Review: Abigail (2024)

Abigail follows a group of hired kidnappers as they wait for a ransom to be paid for the child they kidnapped (the titular character).  However, said child also happens to be a vampire, and things go very wrong for our group.

So, a bit of criticism to start with: This movie very clearly revealed the vampire-child aspect in the marketing.  At no point during the trailers is it even attempted to keep that a secret.  Which makes the first 45ish minutes of this movie odd because that is how long it takes for the characters to realize they are trapped with a vampire child.  The movie is fun, and that first 45 minutes if perfectly fine - we get some great character building for our thieves - it's just a weird quirk of the film that the marketing basically had to reveal that plot point because not doing so would cripple it.

Other than that quibble - this is a great popcorn horror movie.  It's brutal and bloody and hilarious; everyone clearly had fun filming this movie, and it bleeds into every frame, both figuratively and literally.

Directors Tyler Gillett and Matt Bettinelli-Olpin (2 members of the group Radio Silence) have many of their trademarks present throughout.  There are explosions of blood (that will remind people of Ready of Not, another Radio Silence movie), wry humor, and a bunch of character actors given room to improvise all over the place.

The improvisation works wonders.  I'd say only one character is given the short stick (and he still gets a clearly defined character) but all the other characters get just the right amount of screentime - the annoying one dies first but not too early, the unlikely friend pair meet their ends close to one another, our hero(es) team up at just the perfect moment.  It's amazing just how well-timed everything in this movie is, down to character details and deaths.

The movie uses Swan Lake heavily - maybe a bit too much? - and both extended ballet sequences are incredible well used: one as an intro to Abigail and the other as a darkly comic moment where one of our thieves is a thrall.

Really, the entire conceit of a vampire ballerina is used well.  Both Abigail's hunting and fighting use a style heavily influenced by this background, and it never feels gimmicky or out of place - a danger many a movie has not avoided (Gymkata anyone?).  Credit to Alisha Weir - who plays Abigail - who did many of her own stunts and spent 8 weeks learning ballet for the performance.  Truly top tier work.

Amongst our group of villains it is hard to pick a best in show - everyone does a great job.  The group includes Dan Stevens, Melissa Barrera, Kathryn Newton, Kevin Durand, Will Catlett, and the departed Angus Cloud.  Every single one does a great job, with Melissa  Barrera shouldering lead performance duties with Weir's Abigail.

This is an easy recommend: it's not reinventing anything, and certainly isn't scary, but it is a fun way to spend an evening.

7.5 out of 10

Review: Bodies Bodies Bodies (2022)

Bodies Bodies Bodies follows a group of friends throwing a hurricane party to pass the time during a, well, hurricane.  While playing a game called Bodies Bodies Bodies, they find David (Pete Davidson), whose house they are staying at, has had his throat slit.  What follows is these mostly-lifelong friends trying to figure out who among them is the killer.

When it was released, it was a fairly critically acclaimed movie, with several glowing reviews and a 86% on Rotten Tomatoes.  Several different horror blogs I frequent also recommended it, so while it took me awhile to get around to viewing it, I went into this film fairly optimistic.

I should not have been.

One of my biggest complaints about horror films in the early aughts was the tendency to make 90% of the characters insufferable assholes so that the audience would not care when they met their inevitable end.  Thankfully, that is no longer the case, but for awhile it poisoned a large number of otherwise fine horror films, making them a chore to watch.

Watching this was a chore.

All of these characters suck.  And while that could honestly work for this film - it leans hard into the black comedy aspect of its horror-comedy, to limited success - there has to be someone worthwhile for us to follow along with.  That person doesn't have to be a good person, but we need to at least be invested in their story, but of our two main characters, neither of them has an arc that is interesting - one is far to opaque a character and the other sucks just as hard as all the other people in that house.

The worst part is I can see what screenwriters Kristen Roupenian (who has a Story By credit) and Sarah DeLappe (with a Screenplay By credit) were going for.  Maybe it didn't translate well from page to screen?  Maybe director Halina Reijn removed some of the more biting satire?  Either way, the movie ends up subjecting the viewer to 90 minutes of 'friends' being assholes to one another with the occasional death.

There is one scene that shows what the entire movie could have been - fairly late, so I won't say who the remaining four characters are to avoid spoilers - and it makes me wish that energy had permeated the entire film instead of the one brief moment.

How are the performances?  Good, I guess?  That's not fair, there is one particularly spectacular performance from Rachel Sennott that is a breath of fresh air and probably the only performance that (to me) captured what the movie needed to work properly.

Now, I will say to take my opinion with a grain of salt:  As mentioned at the top of the review, this film received mostly positive reviews and several people I respect highly recommend it, so this could be a case of a movie just not working for me individually.  So while my rating will be fairly low, and I definitely would not recommend it, don't let just my opinion sway you.

4 out of 10

Review: Peter Pan's Neverland Nightmare (2025)

Looks like I am committed to the Poohniverse.

Peter Pan's Neverland Nightmare follows Wendy Darling (Megan Placito) as she tries to find her brother Michael (Peter DeSouza-Feighoney) after he is abducted by child killer Peter Pan (Martin Portlock).  Featuring a second appearance of Mary Darling (Teresa Banham reprising the role after her first appearance in Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey 2), this is the first broadening of the Poohniverse (it released before Bambi: The Reckoning and features returning characters unlike that film).

This one took a little longer for me to get into than the other movies in the series. There's some brutality early on that isn't any more off-putting than anything else in this series.  Maybe it is the (to me) unnecessary grotesqueness that permeates the early going.  Peter Pan (as seen in the above poster) gets scarred during a prologue abduction, but it doesn't end there: Tinker Bell (Kit Green) and Hook (Charity Kase) also lean heavily into extreme makeup.

The first 30ish minutes are spent getting us to the main plot (Wendy searching for Michael), at which point the movies has to do some serious padding to not resolve in record time.  Weirdly, this is when the movie picks up a bit for me.  Even more weird, the scene that starts the padding but brings up the energy of the movie is one where Peter Pan kills a very large number of people (that I am keeping vague to avoid spoilers).

The stakes thus raised, Wendy continues her search, with an assist from her friend Tiger Lily (Olumide Olorunfemi) and Tiger Lily's brother Joey (Hardy Yusuf).  She ends up crashing with them when Mary blames Wendy for not noticing that Michael snuck off earlier when she was supposed to pick him up.  This doesn't end well for Tiger Lily or her family.

Which, an aside: There have not been a large number of black characters scattered throughout the Poohniverse, but almost every single one has died, usually quite violently.  The movies are pretty brutal across all kills, but maybe allow one of these characters to survive?  It's a very low bar to clear, but these movies haven't managed it so far.

