Review: Ernest Scared Stupid (1991)

There was a time, not so long ago, that I would've trashed this movie.  Not in a fun, I-still-love-this way, but in a I Am A Serious Movie Reviewer way.  And, to be sure, there are criticisms I can make about this movie.  But doing so is somewhat missing the forest for the trees, you know?  I shouldn't be treating this as if it wanted to Change Cinema - I should review it on the movie's own terms.  While that won't mean it gets a higher score than it deserves, it does give it a better one for meeting it where it is at.

Ernest Scared Stupid follows Ernest P. Worrell, the Jim Varney character of a many a film in the 90s, as he and the children of Briarville, Missouri fight off the troll Trantor (Erne Fosselius as the voice, Jonas Moscartolo in the costume), who was accidentally reawakened by Ernest.  And let me tell you, somehow it always surprises me that this movie is set in Missouri of all places.  I guess it feels like it should be a state further south, given the Ernest character?  Or maybe in the northeast where there is more of a history of this sort of thing?  It doesn't really affect the story, but it still seems so weird for it to be there.

Anyway, the only person who appears to know anything about how to defeat the troll is Old Lady Hackmore - such a perfectly Halloween-themed name - played by Eartha Kitt, who is the only performer on the same wavelength as Varney, and is thus the best performance in the movie by a country mile.

The movie is a surprisingly fleet 89 minutes, with credits, and because of this it does not putter around, plotwise.  The troll is freed fairly early, almost immediately gets one of what we think are the main kids, and starts wrecking havoc with no one believing Ernest regarding the cause.  The movie does give time to the children (somewhat to its detriment, as the acting from them and the parents is dodgy from scene to scene), but spends more time with Varney as Ernest, doing many of the riffs the character was famous for.  Much like the lazier Robin Williams movies, how well you can tolerate this movie depends on how tired of these familiar beats you get.

I don't get tired of them, and the best scenes of the movie involve the use of them, so I tolerate it pretty well.  Varney gives the performance so much energy that it is hard for me not to vibe with what the character is doing, even if it is ridiculous.  Highlights include a completely cuttable scene involving a bear trap that would've been devastating to lose and a battle with the troll on a moving vehicle being driven by Ernest's dog Rimshot (played by Barkley, a Jack Russell terrier).  The scenes work because of the mugging, not in spite of it.

Watching this has become a Halloween tradition, and I'm glad I didn't let potential snobbery prevent me from loving it, despite all of its flaws.

6 out of 10, but a fun 6 out of 10

Review: Wildwood (2026)

Are you familiar with the concept of patronage as concerned with the arts?  It was a model where wealthy individuals, or institutions like the church or government, would provide financial support, housing, and commissions to artists, musicians, etc.  While their generally was a request regarding quality of materials or dimensions or subject matter, there was no expectation that the patron would obtain money from the artist's work.  Instead, the reward was prestige: art was used to display wealth, influence, or even piety for the patron and the artist had their status elevated over time and were eventually considered respected intellectuals.

While patronage has changed over the years - nowadays it is primarily the government or corporations that do the patronage - the value of it is incalculable, as many great works are the result of it, and we have a modern masterpiece from Laika in the form of Wildwood, their newest movie.  Laika is the passion project of Travis Knight, son of Nike cofounder Phil Knight, and this combination of nepotism and patronage has already given us multiple stop-motion animated classics, with Travis Knight directing this $100 million dollar movie that will likely never make that money back, but will hopefully be remembered as one of the best movies of 2026, if not the best movie of 2026.

And my God, do you see every single dollar of that 100 million on the screen.  This movie is beautiful in a way that harkens back to the best of hand-drawn Disney animation  From the mysterious opening in the home of the Dowager Governess Alexandra (Carey Mulligan, almost giving the movie its best vocal performance, coming in second amongst a plethora of excellent voice acting), to the titular Wildwood our main characters find themselves in, to the modern streets of Portland, Oregon, the amount of detail that went into every single scene more than justifies the price tag.

The movie is epic in the traditional sense.  We go on a hero's journey with Prue (Peyton Elizabeth Lee, giving the best vocal performance of this talented group) as she seeks to save her brother Mac (Arthur Knight) after a murder of crows absconds with him into the Wildwood.  With her is Curtis (Jacob Tremblay), a not-quite-friend who inadvertently ends up on his own journey within the wood after going with Prue into the forest.

