Review: The Boy (2015)

A breakdown of The Boy - no, not the one you are thinking of

The Good:

• David Morse and Rainn Wilson are both very good in this movie
• This film has atmosphere for days, and it serves the movie well
• There is some startling and effective imagery scattered throughout
• The Boy has a pretty cool poster

The Bad:

• While I understand why it is classified as horror, I would not consider it a horror movie
• This movie is slow - apparently trying to be meditative and instead being soporific
• Far too much of the plot doesn't really go anywhere interesting
• Much of this film rests on lead child actor Jared Breeze, and his is not the most compelling performance

The Ugly:

• Though I haven't seen it, I am willing to bet the 2016 movie of the same title is a better film
• Several scenes are outright tedious and none of them are short
• It's bad when your movie is a reasonable 105 minutes and still feels like it needed to be edited down
• The poster, while cool, sells a very different movie then the one you get
• I would only recommend this to someone who is either pretentious or I disliked

3 out of 10

Review: The Legend of Boggy Creek (1972)

Sometimes, a movie is pure nostalgia, a comforting blanket that - even if scary - takes you back to childhood, sitting around a campfire or in a dark room and telling your friends creepy stories, each of you trying to outdo one another.  Nothing too terrible, but tales of creatures in the woods, or ghosts in the attic, something that doesn't cause you to jump, but instead works its way into your skin and settles there.  It fades, as does childhood, and though it might never again cause you to stay up all night terrified of every sound, the memory of it lingers, striking you at random moments and making you feel like a scared child again, if only briefly.  The Legend of Boggy Creek is such a film for me.

Made by the legendary regional director Charles B. Pierce, The Legend of Boggy Creek is a shot in a documentary style, interviewing residents of Fouke, Arkansas as they talk about the local Bigfoot-like creature that wanders the area and the terror it causes.  Several reenactments of encounters are displayed, guided by narration from Vern Stierman, as the viewer learns of the ever-escalating appearances, and later attacks, that petrifies those who encounter it.

This low budget film - made for $160,000, eventually grossing over $20 million - used local residents, often portraying themselves or relatives, to give the movie an air of authenticity, and it works wonders.  A child watching this - and indeed, I was a child the first time I saw this movie - would readily believe this tale as only a child can: Woods are mysterious, and who's to say something monstrous doesn't live somewhere deep into them?  And if parts of it look fake, or threadbare, well this is just a tale of the monster, not the actual thing.

It really is amazing that this is a first film.  Pierce, who would direct thirteen other films and assist in the making of others, shows a natural talent for setting up shots, building tension, and using his location.  He actually worked many behind-the-scenes roles, serving as cinematographer (and nailing it) and as producer.  This movie feels instinctual, almost as if the camera just accidentally caught something magic, which speaks to the talent and effort of everyone behind the camera.

Rewatching it some 30 years later, I am amazed at how well it holds up.  I talked of the effect of this film in the first paragraph, and all these years later I can still feel the terror of the night after I watched this movie - like a scar I had forgotten about and then noticed in the mirror.  Everything about this film works, and things that would normally be a strike against it - some wooden acting or the look of the creature - somehow instead work in its favor to make it seem that much more authentic.

I really cannot recommend this film enough, to anyone.  It is very much in the same vein as 1963's The Haunting or The Conjuring, more creepy than scary, but damn if it doesn't work just as well as those other films.

8.5 out of 10

Review: The Howling (1981)

It's hard to not compare this movie to the other 1981 werewolf movie An American Werewolf in London (and I suppose, 1981's Wolfen, which seems to be an also-ran amongst the three), possibly my favorite movie from that particular year.  The Howling is a much more serious take on the werewolf myth, and the different approach helps to separate the two even if comparisons are inevitable.

The film primarily follows journalist Karen White (Dee Wallace) as she helps the police to capture serial killer Eddie Quist (Robert Picardo), the experience of which causes her such trauma that she and her husband Bill (Christopher Stone) end up going to The Colony, a secluded resort where she can receive treatment.  Things do not go well for her there.

The first and only direct comparison I will make has to be the transformations between the two movies.  While An American Werewolf in London's transformation is (justifiably) legendary, The Howling has nothing to be ashamed of.  Both make the process look painful, and The Howling has the benefit of multiple transformations from multiple characters.  There is a bit of inconsistency in the transformations, but they are minor and do not take anything away from the film.