We cut between Wendy's search and Michael's captivity which is where we get to meet Tinker Bell and guys, I don't know how to approach this.  Tinker Bell is a previous abductee of Peter's who wasn't 'sent to Neverland' (killed) because they were a 'fairy.'  They are trans and while I can appreciate the inclusion of a trans character, they way it is done is... messy.  Other people are better equipped to break down all the ways this is problematic than me, but trust that I'm not sure this is the best of representation.

The movie sprints towards the ending at this point, and I won't spoil how it all goes, but the ending, for me, was unsatisfying.  I get that part of it is a set up for Monster Assembled, but I still think it could have been better.

6 out of 10

Review: Dark Night of the Scarecrow (1981)

In 1981, a made-for-TV movie was released called Dark Night of the Scarecrow, starring Charles Durning and Larry Drake, and creating the Evil/Killer Scarecrow subgenre of horror.  Yeah, believe or not, a scarecrow was not the centerpiece of a horror movie until the 80s, which seems crazy.

The plot: Bubba (Drake), is a developmentally disabled man who is friends with Marylee (Tonya Crowe),a child neighbor.  Otis (Durning) considers Bubba to be a blight on the town and is just looking for a reason to get rid of him.  When Marylee is attacked by a dog and saved by Bubba, he is instead blamed for the girl's death and Otis gets three others - Skeeter, Philby, and Harliss (Robert F. Lyons, Claude Earl Jones, and Lane Smith) - and takes vigilante justice against Bubba as he hides in a scarecrow.  Shortly thereafter, the group learns that not only is Marylee still alive, but she lives only because of Bubba's intervention.

A quick trial - and some perjury from Otis - sees the vigilantes get away with their murder (which, for anyone familiar with small town politics, reads as sadly realistic) and released without consequences.  However, all of the men start seeing a bullet-riddled scarecrow appear near their homes and bad things start happening...

First, I want to say, for a made-for-TV movie, this is amazingly effective.  It's genuinely creepy in parts, and despite a lack of gore, the implied violence is still harrowing.  Between this and the Salem's Lot miniseries, the late 70s/early 80s must have been a golden age for made-for-TV horror.

Secondly, this cast is absolutely phenomenal.  Not a weak performance in the bunch, with Durning a particular strong case for best in show as the vindictive and slimy (and possibly pedophilic?) Otis.  It's great to see the character actor - Oscar nominated for The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas and To Be or Not to Be - playing what amounts to the lead character.  Lane Smith is probably most well-known as the district attorney in My Cousin Vinny, and sister-of-Marlon Brando Jocelyn Brando plays Bubba's mother.  Not a single member of this A-list cast phones it in.

Honestly, this movie is so much better than several theatrically released films from the same - or even the following - years that it's kind of crazy the it was never in theaters.  It does atmosphere and tone so well!  Even the set design is better than I've seen in some modern films!

This movie was hard to find for the longest time, but now is available on DVD and Blu-ray and is also streaming at various sites so I'd highly recommend finding and watching it.

7.5 out of 10

Review: The Taking of Deborah Logan (2014)

I had a rough time with this movie.  I will freely admit that, because of my experience with Alzheimer's within my family, my reaction to this film probably varies from many others.  Especially since part of the plot of it deals with the exploitation of people suffering from the disease - possibly a lampshade of the same criticism that could be thrown at this film.

The Taking of Deborah Logan is a found footage movie where three students - Mia, Gavin, and Luis (Michelle Ang, Brett Gentile, and Jeremy DeCarlos) - want to create a documentary about Deborah Logan (Jill Larson) and her daughter Sarah (Anne Ramsay) as Deborah progresses further into Alzheimer's disease.  As they film the lives of the Logans, it becomes increasingly clear that something more than Alzheimer's is affecting Deborah.

There is merit in using the metaphor of possession (for that is what this film is about) as a way to approach how a family deals with a disease affecting someone within their unit.  It needs to approached carefully, and it needs to be clear in its message.  Think of The Babadook and how it uses its creature as a stand-in for grief and dealing with loss.  This method of storytelling can be affecting if done well, I'm just not sure the this film succeeds.

Early on, to convince the Logans to let the students film them, Mia mentions that she also had a family member who had Alzheimer's.  We shortly thereafter find out it is a lie meant to persuade the family once Deborah starts having second thoughts.  We also get early hints that Gavin and Luis aren't taking it very seriously as they are told repeatedly to stop randomly touching various items within the house.  The groundwork is there, but not really followed upon.

Part of that can be explained away as the plot of the film - the increasingly weird behaviors of Deborah that can only be explained as supernatural - takes over.  At one point Gavin leaves because of what he is seeing on camera (the movie makes the rare decision to have Mia be the skeptical one who ignores and tries to explain away the unexplainable events - this usually falls on a male character) and Luis attempts to place a cross to ward off what Deborah may or may not being seeing.

However, we never really address - other than a quick moment towards the end of the film - the underhanded way the students convinced the Logans to let them film.  There's growth from Mia regarding her behavior, but nothing that really works as an arc for her character.  It isn't necessarily a plot hole, but it is something that the plot should've included.  It makes one lean towards the movie exploiting the disease instead of using it as a metaphor.

I will say that the performances are good across the board.  In particular, Jill Larson and Anne Ramsay do a fantastic job of deterioration (in the case of the former) and the forced optimism/strain of dealing with a sick family member (in the case of the latter).  This movie does work most of the time based off the strength of this duo of performances.

Would I recommend this movie?  Probably?  It won't ever be my favorite - I doubt I would ever give this a second viewing without someone else wanting to watch it - but despite the shortcomings that I see, it is effective and creepy and has decent twists and turns throughout.  I just wish it had approached its subject matter in a better way.

6 out of 10

Review: Bambi: The Reckoning (2025)

So, I find myself in a situation.

When I wrote my review for Winne the Pooh: Blood and Honey 2, I basically said that the Poohniverse looked stupid, and that it and the first Winnie the Pooh movie were terrible if enjoyable.  So what happens when one of these movies is actually... dare I say it... good?

That is the predicament I find myself in right now.  Bambi: The Reckoning, by all accounts, is a well-made, solid film.  The acting is good (even from the child actor!), the design for the evil Bambi is good, as is the CGI for him.  The plot makes sense, the kills are gruesome and well-done... How did they manage to make such a solid entry?  Was it because this is the fourth in the series (I have yet to see Peter Pan: Neverland Nightmare but this movie kind of made that a priority?) or did the decision to keep this short (the movie is 80 minutes long with credits) force them to cut any unnecessary tangents out of the film?

To give a brief summary of the film: We get a quick animation of Bambi's history - mother killed by poacher, Faline killed by a van that dumps toxic waste into the waters that Bambi eventually drinks from - then we are immediately into the film, which is basically Bambi Kills Everyone He Can.