I won't talk about the plot beyond that - this film is far more rewarding going into it blind - except to say that while this is an animated movie, it earns that PG-13 rating.  There is violence, and several scenes that likely would terrify the younger crowd (a brave parent brought a child that looked to be 5 or 6 and there were several parts where the child climbed practically on top of him due to fright).  It explores mature themes in the same way that the best Pixar movies do: confronting adulthood in all of its confusing contradictions with tenderness, without condescending to the younger audience.  It trusts them to get through the darker parts with a better understanding of the world.

I've mentioned previously that the voice acting in this movie is topnotch: all of the mentioned actors are wonderful, as are Mahershala Ali, Richard E. Grant, Angela Basset, Blythe Danner, and Awkwafina (finding a better use for her talents than the misguided Raya and the Last Dragon).  There's not a single one that feels out of place, and even the more joke-prone characters are only there to add a touch of brightness as we navigate this grand adventure - and it is grand, with the movie running over two hours.  Rest assured, every minute is worth it.

I don't have criticisms for this film.  The best I could muster is maybe a 'I might've done [ABC] instead of [XYZ] in this part' and that might is load-bearing.  This movie doesn't make any missteps while still exploring the tropes common to this genre while adding subversions along the way.  Everyone should see this movie.

10 out of 10

Review: Fright Night (1985)

Man, what a fun movie.

That's really all there is to say about this film, when you get down to it.  This tale of teenager Charley (William Ragsdale), who happens to find out that his new neighbor Jerry Dandrige (Chris Sarandon) is a vampire, is an amusing romp with some genuinely thrilling sequences and some top-notch performances.  It is, in my opinion, the better of the two teen-oriented vampire movies of the 80s (though The Lost Boys is still fun), and the only thing keeping it from being the best of the decade is the decidedly different approach of Near Dark.

Even parts of the movie that people generally dislike about this film I have a fondness for: 'Evil' Ed might drive the audience crazy, but that's only because actor Stephen Geoffreys absolutely nails the character.  Sometimes teenagers are annoying, and Geoffreys conveys that so well people end up hating the character far more than he deserves.

The only thing I fault this movie for is one that the pacing between Charley's discovery of his neighbor's vampiric nature and his finally going to TV host Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall) feels off.  It's the only part of the movie I find draggy, even if there are a few amusing bits during it.  Perhaps a tightening of the scene with the police, or a shorter interlude between Charley's mother Judy (Dorothy Fielding) Peter and the latter's late-night visit might have helped.  It's doesn't derail the movie, but the tempo takes a moment to correct itself.

However, once Peter is introduced into the film, it is smooth sailing from then on.  The shared scene between him, Ed, and Charley's girlfriend Amy (Amanda Bearse) is a great mix of personality types and understated comedic interplay, and once all of our main characters are together, the movie is basically firing on all cylinders and it is just enjoying the ride until the film ends.

A great deal of credit goes to director Tom Holland, who mixes the comedy, suspense, and horror like a master.  There is a genuine love not just for the genre, but for this particular type of movie that bleeds into every reel and elevates what would normally be standard schlock and turns it into something special.

So yeah, I recommend this to anyone that enjoys horror and even some of those that don't.  And a double feature with this and The Lost Boys is always a good idea.

8.5 out of 10

Review: The Company of Wolves (1984)

The following is a (slightly) dramatized transcription of the conversation between my self and BroVamp while watching this movie, similar to with Ginger Snaps:

Me: Tonight's movie is going to be The Company of Wolves.

BV: What's it about?

Me: I know it is a werewolf movie and it has Angela Lansbury in it.

BV: Do pets die in this one?  I don't want to see that tonight.

Me: (checks the Internet) Are we concerned about pets, or all animals?

BV: Cats and dogs.

Me: We should be good.

(We watch the first part of the movie)

BV: What just happened?

Me: I think the we went from the girl sleeping to her dream.

BV: Did she die?

Me: I think it was her sister?

BV: So if you die in the dream, you die in real life?  Like Nightmare on Elm Street?

Me: No, her sister in the dream died, not her sister in the real world.

BV: Okay

(More of the movie passes)

BV: Angela Lansbury is a great actress.

Me: Remember when I made you watch The Manchurian Candidate?

BV: The remake was better.

