs to young Kristen Cui as Wen. Her expressions throughout this movie are perfect. One of the more intense scenes in the film is when the four strangers are intially at the door trying to get in, and the main reason for this intensity is Cui’s panicked cries for her parents to make these people go away.

On the other hand, another reason this film isn’t as disturbing as expected, is little Wen is largely shielded from all the horrors here. The film doesn’t go there, but if it had, it would have been really frightening.

M. Night Shyamalan keeps the camera tight on Dave Bautista, making him seem immense throughout. Bautista is gigantic in real life, so he doesn’t need much help to look bigger, but Shyamalan’s camerawork does just that. The most riveting scene in the movie and the one Shyamalan does his best work on is the sequence where Andrew makes a break for it and desperately tries to get his gun from the back of his car. Other than this sequence, the intensity is all rather low key.

That being said, I really enjoyed KNOCK AT THE CABIN. I wish it had been more frightening, and I wish there was more to its premise other than the derailing of the apocalypse, but the story was refreshing enough to hold my interest throughout.

I give it three stars.

—END—

RATING SYSTEM

Four stars- Excellent

Three stars- Very Good

Two stars- Fair

One star- Poor

Zero Stars- Awful

10 Worst Movies of 2022

0
Posted on by

It’s time now for a look back at the 10 worst movies I saw in 2022.

Here we go:

10. ORPHAN: FIRST KILL – this prequel to ORPHAN (2009), a horror movie I liked a lot, really isn’t all that bad; it’s just not all that good. It was fun to see Isabelle Fuhrman reprising the role of the dangerous “little girl” Esther, especially since Fuhrman’s no longer a “little girl” in real life, which meant the use of some forced perspective and a body double. This one has a brand-new plot twist, but overall, simply doesn’t work all that well. Two stars.

9. MONSTROUS – tepid horror movie starring Christina Ricci as a mom who flees with her seven-year-old son from an abusive husband. She moves into a new house and unfortunately, she has to deal with a supernatural presence there. Not awful by any means, but also simply not a lot going on here. Twist at end is predictable. Two stars.

8. THE BUBBLE – This comedy by writer/director Judd Apatow takes a fun concept— a group of actors stuck together at a hotel when their movie production shuts down because of a pandemic— and does little with it. More silly than funny, with just a few good laughs here and there. Two stars.

7. BLONDE – for me, the most disappointing movie from 2022. This Netflix film features an Oscar-nominated performance by one of my favorite actors, Ana de Armas, as Marilyn Monroe. Ana de Armas is indeed terrific, but the story is based on “imaginings” of Monroe’s life, as the screenplay is based on the novel by Joyce Carol Oates, and so events unfold here in Monroe’s life that simply didn’t happen. There’s a brutal scene, for example, showing JFK treating her horribly, yet it didn’t happen. I just found the story elements here head-scratchers. Andrew Dominik’s direction doesn’t help, as this nearly three-hour movie is clunky and uneven. Onr and a half stars.

6. WHITE NOISE – Weird, confusing movie with a script in which nobody seems to make sense when they talk. Funny premise and interesting cast led by Adam Driver and Greta Gerwig are wasted in this unfunny story about a family who for one third of the movie are faced with a seemingly apocalyptic event, but this “event” wraps up neat and tidy long before this one ends. And then the film goes on about something else. One and a half stars.

5. DAY SHIFT – pretty awful horror comedy starring Jamie Foxx as a modern day vampire hunter. Not funny, not scary, and action scenes don’t wow. Dave Franco plays one of the more pathetic characters I’ve seen in a movie in years. Pretty forgettable stuff. One and a half stars.

4.CHOOSE OR DIE – horror movie starring Asa Butterfield about an evil video game from the 1980s which can alter reality, and it uses this power to force its player to make horrific choices, to harm people around them or die themselves, hence the title, Choose or die. Sounds better than it is. Very little of what happens makes sense, and the horror scenes aren’t as scary as they should be. Most inspiring bit in the movie is the casting of Robert Englund as himself, as he provides the voice on the promos for the video game. Sadly, Englund doesn’t actually appear in the movie. One star.

3. VIOLENT NIGHT -David Harbour playing Santa Claus in a Santa Claus action/comedy. What’s not to like? Actually, a lot of things, mostly a story that features some of the most unlikable characters in a movie I’ve seen in years, and we’re supposed to care about these people when they find themselves held hostage by a baddie who goes by the name of Scrooge? A disgruntled Santa decides to save the day. While Harbour is very good, and John Leguizamo is even better as the villain, mostly because he plays things straight, the film ends up being a cross between HOME ALONE and DIE HARD, with very unfavorable results. One star.

2.BARBARIAN – some folks really liked this horror movie. I wasn’t one of them. It’s not an anthology film, but its one plot is divided into three segments. The first one starring Georgina Campbell and Bill Skarsgard is by far the best, and so the film gets off to a very scary start, but things change in the second segment starring Justin Long, as the entire tone of the film shifts to something much lighter and offbeat, and then for the third and final segment, which wraps everything up, things fall completely apart. You really have to suspend disbelief to buy into some of the plot points here. One star.

1. UNCHARTED – My pick for the worst movie of the year is the film I enjoyed the least. This silly action-adventure comedy pairs Tom Holland and Mark Wahlberg as fellow treasure hunters seeking treasure. The script is ludicrous, the inane banter nonstop, and the plot, well everything these two knuckleheads do works, and so there’s no adversity or conflict, just banter, banter, and more banter. Have I said there was banter in this movie? One long snooze of a movie. Unless, of course, you like… banter. One star.

There you have it. My list of the 10 Worst Films from 2022. Overall, 2022 wasn’t really a bad year for movies. There were far more movies that I liked than I disliked this year,

Okay, let’s get back to 2023! See you at the movies!