There is a human plot: Xana (Roxanne McKee) and her son Benji (Tom Mulheron) are going to visit her husband Simon's (Alex Cooke) family, although Simon cancels his participation due to work obligations before the other two have left.  There are relationship problems between Xana and Simon - he is a distant father - but Xana is trying to hide it from Benji.

There is also a plot regarding some hunters who are obviously after Bambi, but leaves the how and why ambiguous for now.

First unexpected surprise: The two are attacked before they reach the extended family.  The stakes are present fairly early - no slow build - and while not especially gory, the death of the cab driver is still brutal.  While our main characters still make it to the family house, they are already hurt and bleeding before the real meat of the movie starts!

We do get a brief breather as we get to meet the extended family.  There's some sort of implied connection between Bambi and Mary (Nicola Wright), the dementia-riddled grandmother of Benji, but otherwise we get quick establishing of the characters (nothing too deep, but enough to separate them as distinct characters from one another) before Bambi attacks the house and sends the family running.

Second unexpected surprise: Bambi doesn't kill everyone in this movie.  Outside of the killer deer, four other characters get various other kills scattered throughout and all of them make sense within the context of the story.  I won't spoil who dies or who kills, but it was a great way to keep the action varied while still keeping the overarching threat of Bambi.

The family (what remains of it, this movie kills characters left and right) eventually meets up with the hunters and the reason the hunters know about Bambi is a fairly major plot reveal, but not delivered with any pomp: they say why they are after him and immediately move to try and kill him.

Third unexpected surprise: The human antagonists (for the hunters do fulfill that role) are actually threatening, both to the family and to Bambi.  There's always the worry in these types of movies that, if there are human antagonists, they are cartoonishly evil or make decisions that are incredibly stupid if any sort of thought it applied to them.  In this movie, they keep it simple and it works wonders as far as increasing their threat.

Overall, I really wasn't expecting anything from this movie other than dumb fun like the previous two movies I watched.  And that was a major mistake on my part!  This movie, judged on its own merits, is good!  It won't win any awards, but it's solid.  I'd even recommend it to people outside those interested in the Twisted Childhood Universe.  Which is not what I expected going into this.

7 out of 10

Review: Night of the Lepus (1972)

Fucking children...

Night of the Lepus primarily follows Cole Hillman (Rory Calhoun), a rancher looking to get rid of the massive amount of rabbits on his land and married scientists Roy and Gerry Bennett (Stuart Whitman and Janet Leigh), the two tasked with coming up with a solution other than poisoning to get rid of said rabbits.

The two scientist attempt to inject the rabbits with a serum that will cause birth defects (and thus reduce the rabbit population that way) but instead it makes the rabbits grow larger and more aggressive.  They then must destroy the rabbits to prevent any from making it into the wild, but wouldn't you know: their daughter Amanda (Melanie Fullerton) switches one of the injected rabbits with one of the control rabbits then convinces her parents to let her take one of the control rabbits home.

You see where this is going...

Soon enough, giant rabbits are terrorizing the countryside (thanks Amanda) and everyone must put their heads together to figure out a way to stop them.

It's a fairly standard eco-horror plot (though this dips a toe into SciFi a bit more than others of the same type, like Frogs), propped up by having well-known actors like Leigh, Calhoun, and Whitman as stars.  It was part of the 'Animals Run Amok' trend in the early 70s and is most notable for how the fact the 'monster' of the film was rabbits was hidden in both the posters and trailers.

The film utterly fails to make the rabbits scary.  Director William F. Claxton mostly had regular rabbits running on miniature sets and used slow motion to make them seem larger (this does not work at all) and then had people in rabbit suits for scenes where a rabbit needed to be up close 'attacking' someone (this looked even worse).  I appreciate the effort (1972 was not a good time to try to make a film with this plotline and have it even approach realistic special effects), but it was ultimately a failure.

The film does gain some charm from (despite?) the terrible effects.  Contemporaneous critics called the acting wooden, but I thought it was fine for the most part.  No one elevated the material in any way, but no one was terrible either.  The score is fairly nondescript, but after consecutive days of movies with jarring sound cues, that is almost welcome.  The movie is serviceable, which might be its biggest sin.

See, this movie has the makings of a true cult classic - ridiculous premise, terrible effects, sincere acting - but it never really rises up (or down, to be more honest) in such a way that it becomes campy.  Again, it is serviceable.  Other than the complete failure of the effects, it mostly succeeds in telling its story.  Maybe it would have been better had it not had established actors?  It never quite hits the level of truly terrible, which weirdly would had helped it.

But back to that child: Every death in this movie can be traced back to Amanda, and unless I missed something somewhere (very possible) she never even fesses up to switching out the test rabbit.  And this isn't a small death toll movie - an entire village is basically overtaken/eaten by the rabbits, and the National Guard has to be called in to handle the problem.  This is bullshit, and there should've been some sort of consequence!

Would I recommend this movie?  No, but mostly because of how forgettable it is, which is something a giant rabbit movie should never be.  But it isn't bad, and there are worse movies to watch.

5 out of 10

Review: Sharkansas Women's Prison Massacre (2016)

Sometimes you come across a movie title and you just know that you have to watch it.  The name might not scream 'prestige' or even 'good' but dammit, it has a name you just cannot ignore.  It could be something like The Big Gay Musical or (to use a TV example) Tattooed Teenage Alien Fighters from Beverly Hills: a name so ridiculous that it demands your viewing.  This is how I found myself watching Sharkansas Women's Prison Massacre.

Now look, I did not go into this movie expecting cinema.  With a name like that, I expected something cheesy, moronic, exploitative, and funny.  It's about sharks attacking people in Arkansas!  And the people being attacked are inmates and guards at a women's prison!  How could this not be entertaining?

Easily, it turns out.

Now, I won't say the movie is entirely terrible (even though it is), but that title is selling a certain type of movie that it does not deliver.  All the more disappointing since it is directed by Jim Wynorski, whose previous credits include Slumber Party Massacre II, The Return of Swamp Thing, and The Bare Wench Wench Project 3: Nymphs of Mystery Mountain.  Hell, the film advertises that Traci Lords is in it!

It feels like the movie goes wrong pretty early into it.  After an opening that delivers exactly what I was expecting for this type of movie (two guys 'fracking' in a way that shows no one involved understood what fracking actually is), we get to the women's prison (that does not in any way look like a prison) and they leave it immediately.  It's in the title that you are at a women's prison!  And you leave it and never return!?

