Review: Wake Up Dead Man (2025)

I can see what made this movie divisive.  It's much less a comedy than the previous Benoit Blanc movies (those being Knives Out and Glass Onion), it has much less of beloved detective (I'd have to see official - or unofficial -  screen times to confirm, but I'd say that Daniel Craig's onscreen presence is drastically lower than Josh O'Connor and possibly on par with the larger supporting performances in this same film), and I'd say it has some of the most uneven acting of the franchise (though I will go into specifics on that later in the review).  However, this slight deviation from the norm works incredibly well in my opinion.  It's too early to save if this is my favorite in the series, but it certainly can make a case for the most compelling.

We start this movie with narration from Pastor Jud Duplenticy (O'Connor) as he tells the audience how he came to be the associate pastor at Our Lady of Perpetual Fortitude under Monsignor Jefferson Wicks (Josh Brolin).  We see the young pastor arrive and how Jefferson treats Jud - not very kindly - as well as Jud's attempt to meet and get to know the church 'clique' played by Jeremy Renner, Glenn Close, Kerry Washington, Thomas Haden Church, Andrew Scott, Cailee Spaeny, and Daryl McCormack.  We also quickly learn that this clique are, by Jefferson Wicks's design, pretty much the only attendees of the church as he chases out any new parishioners and that they, like Jefferson, view Jud as an outsider who doesn't belong.

These introductory scenes are where we first get our discrepancies in performance: O'Connor is actually quite brilliant in all of his interactions, but while some rise to his performance - notably Close and Scott - the rest fall between satisfactory and uninspired.  Writer/director Rian Johnson has generally been fairly good at casting actors to inhabit the satirical character archetypes for these movies, but the more serious timbre of this movie makes these early scenes feel misplaced, both in performance and tone.  It doesn't derail the movie in any way, but it certainly prepares the audience for something more akin to the previous films instead of what this one ultimately ends up being.

Eventually, we get to our murder (for what good is a whodunnit if there isn't a murder to be solved?) and Blanc enters the story.  The movie prevents itself as something of a locked door mystery: the character who dies does so in a room with only a single entrance, and all of our suspects are either in the pews of the church or clearly visible to those populating the pews.  One can make an educated guess - I was only partly correct with mine - on who is guilty, but the movie takes its time getting to the reveal.  In a subversion of the usual storytelling of this series, not only do we get Jud working with Blanc fairly early, but we spend most of that time watching what amounts to a character study of a young priest grappling with guilt (though, minor spoiler, not the guilt of this specific murder) and trying to hold on to a faith that has been tested and is wavering in the face of an impossible situation.

I think that switch from the formula, more than any other, plays into the reception this movie has received.  I loved it.  It helps that O'Connor gives what may be the best performance not just of this movie, but of the series - and I only hesitate in definitively saying it is the best because I want more time to sit on this film before making such a claim.  But while the previous 'assistants' to Blanc have had their own inner lives, we never saw one laid this bare for us, the audience, to see.  And as it deals with personal faith - always a touchy subject - I can very easily see it making some uncomfortable.

Now, I alluded to the inconsistency of the rest of the cast earlier, and I do want to get into the specifics of what I think went wrong, but I do want to say that only one of these performances do I consider to be a bad performance.  Most are perfectly adequate for the film, but they do not rise to the masterclass that O'Connor is giving, which makes them stand out.

First, the performances that did meet that level:  Glenn Close, Andrew Scott, and Daniel Craig.  Craig, though given less of the focus than he normally does, still finds new shades and twists to Blanc, and it never feels like this is a new person with the same name.  Close gives a devoted and rigid performance - watch the way she carries herself in various scenes and you will notice all the subtle ways she displays her character's emotions.  Scott, given far less than the other two, still feels like the most realistic of the  archetypes; an almost mundane awfulness that fits the tonal shift far better than the others.

Kerry Washington and Daryl McCormack hit the archetypes well, they just don't fit into this movie.  Drop them into Knives Out or Glass Onion, and they would be great, but this movie calls for a little bit more in the performance and neither quite hits that mark.  They feel a bit too large for what this movie needs.  On the opposite end, Mila Kunis (as the local police chief) isn't playing an archetype, but almost fails to be a character entirely for lack of anything noteworthy for her to do.  She's fine, but you could grab any other half dozen actresses and their performance wouldn't deviate from hers in any way.  Kunis has proven how electric she can be onscreen - Black Swan proved that - but this script doesn't give her much to stretch those acting chops on.

Spaeny and Church both have that room to breath that Kunis was missing, but they underplay it a bit too much.  Both are closer to the 'real' performance of Scott, but don't quite punch it up enough when they need to.  Again, neither are bad, they just feel like they are missing something.