As always, thanks for reading!

—Michael

RATING SYSTEM

Four stars- Excellent

Three stars- Very Good

Two stars- Fair

One star- Poor

Zero Stars- Awful

IN THE SPOOKLIGHT: THE CHANGELING (1980)

0
Posted on by

Here’s a reprint of a column I wrote back in 2016:

I first saw THE CHANGELING way back when I was in high school.  It was a late night showing on HBO, and I gotta tell you, it creeped me out.  At the time, other than THE EXORCIST (1973), no other horror movie had gotten under my skin like this one.

So, I was very excited the other day to finally see THE CHANGELING again  on DVD, since I hadn’t seen it in years.  And while I have to admit that it didn’t scare me like it did back in the early 80s when I first saw it, it remains a first-rate horror movie.

It’s the type of horror movie that I love:  an A-list cast, talented director, and a sense of seriousness that lifts it above standard horror fare.  In short, it’s a high-quality movie.

THE CHANGELING opens with a tragedy:  composer John Russell (George C. Scott) watches helplessly as his wife and daughter are killed in a freak car accident.  In an effort to rebuild his life, Russell moves across the country, from New York City to the suburbs of Seattle.  He moves into a mansion, a quiet home where he hopes to be able to work on his music in solitude.

He soon begins hearing strange noises at night, noises that lead him to discover a secret room, and inside this room he finds a tiny wheelchair and other items belonging to a child.  Russell soon realizes that there is a ghost in his house, a ghost of a child, and this ghost isn’t trying to frighten him away but on the contrary is trying to communicate with him.  Russell wonders if perhaps the reason this spirit is seeking him might be connected to the fact that he lost his daughter at a young age.

Russell begins to investigate the history of the house, and what he learns leads him to the wealthy U.S. Senator Joseph Carmichael (Melvyn Douglas) who once lived in Russell’s house as a child.  Russell finds himself caught in the middle of a conflict, with supernatural forces on one side, and the power of a U.S. Senator on the other.

THE CHANGELING is a well-made, creepy and haunting horror movie that certainly belongs in the conversation when discussing the best haunted house/ghost story movies ever made.

Director Peter Medak does a wonderful job here.  The scenes in the house are creepy and atmospheric, and he makes full use of some truly memorable images.  A simple child’s wheelchair has never been so eerie.  Likewise, he uses the child’s voice to full effect and there are some shocking scenes as well, like one involving a bathtub.  The film also looks great.  It looks like something Hammer would have done had they still been in business in 1980 and had moved on to contemporary tales.

Peter Medak has a ton of credits, most of them TV credits, including episodes of SPACE 1999 (1976-77), HOUSE (2004), BREAKING BAD (2009), and HANNIBAL (2013-14), among many, many others.

THE CHANGELING boasts an A-List cast, led by the great George C. Scott, who does a bang-up job here as a man still in grief over the loss of his wife and daughter.  He makes John Russell believable as he channels his grief into helping the child ghost.  You understand why Russell becomes so committed to the ghost’s plight, as he sees it as his job as a parent— especially a parent whose daughter was taken from him at a young age— to help this child who when alive had no one to help him.

And while George C. Scott is remembered as a star actor who worked on such powerful films as PATTON (1970), he was actually no stranger to genre films as he made several in his career, including the science fiction thriller THE DAY OF THE DOLPHIN (1973), Stephen King’s FIRESTARTER (1984), the TV movie THE MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE (1986), and the third EXORCIST movie, THE EXORCIST III (1990).

Likewise, veteran actor Melvyn Douglas adds class to the proceedings as Senator Carmichael.  THE CHANGELING was the first of back-to-back ghost story movies which Douglas made just before his death in 1981, as he also starred in Peter Straub’s GHOST STORY (1981), his final screen credit.

And while Douglas enjoyed a long and varied film career spanning five decades, he began and ended his career with horror films, as he also starred in THE OLD DARK HOUSE (1932) with Boris Karloff, Charles Laughton, Ernest Thesiger, and Gloria Stuart, and in THE VAMPIRE BAT (1933) with Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, and Dwight Frye.

Scott’s real-life wife and frequent co-star Trish Van Devere appears as real estate agent Claire Norman who helps John with his investigation.  She’s very good in the role.  THE CHANGELING was the eighth time Van Devere and George C. Scott starred in a movie together. Trish Van Devere is still with us, as at present, she is 75.

And in another SPACE 1999 connection, Barry Morse appears briefly as a psychologist.  Morse is probably most famous for his role as Lieutenant Philip Gerard on the TV show THE FUGITIVE (1963-1967) but genre fans remember him fondly as Professor Victor Bergman on the science fiction show SPACE 1999 (1975-76).  Morse also appeared in the Amicus anthology horror movie ASYLUM (1972) starring Peter Cushing.

William Gray and Diana Maddox wrote the screenplay, based on a story by Russell Hunter.  Gray also wrote the screenplay for the original PROM NIGHT (1980) starring Jamie Lee Curtis. The screenplay here for THE CHANGELING is far superior to the silly slasher story of PROM NIGHT.

THE CHANGELING will creep you out in the same way that the modern-day PARANORMAL ACTIVITY movies do but with the added bonus of also delivering a solid story, something the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY movies have never done.  And that’s what sets THE CHANGELING apart from a lot of other horror movies.  It does something that most horror films do not do, and that is it generates scares and creates a sense of eeriness without skimping on its story.  In fact, the story just might be the strongest part of this film.

THE CHANGELING is one of the best movies of its type.  And while I didn’t find it quite as scary as I did way back in the early 80s, it still holds up very well today. In fact, if you’ve never seen it and you’re watching it for the first time, you might not want to watch it alone.  Just sayin’.

—END—