Review: Salem's Lot (2024)

I went into this movie with low expectations.  Originally filmed a 2021, it has been delayed multiple times, which is never a good thing when it comes to a movie.  Couple that with the poor reviews for it, and my main hope was that it would at least be watchable.

Part of the problem is that any adaptation of this book will have to drop making the city itself a character.  Jerusalem's Lot, much like Derry in IT, is just as much a character in King's novel as Ben, Dr. Cody, Burke, or Susan.  But, as a visual medium, having that come across without boring the audience is hard to do.  The 2017 version of IT was the most successful at achieving this, with a nod to the 1979 miniseries of Salem's Lot for attempting it to mixed results.

This adaptation - a singular movie unlike the 1979 and 2004 miniseries - is... okay?  They make quite a few changes, but only one, I feel, is detrimental to the overall story.  Most just seem unnecessary.  They don't enhance the story in any way, nor does it challenge the viewer.  They are mostly changes for the sake of changing things, and I have to wonder how many of them are a result of reshoots for this oft-delayed movie.

The performances are mostly just alright, with a few exceptions: Bill Camp, as Matthew Burke, is easily the best in show amongst the performances.  And there is a race to the bottom for two other performances - Pilou Asbæk as Straker (far too over the top and theatrical, both for the character and the movie) and Debra Christofferson as Anne Norton (a character changed vastly from the book, and not to anyone's benefit).  I'm thankful the movie opted to show less of Barlow (Alexander Ward) - he is just menacing enough without being over-the-top, and the look they go with harkens back to both Nosferatu and the 1979 version of the character.

Other than what I've mentioned, there's just not much this is noticeable about this film.  It's the cinematic equivalent to eating cotton candy: once it is consumed you can easily forget about it and move on to something else.  That might play into why it has been so poorly received - the only parts that really stick out are the parts where it is bad, so that's what the viewer remembers.

The review is coming across as much more negative than I actually feel about the film (I'd rank it above the 2004 miniseries with room to spare), so I'll end with this: I doubt this movie becomes anyone's favorite, but I doubt it will top any Worst of the Year lists either.  A mediocre effort.

5 out of 10

Review: Poltergeist III (1988)

I've always found it a bit weird that Poltergeist 3 (again, I am not doing the Roman numerals outside of the review title, mostly out of laziness) is considered the worst of the trilogy.  One could consider its muted response was somewhat because of the death of star Heather O'Rourke, a tragedy that would make many avoid a movie where the young actress is in peril.  But even in the years since, this movie is often considered the worst - no critical reappraisal has ever really gone against the popular belief that it is the worst.

There are a few ways that it is a step down from the previous two.  Namely, the 'undead effects' and the non-return of JoBeth Williams, Craig T Nelson, and Oliver Robins.  Losing three-fourths of your main cast would hit any franchise hard, and while I think the director and crew do a good job getting around the reduced budget, the seams still show in several areas.

Set in Chicago instead of California, the film takes place in a high rise tower.  The change is setting helps keep the movie a bit more fresh in my opinion, and the decision to use mirrors as the primary method of scares is a good one.  Who hasn't caught a flash of something as they turned their head from a mirror?  How horrible would it be to turn back and see what you had barely missed before?  Other horror movies have explored this more fully, but as a basis for how the return Kane (Nathan Davis, though Julian Beck is given a special mention in the credits) affects the world around him, the many mirrors is a striking choice.

The movie also differs from the previous two in that is willing to kill characters - the first time in the franchise that has happened (we are not counting Gramma Jess's death from part 2, as it was not caused by the supernatural like in this movie).  It's not a large change, but it does re-add some stakes to the movie after the absence of them from the previous.

The performances from the new cast members are fairly strong, though Nancy Allen struggles with some late-in-the-movie dialogue that feels out of place.  But you have reliable actors like Tom Skerritt and Lara Flynn Boyle working the material well, and even O'Rourke - tasked with much more dialogue than in the previous films - does fine for a young actress.

I'd say it is scarier than 2 though, again, with lesser special effects and makeup.  I don't think either of the sequels would keep anyone up at night, but this one would surprise them a bit more during the viewing.  But if you only watch the first one, it isn't a crime to have missed either of the sequels.