Despite that immediate flaw, the movie still shows promise: All of the inmates are incredibly hot women wearing white t-shirts and jean shorts (you know, your classic prison garb).  They go into the woods for... reasons? to work (doing the worst shoveling I have ever seen in my life, and I was a lazy teenager who had to dig an insane amount) (Don't ask, it's way more boring than you'd think).  There is an extended section of this part of all of the women pouring bottles of water on themselves.  At this point, I think the movie, aside from a horrible location change, is back on track.

Except it quickly loses it again:  The first inmate kill is incredibly basic (which, okay, don't blow your load early and whatnot) but despite ripped clothing and blood splattered everywhere, everyone agrees that she just ran off.

And guys, my expectations were low, but come the fuck on!  I don't expect this to be anything other than ridiculous, but don't make the characters so stupid that this is the conclusion they come to!  Again, the movie almost saves itself with one of the characters - still being stupid, she says a tree is bleeding - shows her 'blood' covered hand to the camera and it sits there just a bit too long before moving to the next part.

The remaining prisoners and guard (there was a 'prison break' involving the girlfriend of one of the inmates catching the guards off-guard and kidnapping them that leads to the second guard dying by shark) end up at a house where the guard and the Good Inmate team up to take back over the group (the movie being stupid in a good way again) and then they realize that sharks are around when another inmate gets killed by them.  This is also when we learn that the sharks can swim out of the water and into the ground.  Again, blessedly stupid according to expectations.

Two geologists stumble upon the group to drop exposition and provide a higher body count.  The group tries to escape the sharks and periodically lose a member here and there until only two (or are there more?) remain, having escaped.  I don't have to spoil who the survivors are, it's kinda obvious who it will be.

There are some fun moments scattered throughout, but why name the movie this and not lean into it?  I'm gay, I don't need to see naked women, but how did this movie not have a single naked breast in it?  There are 3 different types of exploitation movies being referenced in the title alone that would create the expectation of gratuitous nudity!  Again, I am not the target audience but even I feel a bit cheated out of this expectation.

You might noticed that I never credited Traci Lords to a role despite mentioning her at the beginning.  That is because her character, a police officer, does not interact with the main plot until the very end of the film.  She (and her partner) could be completely removed from the film without affecting a single thing.

I wanted this movie to be a good time.  And it occasionally was!  But it just didn't use its premise well enough to be anything other than a way to pass time.

3 out of 10

Review: Tentacles (1977)

It's always interesting reading the backstories for some movies as I watch them.  For instance, Tentacles, the 1977 killer giant octopus movie, was originally written as a more comedic take on the formula popularized by Jaws.  However, it was retooled and rewritten to be a more serious film.  Either version was an attempt to cash in on the Jaws craze, and I wonder if it might have been better to go in the comedic direction.

Set in Solana Beach, California, this film follows reporter Ned Turner (a slumming John Huston) as he tries to find the source of a series of attacks by an aquatic animal.  He gets help from diver Will Gleason (Bo Hopkins, trying really hard to make the material work), and butts heads with Mr. Whitehead (Henry Fonda, originally the lead before a heart attack forced him into this smaller role) the businessman responsible for antagonizing the giant octopus (Is this a spoiler?  Could it have been anyone else, really?).

We also have Tillie Turner (Shelley Winters), the sister of Ned providing a B-plot (her son is in a sailing race where all of the entrants get attacked) and Claude Akins as Sheriff Douglas Robards as a third person for many of the scenes.  And I mean that: there are several scenes where it is primarily two people talking and it seems that the Sheriff is there just to provide an additional voice to the conversation.

Because this was an Italian production, every other character in the film is played by an Italian actor.  Unfortunately, most of these actors have incredibly distracting voice dubs, and there is a noticeable difference in the sound quality of these actors vs the American cast.  And it is even worse when one of the Americans shares a scene with an Italian.  I'm not sure if it would have been better to try to get American extras or just let the accents stay with the current actors, but it makes for a weird viewing having the dubs mixed in.

This movie also has some very odd directorial choices.  Several scenes feature what amounts to a screenshot (nothing in the frame is moving for several seconds) before cutting to the same scene only with movement this time.  There are also random music queues scattered throughout that almost have rhyme and reason to them, but miss just enough (and in a few cases, they miss wildly) that most viewers will notice the odd musical choices.

The special effects are bad, but better than I would expect for a movie with as small a budget as this one had.  Which is damning with faint praise, but what else can I say about a movie that, in one scene, has a killer whale attack the octopus where the viewer can tell it is a toy whale being thrust at a normal-sized octopus?

I hate to pick at this movie - it's akin to kicking a wounded animal - but it is such a misguided production in so many ways that I struggle to find anything to praise.  Shelley Winters gives the movie more effort than it deserves yet still the performances doesn't work.  Bo Hopkins, as alluded to above, also tries to salvage something from the script but something, likely the direction, holds anything worthwhile at bay the entire time.

If I am going to praise the movie for one thing, it will be that it really does not hesitate to kill characters.  The very first kill is a baby, family members of the main characters die throughout. and the movie isn't afraid to kill anyone, which is something.  It just isn't enough to save this movie.

3.5 out of 10

Review: Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)

Creature from the Black Lagoon has a simple enough premise: Dr. Carl Maia (Antonio Moreno) discovers a fossilized claw that appears humanoid but has webbing and claws.  Excited, he manages to get funding from Dr. Mark Williams (Richard Dennings) to expand his expedition to find more of this new discovery.  Along for the ride are Dr. Edwin Thompson (Whit Bissell), and colleagues (and lovers) Dr. David Reed and Kay Lawrence (Richard Carlson and Julie Adams).  Said expedition then learns that this creature is not entirely extinct, as they encounter one while searching for more remains.

The impact of this movie cannot be overstated.  While Universal had a history of successful horror films (Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolf Man, the Invisible Man, and the Mummy), by the 50s most of these characters were old hat - having appeared in movies together in various combos, and almost all having interacted with Abbott and Costello also.  The Gill Man was an entirely new - and entirely original - creation that was so instantly iconic that you'd be hard-pressed to find any 'fish man' that deviates away from this design.

Of note: though only makeup artist 'Bud' Westmore receives onscreen credit for the creation of the Gill Man, animator Millicent Patrick - one of the first women to be hired by Disney as an animator - also contributed heavily to the design.  This is because Westmore very angrily argued against the studio promoting her involvement.

The movie stands out for how consistently the tone plays throughout the film.  This could very easily have been something akin to The Brain from Outer Space (not a real film) but director Jack Arnold ably controls this film:  Staging the sequences so they are never not interesting (the swimming duet between the Gill Man (Ricou Browning for the underwater sequences) and Kay being a particular highlight), and keeping the film moving in a timely manner (the film feels much shorter than its 79 minutes).