Josh Brolin as Jefferson though is the most frustrating of the performances though.  He is so good at so much of the performance:  the bullying, the mind games, the manipulations, the self righteousness - all of it is perfectly played.  It just lacks charisma.  I can see that character doing everything that he does, I just don't see how he gets a devoted clique out of it.  It's Jim Jones without the magnetism, and the performance desperately needs that missing piece.  It's constantly on the cusp of brilliant except for that one missing piece.

Now, the bad performance:  Jeremy Renner.  I don't know what happened here, but it is easy to imagine he wandered onto the set, did a single take, then packed it in for the day.  The characterization is weirdly inconsistent - it's hard to point to any particular moment in the movie where two of his scenes feel like the same character.  Renner is capable of being great, but this message isn't just phoned in - it's a partially erased message on the answering machine.  Bridget Everett - as a two-scene, mostly vocal performance - does more in her 5 minutes of screentime than Renner does with an embarrassment of opportunities.  A totally misjudged performance.

Outside of the performances, this movie continues the franchise's streak of great production design.  The church and rectory both feel very real, and we spend a large amount of time in them without them ever feeling fake.  Not only that, but the levels of both are used incredibly well to keep the movie dynamic in what would read as a static setting.

So, even as I write this, I see how I go back and forth between praise and criticism, between joy and exasperation: this movie is contradictory, but in the best way.  I will not judge anyone who doesn't enjoy it, but the various faults of this movie only serve to make the bright spots shine even brighter.

8 out of 10

Review: Jaws 2 (1978)

So, here's the thing, I think we, as a society, are too hard on this movie.  There are two reasons for this:  The first is that it is a sequel to one of the greatest movies ever made - one that doesn't really need a sequel.  When you are following up a stone cold classic there is a high bar to be met, and Jaws 2 does not meet that bar.  It doesn't even get close, but what movie could?  Many a sequel has met a similar fate.  The Lost World: Jurassic Park immediately comes to mind as another sequel treated harshly and, like Jaws 2, later sequels would prove that it could've been much, much worse.

The second reason, and far more relevant to this review, is that the is no credible way to do this sequel and not stretch the bounds of believability.  The audience can very easily believe that somewhere another giant shark starts terrorizing a beach community.  If you really want characters from the first film to return, it isn't too much to have them contacted and brought in to assist against this new threat.  They could have easily made this movie make sense with a few changes to the script.

Instead, we get the very same community again facing a giant shark, the very same leadership refusing to believe that there is a shark, and the very same family having to defeat said shark to save the day.  And I get it.  You want Roy Scheider to return after his absolutely iconic performance as Martin Brody in the original.  Lorraine Gary is the wife of the (at-the-time) president of the studio, so bringing her back to make sure the budget is where it needs to be makes sense (she also is great as Ellen Brody).  Having filmed in the area before gives familiarity to those behind the camera.  I understand why certain choices were made.

But damn do those choices hobble this movie in substantial ways that can't really be overcome.  I will still argue for its value as far as the movie-watching experience is concerned.  It is a perfectly fine movie and it has some pretty great scenes scattered throughout even if it never reaches the highs of the original.  It just needed to be completely divorced from the original to be judged fairly, but the screenplay makes that an impossible task.  The movie as it exists is so tied to the previous one that any attempt to comment on it without bringing up its predecessor is a herculean task.

To expand on the summary from above:  Another shark starts terrorizing Amity Island, with it initially killing two divers photographing the sunken boat from the first movie.  They just so happen to get shots of the shark during the attack, and when Brody finds the camera and gets the photos developed, he immediately sees the shark and wants to shut down the beaches.  And no one believes him.

And we have already hit the point where the audience is collectively saying "Are you fucking serious?!"  It's such a dumb plot point.  If you excise this from the movie - maybe just have Brody continue to be suspicious after the earlier deaths in the film, then develop the pictures and immediately go to rescue his two sons.  You've removed the dumbest part of the plot and made it ten times more believable as far as ridiculous sequels go.  Maybe slide in another random attack if length is a concern, but this ostracization of Brody is unnecessary.

Because if you ignore that subplot (and I highly recommend you do), you have a modestly effective killer creature film.  The early attack on the skier and the boat driver is well done, as is the later attack on the sail boating teenagers.  I'd say the latter scene is the movie at its best as it captures the terror and confusion inherent in such an attack, along with setting up the flotilla of crashed boats that leaves them stranded.  The scene where they try to save an unconscious Mike Brody (Mark Gruner, who I am not ashamed to say I had a huge crush on when I was younger) is incredibly tense.