The acting is relatively strong, although the acting styles are all over the place.  Weirdly, this works for the film - you have some performances camped up (Picardo and Elisabeth Brooks), some that are performing as if they are in a Hammer film from the 50s (Patrick Macnee and John Carradine), and some with a more naturalistic approach (Wallace and film standout Belinda Balaski).  You'd think this mishmash of styles would cause friction, but it all blends together perfectly.

Director Joe Dante has some interesting shots scattered throughout, though nothing as fun or as inventive as in Piranha or Gremlins.  He doesn't make any questionable decisions, but it does lack a bit of the spark that those other two movies had.  Perhaps he was more comfortable indulging in a bit of humor in those other two which this one lacked.

Overall, this is a pretty solid movie.  It won't be my favorite werewolf movie, Joe Dante movie, or Dee Wallace movie, but definitely one I'll probably end up watching again.  The real question is, will I watch any of the 6 other movies in the franchise?  Maybe, but probably not for this month's movies.  But I would recommend this to others, especially if they enjoy horror.

7 out of 10

Review: American Gothic (1988)

"Want to make a horror movie based off of a painting?"

"Sure, what painting did you have in mind?"

"I was thinking American Gothic."

"What, will it be a Texas Chainsaw thing?"

"Kinda, only we're going to set it in Washington."

"The state?  Why not have it be Bigfoot then?"

"No, that's cheesy.  Instead it's going to be a nutty family that lives alone on an island and kills anyone that ends up going there."

"Cannibalism?"

"No, just crazy.  We're going to have a bunch of 50-year-olds acting like children and murdering people with kids stuff, like swings and jump ropes."

"If they act like kids, how would they survive?"

"There will be a Ma and Pa based off the painting to keep them in line."

"Okay, how's the final girl going to get out of this situation?"

"She doesn't."

"What?  She dies?  People hate the sort of downer ending."

"I didn't say she died."

"Well, then how does she survive."

"Trust me, you won't see it coming."

"Okay, but this sounds a little strange - can we get a big name for it?"

"We already got Rod Steiger and Yvonne De Carlo to play Pa and Ma."

"Wow, they are slumming it."

"Are they, though?"

"Fair."

"We need to keep this somewhat serious so they aren't laughing throughout it though."

"Maybe have the crazy family be scary?"

"No, we can't do that.  Instead, our main girl is going to have a dead baby."

"Isn't that a little dark."

"No, it's character depth.  Besides, it is only important in the beginning and end of the movie."

"Well, okay then."

"Okay, let's make this movie."

"Are we going to refine the idea at all?"

"No."

5 out of 10

Review: Coyotes (2025)

I remember when I first saw the trailer for this and how excited I was to watch it.  Then it seemed to never come out.  Turns out it did a very limited release before going to streaming where, when I attempted to watch it last year, they wanted to charge a frankly obscene amount for a rental.  Thankfully, it was at a more reasonable price this year and I can finally cross it off the list of movies that grabbed my interest that I needed to watch.

Coyotes follows comic book artist Scott (Justin Long), his wife Liv (Kate Bosworth, giving us real-life married couple playing this fictional one), and their daughter Chloe (Mila Harris, not related to her fictional parents) as a natural disaster near their Hollywood Hills home leaves them trapped, without power and menaced by a large pack of coyotes.

Now, this premise is absolutely ridiculous, and the movie thankfully knows this, so it takes the horror-comedy approach with a heavy lean in the comedy direction.  It mostly succeeds in this goal, though the seams show a little bit in both the humor and the special effects departments.

This movie screams of multiple rewrites with vastly different approaches to the humor.  There's a weird misogynistic streak to some of the humor, forcibly softened by making Liv and Chloe among the more competent characters, and some topical humor that falls flat (a character blames the coyotes attacking on chemtrails).  If those had been more fully excised, the movie would have been much better overall, because much of the remaining humor works well and is gamely delivered by the cast.

The movie does improve once it moves to the more action-y part of the film, even if it does have several moments that stretch the suspension of disbelief.  Nothing too unforgiveable, thankfully, but will make a perceptive viewer role their eyes a bit.

The special effects for the coyotes range from acceptable to bad, with some of the coyotes not even glancing at realistic, and others making the audience think more of a wolf.  The other effects - primarily the gore and makeup of various attacks - is much stronger, and while I understand why CGI had to be use for the coyotes, I wish they could have gone in a more practical direction.