When the Gill Man moves to land (played by Ben Chapman for these sequences), he still feels altogether alien despite his humanoid appearance.  Chapman deserves credit for moderating his movements to keep the Creature otherworldly so that the audience can never be fully at ease during his appearances.

The performances across the board are fine to good - much better than one would expect for a B horror movie from the 50s.  Julie Adams (credited as Julia Adams for this film and much of her earlier filmography) is justly an icon for her role in this, but best in show likely goes to Richard Dennings as the much more cutthroat Mark, who'd prefer to kill the creature rather than just study it.

Originally released in 3-D and considered one of the best of those from the 50s, I unfortunately only got to experience the 2-D version.  And I wonder how much is lost because of that difference.  Because, despite all the praise I can heap on this film for what it has accomplished, I am much cooler on it than I expected.

Possibly the music has something to do with it.  The Creature's theme - played continuously throughout the film - gets tiresome given how often and how loudly we hear it.  Despite the performances being good, none of the characters truly stand out - even Kay is more famous for her abduction by the creature than the character work of Julie Adams.  For whatever reason, this movie just didn't 'click' for me despite the skill and craftmanship that went into it.

Would I recommend it?  Yes: it certainly deserves its place in horror history, and I think even non-horror fans can enjoy it, though they might struggle a bit with the 50s style of acting.  I could even be convinced to give it a rewatch, though I would certainly want it to be 3-D next time.

6 out of 10

Review: Clown in a Cornfield (2025)

Clown in a Cornfield, based off the novel by Adam Cesare (which is a fun read), follows Quinn Maybrook (Katie Douglas), who has recently moved from Philadelphia to Kettle Springs, Missouri.  Kettle Springs is home to the Baypen corn syrup factory and its mascot Frendo the Clown.  Quinn quickly falls in with a group that makes horror YouTube videos based off the mascot, and when that group is pursued by a veritable army of costumed Frendos, she has to find a way to survive.

This movie is very much a throwback slasher:  Characters are fairly thin outside our lead, motivations are an afterthought, and the redshirts are fairly obvious.  However, it is still a fun time with some inventive kills and sly comedy scattered throughout.

Slashers - especially one that is paying homage to the 80s slashers - live and die by their energy.  Slow slashers rarely work (and for them to succeed, the slowness needs to be part of the gimmick like with In a Violent Nature) and boring/cliche kills can turn it into a slog.  So there is a constant battle to one-up previous slashers in both these ways that can turn the story into something perfunctory just so the focus can shift to those other priorities.

Because this is based off an existing novel, the story part is taken care of.  The adaptation trims quite a bit from the story, but the bones are there and allows the focus to shift to other aspects of the filmmaking.  Short of a complete rewriting of the novel (which, why would you adapt from a novel if that is your aim?), they have a blueprint to keep things from going too far off the rails.

The movie also succeeds with some inspired casting: getting a whole cadre of character actors to fill out the roles of the townspeople.  The biggest name is probably Will Sasso, but Kevin Durand and Aaron Abrams also make appearances.  All of the performers do an excellent job.  None of them break new ground with their performances, but they match the tone that the movie is asking for and flesh it out just enough to give it a pinch of realism.

The movie also wisely moves along at a quick pace to go along with the high energy.  We meet our characters and set up conflicts fairly quickly, and the kills start soon after.  At 96 minutes, it has to be judicious with its scenes and director Eli Craig (with an assist from editor Sabrina Pitre) makes sure not a moment is wasted.

All in all, this is a fun little movie.  It isn't doing anything to rewrite the genre, but it's a fun time.

6 out of 10

Review: Freaks (1932)

Freaks, directed by Tod Browning, is a complicated film.  Filmed in the pre-code era, it offered a compassionate look at those with disabilities and was vilified for it.  It is a tale of revenge that gets lumped into the horror category, mostly for the wrong reasons, but does feature moments of horror within it.  Originally 90 minutes long, producer Irving Thalberg - without letting Browning know - edited the film, removing so much of it that the alternate footage had to be added to give it a theatrical run time of 64 minutes.  The full version is lost.

It's hard to talk about the film on its merits when the version that survived to today is so heavily compromised.  Not only that, but a modern audience would approach it in a much different way than a contemporaneous one - which is the proper way to review it?  I'm going to somewhat split the difference between the two, but I can't say if that is the best method.

The story of Freaks is simple: Hans (Harry Earles), a dwarf circus performer, is smitten with Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova) a trapeze performer.  Because of a large inheritance he has received, Cleopatra leads him on for a bit before hatching a plan with her paramour, Hercules (Henry Victor), to marry then poison Hans so that she can get all of his money.  Unfortunately for Cleopatra and Hercules, they are found out and the titular freaks get their revenge.

The movie is one of contrasts: An early scene shows two men talking about what basically amounts to eugenics before coming across the sideshow performers and being horrified by them - this providing a counterpoint to the many familial scenes within the circus performer community, with both the 'freaks' and several of the 'normal' performers living amongst one another. Phroso and Venus (Wallace Ford and Leila Hyams) a clown and a seal trainer, consider many of these performers to be their friends, and Venus is attacked by Hercules because she knows too much about their plot.

There is also the infamous 'One of Us' scene where, after marrying Hans, Cleopatra is offended to be welcomed by the freaks and called one of them.  Whereas the 'freaks' are happy to welcome another into their group, the beautiful (and somewhat Aryan) Cleopatra - despite performing in the same circus - considers herself better than this other group.  Director Browning, who himself had traveled with a circus, likely didn't do this by accident.

The movie is not without problems, despite being in many ways well ahead of its time.  The revenge against Cleopatra and Hercules is still portrayed as horrifying because of who is pursuing them more than a proper comeuppance for their crimes, and Frieda, Hans's love interest, is played by Daisy Earles, the sister of harry Earles.  While the former is likely a combination of the heavy edits to the movie and the time period in which it was made, the latter really feels like it could have been avoided with additional casting.

Still, the movie is an interesting time capsule into the how filmmakers in the past worked to be subversive, and two years later the Hays Code would have made the making of this film all but impossible, so it should be treasured for what it did accomplish moreso than criticized for what it did not.

Would I recommend this movie?  It's short, so even if someone didn't enjoy it, it isn't asking too much of their time to check it out, so I'd say yes for that reason alone.  Film buffs should definitely watch it though.

8 out of 10

Review: Frogs (1972)

It's weird seeing Sam Elliott without his mustache.

Frogs finds a very-young Sam Elliott, playing photographer Pickett Smith, as he finds himself spending an evening and day with the wealthy Crockett family after one of their clan almost runs over his canoe with their boat.  Apologetic, they offer to let him dry off and spend the evening with them on their island.  An island that is teeming with frogs (or, toads that we are meant to believe are frogs).  Those frogs, and the various other wildlife on the island, have plans for the Crockett family and their visitors...