One can certainly argue that this is a slasher movie with a shark as the killer, but even by that standard, it is perfectly fine.  You get just enough fleshing out of the teenagers to be able to separate them from one another.  Scheider as Brody is a solid actor who carries the film well despite absolutely hating the script and production, with a fight breaking out between him and director Jeannot Szwarc.

While Jaws is an easy recommend, I'm a bit more ambivalent on this one.  I enjoy it, and think it is unfairly maligned, but I can't really argue with people who think the plot is stupid (since it is for large parts) or that it can never live up to the first film (also a legitimate complaint).  I'd guess I'd recommend it with the mentality of treating it as a purely popcorn flick:  Don't take it too seriously and just have fun.

7 out of 10

Review: The Faculty (1998)

Tonight's movie was not supposed to be The Faculty: The plan had been to watch Night of the Comet, a borderline horror film from 1984.  However, issues with the Blu-ray player forced me into a streaming solution, so this film was quickly slotted in.  Thus, I ended up with the second movie from 1998 to feature Josh Hartnett (after the previously-reviewed Halloween H20, his debut film).

This movie is a combination of The Thing, The Breakfast Club, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers: partly homage (there is a decapitated head that crawls across the ground that couldn't be anything but) and partly a twist on those various movies' formulas.  And it is a fun twist on them.  It doesn't rewrite any of the genres it is pulling from, but it does use the tropes wisely.

The plot: Aliens are invading a small town by sticking parasites inside the brains of various people, with them starting at the local high school.  Various students (played by Elijah Wood, Josh Hartnett, Jordana Brewster, Clea DuVall, Shawn Hatosy, and Laura Harris) realize that something weird is going on and work to stop the invasion.

Now, in case you didn't notice, that is quite a stacked cast for our students.  It also extends to the titular faculty, with Robert Patrick, Piper Laurie, Bebe Neuwirth, Famke Janssen, Jon Stewart, and Salma Hayak.  How this movie got such a cast, I cannot say (did director Robert Rodriguez have that much pull post-From Dusk till Dawn?), but it definitely works in the film's favor.  Most of these actors could play these roles in their sleep, but everyone is 100% committed to the characters they are playing.  Patrick, in particular, is having a blast as the asshole football coach.

If I am going to criticize any aspect of the script, it would be that the students figure out the basics of the aliens far too fast.  Part of that is because of the runtime of 104 minutes (precious little time given how many characters there are), but it would've been nice if the discovery of weaknesses/anatomy were discovered by accident or happenstance.  Even with the caveat of the smartest one being a drug dealer who makes his own drugs (to give him science credibility, I guess?), it reads as a bit forced.

To keep this review relatively short (compared to my other reviews) this is a fun little time capsule and an above-average teen horror flick.  An easy recommend

7 out of 10

Review: The Relic (1997)

The Relic follows Dr. Margo Green (Penelope Ann Miller), an evolutionary biologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and Det. Vincent D'Agosta (Tom Sizemore), a lieutenant with the Chicago Police Department, as a strange series of killings occur in and around the museum.  The killings are especially brutal, with entire brains removed from the head - and the full brain is never recovered.  What could be doing such a thing?

A monster, to answer that question.  For The Relic is a creature feature, one where the creature is partly played by the best CGI 1997 had to offer (so, very dated as of 2025) and partly played by a creature designed by the legendary Stan Winston that has aged very well.  The movie makes you wait a long time for a full shot of the creature - possibly too long, given that we know there is a monster about long before the characters do - but once it is revealed, it is quite a site to behold.

The creature is one of the main reasons I chose to revisit this movie after having not seen it in many years.  It's an inventive design, an amalgamation of multiple animals that - at least in the practical appearances - blend into a familiar yet otherworldly monster that feels truly threatening.  It's a bummer when the CGI takes over (though it is above average for the time period) because that loss of weight to the creature really takes you out of the movie.

But back to our plot:  Our cold open shows us Dr. John Whitney (Lewis Van Bergen) interacting with a tribe in Brazil.  This tribe gives him something strange to drink, which appears to affect him both physically and mentally.  We then cut to him desperately trying to get his cargo off of a ship before it leaves and being refused.  Why does he need that cargo so badly?  We won't find out until near the end of the movie, so buckle up.

The movie plays at being a mystery for a good chunk of the first half of the movie, which is the weaker half by far.  Most of this time is spent with Vincent and his partner as they try to figure out what is going on (and he seems to be the only one that realizes something especially weird is going on).  We do break away from him to see Margo and her museum adventures (namely: checking out some weird fungus on the leaves sent to them by Dr. Whitney), but mostly we are waiting for the two storylines to converge as the plot spins its wheels far too long with subplots from the book that don't really have any bearing on the main story.