The acting is generally good across the board, with Bosworth giving the best performance.  It was nice to see Long play a well-meaning if slightly incompetent character after playing a series of more sleazy ones.  Also, is Long considered a scream king at this point?  If not, I think he should be.  Brittany Allen, as Julie, also has some great bits.

Overall, this wasn't a bad time.  It certainly isn't the best movie I've watched this month, but it is also far from the worst.  I think I would recommend it to a few people, if only for its blessedly-short 92 minute runtime.

6.5 out of 10

Review: The Golem: How He Came into the World (1920)

Sometimes I watch a movie and quickly conclude that I am vastly unqualified to write a review for it.  It happened with Sinners (a film I absolutely love) to use a recent example, and I feel like the same applies for this 1920 film (the full title is The Golem: How He Came into the World).  I can note the German Expressionism in the production design, I can talk about the history (it is the third in a trilogy of films and the only one that has not been lost), I could even go into the importance of watching what is a very Jewish  film in a time of rising antisemitism.  But I am not an expert in any of those subjects, and anything I say would be nothing more than the rewording of what I had just read, so I will avoid that.

Instead, I will just talk about watching a silent movie - one cobbled together from various releases and negatives - from over a hundred years ago and how a modern audience would react to it, assuming they could sit through such a thing.

To wit, I think modern audience would appreciate the production design of the film.  My exposure to German Expressionism is fairly limited, but I appreciate the otherworldliness it brings to the setting while still feeling true to life.  Buildings and rooms are just 'off' enough to throw you off-balance while still feeling like something an actual person would live in.

There's also something of an ethereal mood to the movie, with the various spells cast showcasing some fairly impressive effects for the time period while heightening that unearthly feeling that the sets had already given the viewer.  It's really a masterwork of tone that is impressive for search an early film of this type.

It's hard to judge the acting, given the vast gulf between what works well for a silent film vs one where you can hear the characters.  If pressed, I'd say that Lothar Müthel as Squire Florian is best in show, though director Paul Wegener as the titular Golem is also fairly strong.  On the other end, I can't say I was impressed by Lyda Salmonova as Miriam, though that could very well be because the movie doesn't ask much of her.

Would I recommend this to others?  Yes, I think everyone should experience at least a few silent films just for the novelty, and this one is influential enough to throw it to the top of the list.  But if you absolutely cannot stand this type of film, I wouldn't judge.

8 out of 10

Review: Mimic (1997)

In this, the 9th year of me trying to watch a horror movie every day of October (I have been successful in 7 of the last 8 years), I finally got around to watching this late 90s tale of Genetic Engineering Gone Wrong - a popular theme after the massive success of 1994's Jurassic Park, I am sure.  There is much to appreciate about this - directed by Guillermo del Toro, starring Mira Sorvino and Jeremy Northam, with Josh Brolin, F. Murray Abraham, and Charles S Dutton also appearing, the movie has pedigree.  The creature design is also fairly good, even if the graphics are quite dated almost 30 years later.  But it left me cold.

I remembering reading once in a review of Pacific Rim - another del Toro production - that the difference between del Toro and most other directors was that even when doing an obvious paycheck movie, del Toro was never going to do anything other than his best to make the film good.  And you can see the effort put into making Mimic into the best possible version of itself.  I'm just not sure it was worth the effort.

I feel the need to mention a caveat at this point: I watched the original theatrical release of Mimic, rather than the later-released director's cut that, while not precisely what del Toro wanted, was closer to what he was going for than this one.  The added footage - and possibly different edits? - amounts to 6 extra minutes of film length, which is fairly significant.  This compromised version is still effective, but I might have been better served to seek out that other cut.  Such is life...

The edits forced onto the movie by the Weinsteins might contribute to some at-times draggy sequences and stifled action.  That said, at 106 minutes, I'm not sure much more of this particular story needed to be told.

That's really the crux of the problem:  The movie is mostly good, but I'm not really sure I could pinpoint what or how exactly to improve it.  Nothing I would suggest - aside from removing the child character from the movie - would have more than a minimal impact.  That one big change is also one that likely would have never been made.  Remember, this is post Jurassic Park, so putting a child in danger in anything mimicking that film -ah, I see what they did there, those sons of bi-- was all but guaranteed.

I suppose I can understand why this movie pops up occasionally amongst the horror community as one worth checking out.  I'm not sure I would recommend it, but I wouldn't actively tell anyone to avoid it either.

7 out of 10