I think whether or not you enjoy this movie is heavily dependent on whether or not you can roll with the combination of a silly premise and serious acting.  While there is a certain level of campiness to a few of the performances, most of the actors play the dialogue dead serious.  It works for the film - I don't think the movie would work if there was any sort of leaning into the ridiculous premise - but if the viewer can't get into it, they will not enjoy this film.

I was able to get into it.  It's always interesting to see a before-they-were-famous performance and it is easy to see the easy charisma of Sam Elliott in this performance.  Several of the female characters are instantly in lust with him, and the viewer can actually see why they are into him so quickly - not an easy feat to accomplish.

Because of the large cast - there are a grand total of 10 members of the Crockett family, plus two servants and a guest in addition to Pickett - the deaths happen early and frequently.  While precious few of them are caused by frogs - I'll let future viewers be surprised at the actual total - all of them are caused by wildlife of some sort.  A few of them, while lacking realism, are still gross to watch, including one poor soul who ends up with a tarantula in their mouth - and not a fake one.

I'd almost like to watch a making-of this movie.  A man wrestles a live alligator in one scene, the trailer shows a woman dropped into quicksand by a giant butterfly (this does not make the final cut of the film), there is an extended sequence with animal sounds coming from stuffed animals where most do not match: I willing to bet the making of the film is just as if not more interesting than the finished product.

Overall, I'd say the film is enjoyable.  It could probably do with a few less scenes of frogs menacingly staring at the camera, but it's not bad by any stretch of the imagination, though I can definitely see opinions varying wildly on this one.

6 out of 10

Review: Wolf Man (2025)

I think the critics got it wrong on this one.

The 2025 Wolf Man follows the Lovell family (Blake, played by Christopher Abbott; Charlotte, played by Julia Garner; and Ginger, played by Matilda Firth) as they go to Blake's estranged father's home after he is declared legally dead.  However, it t urns out his father is not dead, but now a werewolf who attacks the family, infecting Blake.

This version of the classic tale diverges from other versions by having the turning process be long and painful.  Blake starts to get heightened senses, but then loses the ability to talk or even understand his family.  The metamorphosis is slow, and complicating matters is that the werewolf that infected him continues to hunt the family into the night.

There are undercurrents here of family trauma being passed on to the next generation, as well as less subtextual moments relating to relationships within a family that is strained but not broken.  The slow decline of Blake - treated as an infection given to him - feels pointed in a post-COVID film, and I appreciate director Leigh Whannell twisting the age old myth in such a way.

A film like this is going to live and die on its performances, and with a cast of 5 - two of which are fairly small - there isn't any room for a bad performance.  Thankfully, all of the cast do an amazing job.  Abbott in particular does an amazing job of showing Blake's slow loss of his humanity (it isn't stated, but is implied, that once you transform it is permanent).  Garner, as a mother who worries she doesn't connect with her daughter or husband as she should, also delivers.

Whannell does add some flair to several sequences in the film.  Several chase scenes are fairly inventive - my favorite being one involving a greenhouse - and the decision to cut between Blake's 'werewolf' vision/hearing and that of his family works very well at creating otherworldliness that would be missing in a standard werewolf movie.

This movie also wins points by not being overly long.  An hour and 40ish minutes - including credits - means that we get to the actual meat of the movie fairly quickly, and it doesn't drag at all as the family is trapped/attempts to escape Blake's childhood home.

I will say that this movie is more focuses on the psychological and body horror rather than on jump scares.  I think it is the correct choice for the story that Whannell and co-screenwriter Corbett Tuck want to tell, but for those looking for more traditional scares, this won't scratch that itch.  However, I'd definitely recommend it to those who don't mind a different type of horror.

8 out of 10.

Review: Fear No Evil (1981)

It really isn't surprising that a horror movie from 1981 would have a character possessed by Lucifer dabble with homosexuality (I think... it is never really clear if lead character Andrew - played by Stefan Arngrim - has always been Lucifer, or if he was possessed as a baby.  And those aren't the only possibilities either).  What is surprising is just how very gay this movie gets.

The plot:  Andrew Williams has been... something... since he was a baby.  At 17, he starts manifesting powers and acting demonic and it turns out he is the devil, Lucifer.  Three angels - also reincarnated as humans during this - have to seek him out and kill him before he brings about the end times.  Things get so incredibly gay along the way.

I really don't mean to harp on it so much, but I can't believe a movie that wears homosexuality so proudly on its sleeve got away with it in 1981.  Sure, A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 was also insanely gay, but it at least was mostly subtextual.  This movie has an extended scene where two men - naked, I feel I should add - kiss in the locker room shower of a high school.  It start out as bullying and turns into something else.

As Andrew finds himself becoming more and more evil, he gets gayer and gayer.  It's marvelous.  He summons the dead, he forces a coach to kill a student, he wears lipstick.  All things that prove he is evil.

Now, I have to be honest here:  Long parts of this movie are exceedingly boring, and I totally understand anyone watching this movie and deciding it is not worth the time.  But for every draggy, boring scene (mostly following the reincarnated angels) there is some sort of batshit insane scene to pull you back into the movie.

The popular girl group wear satin jackets that say Queen B's and that B means exactly what you think it does.

It helps that Stefan Arngrim really commits to the performance.  He gives the role more than I think it asks for - in particular, his early apparent struggles with turning evil really muddy the mythology of what is happening - but he does an amazing job with what had to be an insanely risky role for 1981.  It transcends into something genuinely campy (in a good way) and is the primary reason I'd recommend this movie.

Andrew's father starts screaming his son is the devil like he is in another, better movie.

As for the other performances, they are mostly fine.  A few performances are rough, but nothing terrible.  All hit the proper tone the movie is going for, if nothing else.  If I had to pick a next best, it would be Daniel Eden as Tony, one of the bullies of the school, whose character is second to only Andrew as having the most out-of-pocket scenes scattered throughout the film.

There is so much male nudity in this, even outside the shower scene.

When shit really starts to hit the fan - a church play results in mass stigmata; the summoned dead attack other students on an island that somehow has a castle-like structure - it has one last moment of absolute what-the-fuckery before the angels confront our devil and save the day (Spoiler?  The devil wasn't going to be gay and win in 1981 people, come on).  And I do mean what the fuck did I just watch?  I can't even begin to think of spoiling it: it needs to be encountered, like stumbling upon a wendigo in the woods.  Knowing about it beforehand only lessens the impact.

Lucifer is made up of lasers.

Tonally, it is all over the place, as evidenced by the wild swings between boring and absolute crazy, but hot damn did I enjoy this.  Even if it is draggy, it's only 99 minutes long, so nothing drags for so long that it isn't worth the wait.