At least it is well acted.  Miller and Sizemore both carry the film easily without ever feeling like they are above the material.  You also have Linda Hunt, James Whitmore, and Chi Muoi Lo providing vivid characterization in their supporting roles (Lo, in particular, plays an annoying sleazeball incredibly well).  Even the bit parts have some nice moments scattered throughout.  It helps keep the movie entertaining before we get to the monster, which is a good thing since the plot meanders a bit.

Once the monster reveals itself - during the big exhibition on Superstition, to make sure things are already as creepy as possible - it's basically a race to see who will survive and who will escape (and how will they defeat the monster) until the finale.  While I might sound blasé about it, the use of the exhibit is one of the strongest bits of production design in the film.  It allows the film to be purposely dark and sets a great tone going into the final act of the film.

Would I recommend this film?  Yes.  It's a bit dated in the graphics, but it works really well as a creature feature, and it is worth it for the practical version of the monster.  It doesn't rewrite the genre, but it is a fine way to spend a couple of hours.

7 out of 10

Review: The Black Scorpion (1957)

The Black Scorpion follows a pair of geologists, Drs. Hank Scott and Arturo Ramos (Richard Denning and Carlos Rivas) as they go to investigate a new volcano that has formed in Mexico.  Along the way, the meet and have Teresa Alvarez (Mara Corday) join them, and also discover that prehistoric giant scorpions have been released by the volcano and are terrorizing the countryside.

So, I kind of love this movie?  It's such a weird juxtaposition of plotlines and acting.  Once the giant scorpions make their appearance, you'd expect that to dominate the plot.  The script has other ideas though, as we spend far to much time (soooo much time) on the romance plot between Hank and Teresa.  Like, they go out for an extended dinner scene at one point.  While the threat of giant scorpions is still present.

The scorpions are a mix of three different movie techniques: overlaying an actual scorpion over the film footage (also used in parts of Empire of the Ants); stop-motion animation done by Peter Peterson - who worked on The Giant Behemoth - and supervised by Willis O'Brien of King Kong fame (the 1933 version); and a scorpion 'head' to use for close up/reaction shots.  Which I will let speak for itself

Who expected the movie poster to be so spot on?

The stop motion effects are actually very, very good.  I'd say they are better and more realistic than some of the CGI used in movies today, and that's probably about a third of the reason this movie lives on today (the other half being its appearance on MST3K).  While the budget was greatly reduced here vs their other movies, they still worked some magic for the scorpion scenes.

But back to the script:  For as destructive as these scorpions are (and as large, they can easily pick up and flip a tank) there is precious little urgency from our main characters.  Even as they themselves are fleeing the creatures, it's played more as a mild inconvenience than something life-threatening.  Normally I'd complain about the introduction of a child to up the stakes, but thank God they did or our main characters would never have felt urgency.

That lack of urgency does cause the movie to drag at points, but there is enough destruction scattered throughout that it never feels too long.  It definitely gives the audience a pretty stellar final battle with the biggest of the scorpions.  But even that scene has a moment of weirdly lackadaisical delivery and an inadvertently hilarious setback for the characters.

Can I recommend this film?  Yes, with the caveat that it is probably best watched with friends and mockery ready to go.  Don't take this movie seriously - have fun with it.

It's really a 4 out of 10, but I'll give it a bonus point for the chuckles I got mocking it.

5 our of 10

Review: Halloween H20: Twenty Years Later (1998)

My main goal with this month's horror movies has been to watch movies I had never seen before.  Or, failing that, had not watched since I was a child.  This was mostly successful, sans three of the movies (Psycho, Psycho, and Clown in a Cornfield all failed both criteria, though the latter Psycho was probably the closest to meeting my criteria).  However, sometimes you just want a comfort watch, and while Halloween H20 (I am dropping the unnecessary and stupid 20 Years Later) isn't a masterpiece, it's nice to go into one of these films knowing exactly what to expect.

Directed by Steve Miner - who also directed the second and third Friday the 13th films, along with producing Dawson's Creek - seems an odd choice.  With more experience with the pre-Scream slashers, there is a bit of rough edges to his work on one filled with 90s cynicism and irony.  He does a fine job - I'd say there are two scenes that are absolutely stellar from a horror perspective - but there feels like a lack of enthusiasm for the project.