Me: *world-weary sigh*

(More of the movie passes)

BV: Are we in a new story?

Me: No, this is Granny (Lansbury) telling Rosalee (Sarah Patterson) a story.  A story within the dream, like an 80s Gothic horror version of Inception.

BV: Okay

(Violence happens within the story)

Me: That is a pretty good transformation scene.

BV: Yeah.

(The werewolf gets decapitated)

BV: That was pretty easy.

Me: Guess it doesn't have to be silver in this one.

(The movie continues)

Me: Would you rather be a werewolf or a vampire?

BV: A vampire

Me: Really?  Why?

BV: More in control, werewolves always end up accidentally killing people they care about.

Me: So, you'd prefer to be a vampire and purposely kill people you don't?

BV: I'm sure I could work something out with the blood bank.

Me: I think most people would go to a butcher...

BV: I imagine I would need A Positive cuz of how smart I am.

(The movie continues)

Me: This movie is a fever dream.

BV: It's good, but it really is.

(The movie continues)

BV: Wait, is the father the scientist from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2: The Secret of the Ooze?

Me: Yeah, David Warner.  I was wondering if you recognized him.

(The movie ends and the credits roll)

Me: How would you feel if you were credited in a movie as Amorous Boy?

BV: Man, didn't even get a name.

Me: No one did except Rosalee.  Also, I did not know this movie was going to be as weird as it was.

BV: No, it was good.  Sometimes weird is alright.

Me: That is true.

7 out of 10

Review: Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)

So, a few short days ago I watched the 'classic' The Shining and knew pretty quickly that I was going to be ripping into a movie that many consider amongst the best horror movies ever made.  Today's review is another classic, also from a greatly respected filmmaker - director Werner Herzog - and with bated breath we wonder: will the same thing happen?  Will Poli hate this movie as much as the other?  The answer is no, because this is a much better movie from a much better director.

Now, this is a more artsy version of the Dracula story (the movie does away with the pretense of giving the vampire a different name, unlike the 1922 Nosferatu) and I think whether or not any enjoyment comes from this movie depends on how well the viewer can vibe with what Herzog is going for.  I could, though I will admit the opening parts of the movie somewhat dragged for me.

This movie lives and dies by a twin pair of performances: Klaus Kinski as Count Dracula and Isabelle Adjani as Lucy Harker.  Though they have little screentime together, but it is very much a duo of performances, both reacting to events happening across the world from each other.  If either of them hadn't sold their half, the movie would start to fall apart.  Which isn't to say the other performers are bad, just that Kinski and Adjani are on a completely different level.

Herzog fills the frames with stunning visuals, paying homage to the German expressionism of the original.  He might linger on a few shots longer than necessary, but with such rich visuals for the eyes to feast on, it is mostly forgiveable.

The movie is slow though, and those who prefer more blood and guts will be greatly disappointed with this moodier, cerebral version of the story.  For as many people that die in this film - and rest assured, it does have a high body count - most of the death is prevented in an almost offhand way.  The story cares more about the character drama, and any deaths that do occur are more to push the characters onward than something to be lingered on.

This is also a movie with Themes, meditating on the loneliness of eternity: this Dracula doesn't view his immortality as any sort of gift, and approaches day-to-day life with a weariness that Kinski sells almost entirely with his eyes.  It's a thoughtful approach to the material, though one that has been explored and mimicked in the many adaptations of the novel, but perhaps not as well as in this one.

Would I recommend this movie to others?  Yes, though not everyone.  I think quite a few people would lose interest in the first 30 minutes as the movie isn't in any rush to get the action started, and while there is an English dub available, the original German lends itself to a better experience, which would put off some.  Still, those that can get themselves invested in the movies atmosphere and tone will have a good time.

7.5 out of 10

Review: Under Paris (2024)

This could be subtitled 'Lesbians destroy the world' and I am not going to elaborate beyond that statement, because if I had to watch the movie for context, so do you.

Under Paris follows traumatized marine biologist Sophia (Berenice Bejo) who, three years after her research team is killed by a shark named Lilith, finds herself once again dealing with the bloodthirsty fish, this time in the Seine River instead of the Pacific Ocean.  Jaws references abound, up to and including the Mayor of Paris (Anne Marivin) refusing to cancel the scheduled triathlon despite warnings from Sophia and police sergeant Adil (Nassim Lyes).  Will our heroes stop the shark before disaster strikes?  No, and is that even really a spoiler?