Like Empire of the Ants, this movie really transcends a proper rating given the anything goes approach to the screenplay.  But I'll give it a 6 out of 10.

Review: The Pit (1981)

The thing about cult movies is sometimes you watch them and end up not being part of the cult.  I'd come across this movie in random forums or online lists of 'forgotten' films (and even The Angry Gay fave Final Girl) so I finally gave it a shot after seeing for cheap at Kino Lorber.

It was not my favorite.

I will say that lead actor Sammy Snyders does a good job in the role, and the trogs, while not very intimidating once they leave the Pit (spoiler?), at least have a somewhat original look to them.

But I am getting ahead of myself: first the plot.  Young Jamie Benjamin (Snyders) is an odd child.  Despite being 12ish years old, he still talks to his teddy bear (named Teddy, not very original is young Jamie) and doesn't socialize well with anyone his age.  However, he has discovered a pit in the woods filled with monsters he calls trogs.  He feeds them meat from the butcher, but finds himself unable to purchase more after a time.  What will he do? (He will feed them people, obviously).

So, first, this movie drags.  It opens with Jamie pushing someone into the pit, but then waits another 30+ minutes before it happens again.  Once Jamie does start murdering people, we get the exact same scene from the opening - in its entirety! - among the kills.  The kills are mostly done as a montage, and once they are done, we get some more 'plot' that doesn't do much to progress the story.

There are subplots in this film involving eventual victims, but they go nowhere and don't add anything to the movie so it feels unnecessary to get into them, other than to complain about them making this 101 minute movie feel even longer.

It may be that I'd be more invested if the acting was better, but it's pretty rough the entire runtime of the movie.  There's sometimes charm in that (see: Sleepaway Camp), but there still needs to be something interesting going on for it to work.  And none of it is interesting.

There aren't even that many shots that are visually stimulating either.  It's a very plainly shot with nothing inventive done throughout, and some shots actually take you out of the movie with the thought of 'What were they thinking?'

I am glad other people enjoy this and the world is better when people enjoy movies, I am just not a fan of this one.

3 out of 10

Review: Empire of the Ants (1977)

This is a bad movie.

Full confession: I love it anyway.

It's always odd when I write a review for a movie under those circumstances: This is going to be an insanely positive review for something that, at best, I can only give a 5 out of 10.  And even that would be a generous score.

The plot: Land developer Marilyn Fryser (Joan Collins) brings a cadre of prospective buyers to a beachfront development.  Unbeknown to her or the clients: toxic waste has been dumped into the waters near the development.  Some of that waste has washed ashore and ants have encountered it.  Things go south very quickly once the people encounter the ants.

Going into this relatively unspoiled, I assumed it would be similar to the other 1977 film featuring killer ants, Ants in that it would be incredibly aggressive and poisonous ants.  Instead, we get ants similar to those found in 1954's Them! - giant monsters that are out to eat any humans that cross their path.

Now, most of the ant effects are terrible.  The director used process shots, where close up images of ants are superimposed onto scenes with the actors.  It doesn't look great, and oftentimes doesn't match what the actors are reacting too.  A scene where the cast is menaced while in a canoe features one of the actors waving an oar in a direction that no ants are in.  I love it so much.

For close up shots, they do have puppet ants for the actors to interact with, but the camera work is so crazy during these scenes that you cannot get a good look at them.  They seem acceptable?  But it is probably on purpose that we don't get to see them clearly.

Surprisingly, many of the characters are given depth not usually seen in this sort of movie.  Nothing super deep (this is still an Animal Runs Amok feature) but arcs are present, though occasionally confusing.  I get the feeling that Marilyn is supposed to read as a more villainous presence than she does - especially given her fate by the end of the movie.  However, don't expect any surprises as far as who survives and who doesn't: this movie isn't going to deviate from the formula too much as far as its characters are concerned.

SPOILERS BEYOND!

I will say that the final act took a large swing that I did not expect.  Given my familiarity with the genre - and this subgenre within it - I can honestly say that this movie took an unexpected risk.  It doesn't work very well - it is the only part of the movie that feels like it drags a bit, but deciding to have the ant queen using its pheromones to enslave a nearby town is absolutely bonkers.  The viewer suspects something is going to happen given the pointed comment about a large sugar factory, but I don't think any viewer would have predicted this turn.

SPOILERS END!

So, what rating do I give a movie like this?  It has terrible effects and mediocre acting, but it honestly had me laughing and having a good time in spite of (because of?) all of the problems with it.  I can honestly see me rewatching it/forcing my friends to watch and enjoy the unintentional campiness to it.  There is a sincerity to this badness that makes me love it in the same way I love Sleepaway Camp.

My heart wants to give it at least a 7, but my mind knows that it doesn't deserve anywhere near that high a score.

4 out of 10, but a permanent place in my heart.

Review: Grabbers (2013)

I have a weakness for creature features.

This isn't anything new - I've mentioned it several times over the years - but I feel like any review of a creature feature needs that reminder.  Not because I'll be more forgiving of a creature feature (I will rip a bad one to shreds if I've a mind too), it's just that many of the tropes and cliches of the genre don't bother me.  If anything, I find them to be a feature: I know what to expect and can enjoy those occasions when expectations are subverted.

The horror-comedy Grabbers indulges in many of the tropes of the genre, but the twist to it (and the reason I love it) is that the protagonists discover that the titular creatures will not eat you if you are drunk.  So a plan is hatched to save the town by having a party at a tavern with free beer the entire night.  A perfect MacGuffin for the comedy part of the film.

There is no steely-faced man staring down death like in Jaws or Godzilla: our heroes are so plastered that they struggle to move a table to block a door.  Their compatriots struggle to stand up straight or go roaring out to fight the monsters with a Super-Soaker (or whatever the Irish equivalent is - for this is set in a small Irish town).  Everything about the fight against the creatures is ridiculous.

The performances are all fairly good - everyone calibrates their performances to match the tone of the movie.  Leads Richard Coyle and Ruth Bradley (as Ciaran O'Shea and Lisa Nolan) have a few more serious moments that are played well enough, and Russell Tovey (as Dr. Smith, the island scientist) is best in show amongst the cast.

The creature design is also well done - a swarm of tentacles surrounding a mouth with a froglike tongue it uses to grab prey.  The CGI for the creatures (for there are many) is definitely a little lower budget, but nothing overly distracting from the movie at large.

I do have a few criticisms for the movie though.  For one, the tavern where a large part of the movie takes place isn't given nearly enough attention for a location of such plot importance.  The layout is a bit weird, and I imagine it would take another watch for me to really understand how the set 'works' as a whole as opposed to the three main locations within it.