The film famously was the first starring role of Josh Hartnett - getting a special 'Introducing' credit - though he isn't given much to do once Michael Myers reaches the school where he and his mother, Headmistress Tate (Jamie Lee Curtis) - actually Laurie Strode with a faked death and name change - attend and work.  It's mostly the Jamie Lee Curtis show, though her and Hartnett do get some nice scenes together during the plot establishment part of the movie.

That plot: 20 years after the first two movies (four, five, and six are erased from this timeline), Laurie Strode has son and severe PTSD.  She drinks heavily, especially around Halloween, and is overprotective of her child.  He has just turned 17 and has grown tired of this, and after Laurie initially refuses to let him go on a school trip to Yosemite, he makes plans with his girlfriend Molly (Michelle Williams) and friends Charlie and Sarah (Adam Hann-Byrd and Jodi Lyn O'Keefe) to have an impromptu Halloween party.

At the same time, Michael Myers (played by stuntman Chris Durand) has broken into the now-dead Dr. Loomis's house and killed Marion (Nancy Stephens, reprising her role from the original) and stealing all of Loomis's information on Laurie.  Two neighbors of Marion also get killed, including actual 17-year-old (at the time) Joseph Gordon-Levitt in what may have been a surprise cameo?  Either way, it is fun to see him kick the bucket before the opening credits.

Michael uses the stolen information to get to Laurie, people die, there really isn't anything new to the plot once we get to this point.  There's some weird humor in the film - I think an attempt to be hip where they fail horrendously.  They are much more successful in the many homages to other horror films - Janet Leigh appearing as a secretary whose first line is complaining about a clogged shower, Laurie telling John (Hartnett) 'to go to the McKenzies' - but if someone complained about too many references, I wouldn't be arguing too strongly against them.

Despite its flaws, this might be the best film in the series after the first two.  The 2018 legacy sequel could've made a claim before the second and third films retroactively made it worse, so H20 - flaws and all - continues to hold that title.

Would I recommend it?  Only if you want more Halloween after finishing the first two films.  I'd definitely recommend skipping all of the other sequels and remakes (though I have not seen the infamous Halloween III that does not feature Myers in any way) and stopping with this one.

6.5 out of 10

Review: House on Haunted Hill (1959)

Does one even need to give a summation of House on Haunted Hill?  So much of it is part of the popular lexicon that it only seems necessary because of how often it gets confused with The Haunting due to that movie being based off of The Haunting of Hill House.  To give a quick recap: Millionaire Frederick Loren (played by legend Vincent Price) rents a supposedly haunted house and invites five guests to join him and his wife for a party, with a reward for anyone who makes it through the night without leaving (or dying).

The Lorens (wife Annabelle is played by Carol Ohmart) do not like each other: She finds him overly possessive and jealous and he believes her to have attempted to murder him by poison earlier in their marriage.  With that information - and the reveal that none of the invitees have ever met the Lorens or each other before - we get into the party.

I'll be honest: Most of these characters only exist to give the more interesting characters someone to talk to or to provide exposition.  Vincent Price is a legend and gives the film its best acting, but Ohmart gives an absolutely delicious performance as his scheming wife.  Any scene that features one of them commands your attention.  Carolyn Craig, (as Nora Manning, an employee of Frederick) is the designated screamer in this film - the character is the one with the most supernatural encounters - but she provides a decent amount of shading for an underwritten character.  Once you get past those three characters, there isn't much to write about, not because anyone is bad, but because the movie moves quickly through its plot (it is a short 75 minutes) so we don't get much time with anyone else.

I think most of the modern audience would find the film cheesy - and make no mistake, it is - but part of why it feels so cliche is because of how many of them it likely set.  Hell, it might've been full of cliches at the time (though its positive reviews suggest it was a rather fresh take on horror) but because of how much it's survived in the public consciousness while others from the same time period have faded.

An interesting fact: The film was released with the 'Emergo' gimmick, where a skeleton would fly above the audience during a certain scene.  If a revival screening ever happens near me and includes that, I would be hard pressed to find a reason to skip it.

While the movie does build some tension, having multiple plot shifts in such a short film does make some parts feel rushed.  Again, everything works, but like the characters, certain arcs don't feel like they get enough attention; details are dropped of a larger narrative but none of it is explored beyond the hinting.

I'd still give this movie an easy recommend (it is vastly superior to - and somehow less dated than - the 1999 remake), especially if you want to check out some older horror films.  In fact, prior to my watching this film, I had never seen Vincent Price in a horror film, having only seen him in Edwards Scissorhands and hearing him as the voice of Ratigan in The Great Mouse Detective.  He's one of the greats of the genre, and it was genuinely enjoyable to see him in his element.

7 out of 10