This movie is so, so dumb.  I hate to break it down to such a base level, but there really isn't much more to say other than that.  People make the dumbest possible decisions throughout (our two main characters avoid such a fate, but only barely), the plot continues for the dumbest possible reasons, and the ending is so, so, so very dumb.  The only smart part of this screenplay is the decision to make the shark a mako instead of a great white, but even then, the other notable existing shark movie (1999's Deep Blue Sea, up there with the 1997 Anaconda as among the best of the late 90s so-bad-they're-good creature features) already did it.

You know, that's not fair, the movie also makes one other smart choice by naming the shark Lilith.  Going into the why of it would be a spoiler, but I'll just say that it is the cleverest thing the screenplay does by a wide margin, and that is fairly damning of the overall quality of the screenplay.

The performers take this movie seriously - too seriously, to be honest - but do a decent enough job with the material.  Bejo, an Oscar nominee for The Artist, is very much slumming it here, giving the character way more emotional depth than this screenplay warranted.  No other performance is of particular note, as the plot doesn't really give any other character, save Adil, more than basic characterization.

I will admit, with this type of movie, it becomes a game of guessing the kill order, maybe deciding one of the doomed side characters is my boyfriend for this film (sometimes I get lucky and they live, though that was not then case with this one), and hoping that it at least veers into camp territory to at least make things fun.  Is a character insufferable?  I expect them to last longer than others because these movies love to keep that sort of annoying character around.  This movie slightly subverts that.

I almost with this movie was truly atrocious, so at least I could mock it better, but there's so much competence outside of the screenplay that it just ends up being a minor failure as opposed to a delicious trainwreck.  I can't even recommend it for a hate watch!  Which is truly the greatest crime this film commits.

4 out of 10

Review: Lee Cronin's The Mummy (2026)

If you were to dissect this movie, you would find all of the necessary parts to have a legitimately good film.  A creepy 'possessed' performance from Natalie Grace as Katie; Egyptian lore adding some credibility to go with the otherworldly elements (whether or not this lore is real - probably not - is inconsequential); solid performances from Jack Raynor as Katie's dad and May Calamawy as the detective assigned to Katie's disappearance; there are even a few sequences that build tension in interesting ways.  However, as this movie is currently assembled, it just doesn't quite work despite having all of the parts necessary to succeed.

The movie follows the Cannon family: parents Charlie and Larissa (Reynor and Laia Costa) and children Katie, Seb, and Maudie (Grace, Shylo Molina, and Billie Roy, with younger versions of Katie and Seb played by Emily Mitchell and Dean Williams).  Before Maudie is born, Katie disappears while the family is living in Egypt.  Eight years later, the Cannons are contacted after Katie is found inside an ancient sarcophagus, and they bring her home (now in Albuquerque) to help her recover - in possibly the most 'this would only happen in a movie' scene.  Things quickly get weird.

One thing about this movie is that it is in no rush at any point during its 132 minute runtime.  In the early going, it is forgivable since it allows the viewer to get to know the family pre and post-abduction, but once Katie is brought back into the story it definitely should've gotten to the meat much faster than it does.  I know I sound like a broken record on this point, but this movie probably could've cut a good 30 minutes out of it and not lost anything of note, which would've only helped with the pacing.

This movie is also incredibly gross.  Director Lee Cronin is very obviously a fan of movies like Braindead or Drag Me to Hell and he leans into it in such a way that I, a veteran of gross-out horror movies, found myself turning away from the screen.  Whereas there is a tongue-in-cheek giddiness to the mentioned movies, Cronin chose to play it much straighter in this one and it suffers for that decision.  It doesn't matter how good the effects are if the audience is turning away in disgust.

What does work in the movie is the little subversions to the standard tropes: having the dad be the one to realize things are going sideways first is a nice change of pace (and I'm sure Reynor would like to be remembered for roles other than the one in Midsommar), and the cop side of the plot takes a few turns that I won't spoil, but felt like a welcome reprieve from other, dumber movies.

It would be hard for me to recommend this movie to other people.  Whatever good parts it has - and there are several good parts, including a scene with Katie's grandmother that might be the most effective of the movie - the pacing issues and vulgarity would outweigh them for most people.

A frustrating, though competent movie.

5 out of 10