The movie also takes its time getting to the meat of the plot.  While it does have a few characters encounter the creatures early (and meet their untimely ends for their troubles), getting from the second attack to the main gathering at the tavern could use a bit more brevity or a few more kills.

Overall, this is a fairly enjoyable film.  I'm sure some of the humor goes over my head since I am not Irish and it was definitely made for a local audience, but I still had a good time watching it and laughed quite a bit.

7 out of 10

Review: Cursed (2005)

It's a bit surprising I had not already seen this movie.  Wes Craven directed and written by Kevin Williamson, the team behind Scream, this is the exact sort of movie high school/college me would've been all about.  Maybe its poor reviews when it released kept me away?  Whatever the case, I finally got around to it 20 years later.

Thankfully (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it), the movie doesn't prove to be essential viewing for any but the most diehard Craven fans.  It's a fairly average movie that might've been better had the producers (the odious Weinstein brothers) not tinkered with it: Forcing a PG-13 rating on it, having scenes rewritten and re-shot, and firing the legendary Rick Baker (who did the effects for An American Werewolf in London!) in favor of CGI that is below average even by 2005 standards.

Despite that meddling, the movie is mostly okay.  It follows siblings Jimmy and Ellie (Jesse Eisenberg and Christina Ricci) as they discover themselves to be werewolves after getting into a car wreck after hitting one. They then have to figure out who the original werewolf is to break the curse.

It's a fairly by-the-numbers story that I think is really undercut by the forced PG-13 rating.  Some more appropriate swearing and some better kills might not have made this great, but it certainly would've made the thin characterizations and thin plot more forgivable.  The best scene of the movie is also the only one that really gives it any personality, so it's a shame to see it constrained in such a way.

That scene, where bully Bo (Milo Ventimiglia) apologizes to Jimmy and then comes out and comes on to him, is deeply funny and both Eisenberg and Ventimiglia play it just straight enough (no pun intended) to really bring out the chuckles.   The movie takes the cowards way out by having Jimmy end up with Brooke (Kristina Anapau) rather than allowing a main character to be gay, but I will give the movie credit for keeping Bo alive to the end and having him end up friends with Jimmy.

Ricci is given far less interesting material to work with, and while she is very good at spinning gold from weaker dialogue, it ultimately defeats her here.  Most of her scenes are opposite Michael Rosenbaum, who is very much phoning it in, or Joshua Jackson, who feels like he is playing three different characters spliced together to make a single one in the final cut.

Really, this movie is missed potential.  There's the nugget of something interesting here, but too much personality has been removed for the movie to be anything other than okay.

5.5 out of 10

Review: Psycho (1998)

Fresh off of the success of Good Will Hunting, director Gus Van Sant had carte blanche to make whatever movie he wanted.  And he chose to not just do a remake of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, but an almost shot-for-shot remake.  It was an audacious choice, and one that was likely to fail no matter what, but I can't help but love that it happened.  Not because I think the movie is good (the movie is not by any stretch good), but because I love it as a film school thought experiment made reality.  Can you mimic something so completely and still have it as effective as the original?  Or is there some sort of undefined alchemy present in the making of a movie that can never hope to be recaptured?

This version of Psycho doesn't definitively answer those questions, but it does make a compelling argument for the answers to be 'No' and 'Definitely.'

I'll knock out the differences first.  The movie has more nudity, right out the gate.  I don't know that this was added as anything more than a 'I can get away with this in 1998' change, but at least in the instance of the opening scene with Viggo Mortensen (as Sam Loomis, the boyfriend) and Anne Heche (as Marion Crane, the doomed), the change makes for a humorous moment as Marion tells the completely nude Sam he cannot follow her out because 'he has to put on his shoes.'

The movie also changes the amount of money stolen to a more modern $400,000 and implies a bit of a media frenzy at the end after Norman has been arrested.  The movie somewhat updates the costumes, but not completely: the styles range over all the decades from 1960 to 1998, and not to the movie's benefit.  It does however, feed into the feeling that this film is a fever dream.

The last major change is the violence.  More of it is shown - again, likely because now it could - but Van Sant inserts flashes of random images meant to invoke the character's life 'flashing before their eyes.'  It also doesn't work, and this more than any of the other changes is one I wish he had not made.

I'll also note the change to color from black and white, but I don't really find it to be of any significance to how the film is perceived.  If it does distract or impact the movie in any way, it wasn't in such a way that I took note of it.

So, with that commentary out of the way, how do I feel about the rest?  Mixed, to put it mildly.

Two scenes in particular stand out to me as proof that there is a kind of alchemy in the making of a movie:  The first is the scene where Marion interacts with the police officer after sleeping in her car.  It's not a particular noteworthy scene in the original, but it just seems weird and out of place in the remake.  The second is when Norman Bates (Vince Vaughn, back when he still tried to be at least a little interesting as an actor) has to clean up after 'Mother' has murdered Marion.  Nothing about the scene noticeably changes, but it feels like the remake version takes so much longer.

The actors all had an interesting choice in how to approach this remake, and the decisions range all over the spectrum.  A personal favorite of mine is Rita Wilson as Caroline, a coworker of Marion's.  She plays the character as a mean gossip, and it is one of only two performances that go in a completely different direction from the original.

The other is Julianne Moore (as Lila Crane, the sister).  She plays Lila as a much angrier, desperate person as opposed to Vera Miles's take on the character.  It's a breath of fresh air in the movie, especially once paired with Viggo Mortensen's most casual take on the boyfriend character.  They play off each other very well and feel like the only two performances that were on the same wavelength.

Anne Heche is fine as Marion.  It's a hard role to make your own without showing that you are making it your own, but she does an adequate job.  Janet Leigh's stylized performance was in service to Hitchcock's vision, whereas this one feels like it is trying to find wiggle room within Van Sant's.  Again, it isn't terrible, but the weight of the performance that preceded it is visible throughout.

The biggest disappointment is Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates.  Saddled with a role just as iconic as Heche's, he does try to make it his own or at least do something different with the interpretation, but it just fails.  Which happens!  Sometimes an experiment, like a shot-for-shot remake of an iconic film, just doesn't work out, as happens here with Vaughn.  I just wish there was something I could point out as a success, but nothing works: the weird giggle, the overt masturbation scene, not even the facial acting of the final monologue really works.

Pretty much every other character is absolutely fine.  William H. Macy (as Arbogast, the private investigator) is normally an actor I enjoy and he does fine in this role, but not even he could get me invested in the character.

Overall, I'm happy to watch this film a second time after first watching it back in 1998.  It doesn't work, but sometimes it is nice to talk about an interesting failure.  At least it tried something different and weird.

5 out of 10