6.5 out of 10

Review: Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986)

After my glowing review for the original film from yesterday, I feel a bit bad about following up on the sequel with a much more negative review - especially since (spoilers!) tomorrow's review of the third and final Poltergeist film will be more positive than this one.  What can you do, though?  Sometimes a great film is followed by a not-so-great sequel.  Especially in horror.

Poltergeist 2 (I am not using Roman numerals for the entirety of this review - I have neither the patience nor the energy) follows the Freeling family as the try to recover from the events of the first Poltergeist.  The eldest daughter is no longer present or mentioned (for depressing real life reasons I will not go into), but the other four are living with Diane Freeling's mother (Geraldine Fitzgerald, giving this movie its best performance in what amounts to a cameo role).  They are in dire financial straights, as insurance refuses to pay for the loss of their house and Steve (Craig T. Nelson) is no longer selling real estate.

Neither director Tobe Hooper or producer Steven Spielberg return for this sequel, which almost certainly is what damned it to mediocrity.  Despite some well-done special effects (the Tequila Monster is easily best-in-show), most of the film feels cheap - looking older and less well done despite coming four years later and with almost double the budget.  The returning cast all tries their best, but the magic is gone.  Nelson gives a sweaty, effortful performance that only works occasionally, and despite large amounts of the expanded 'lore' of the movie focusing on Diane's side of the family, JoBeth Williams isn't given much outside a single scene involving a picture and the returning Tangina (Zelda Rubinstein).

New villain Henry Kane (Julian Beck), the reverend leader of a cult of people who also died in Cuesta Verde under the Freeling house, is well cast and menacing enough, but the final confrontation feels rushed and almost anticlimactic.  Other than the above mentioned monster, the final moments against Kane are probably some of the best visual effects of the movie.

Other than that though, the movie is mostly a retread of the original, to much less effect.  Other than Kane and Gramma Jess, the only other new character is Taylor (Will Sampson, tasked to play a variation of the Magical Indian trope) - and none of them have arcs within the movie, so much as they are human props to push the story forward.  Even then, almost nothing new is given to the Freeling family, and what little there is doesn't get enough attention to really merit mentioning.

The movie is watchable, at least.  Nothing great happens, but at the very least it moves at a good pace and keeps your interest.  But it's very much the one that I would skip when rewatching the trilogy.

5 out of 10... maybe 6 if I am feeling generous.

Review: Poltergeist (1982)

There's a lot that has been said about this movie over the years.  It's supposed curse, the debate over who the 'real' director is, and the general appreciation of the movie overall.  Zelda Rubinstein's performance is justly lauded (just think of how she entered the cultural zeitgeist despite approximately 15 minutes of screen time), and the movie is rightly considered a classic.  How do I approach a movie so thoroughly discussed?

I've decided to just talk about what I love about this movie, starting with what is - to me - the standout performance of the film from JoBeth Williams.

So much of the movie depends on her - you can trace the stakes of the movie by gauging her performance.  The mild concern that something isn't right after the first earthquake, the wonder at the initial interactions with the chairs and sliding across the floor, the sheer terror as one of her children is almost sucked into a tree - all of it comes across as very real.  You easily forget that you are watching an actor.

She continues to be the emotional through line of the movie after Carol Anne's disappearance - the worry and emotional fatigue is always a constant presence, even when receiving comfort from Dr. Lesh (Beatrice Straight).  Even once Carol Anne is rescued - though the danger isn't over yet - Williams allows you to see not just the joy of having her child back, but the lingering emotional trauma at almost having lost her.  While not a final girl - this movie, unlike its sequels, doesn't have any characters die - Diane Freeling should be listed among the great horror movie heroines alongside the likes of Laurie Strode and Sidney Prescott.

I also want to give mention to the special effects of this movie.  Like Razorback, the effects definitely show their age, but the are nonetheless effective.  Someone who hasn't seen the movie before would likely jump at certain points, and the Meat Scene in particular is still an unsettling moment within the film (and ultimately, why I come down on the Tobe Hooper side of the 'who actually directed the movie?' of that particular debate).

An underappreciated aspect of the movie that I only rarely see commented on is the production design and setting.  Subtly, the audience is given the layout of the house and where the safe/unsafe areas are in the early parts of the movie, and the suburban hell that surrounds their home - mostly demonstrated by a somewhat antagonistic neighbor - is the exact sort of banality that lulls you into thinking that nothing truly terrible could happen here.

At this point, I could start delving into the oft-discussed parts of the movie - the iconic clown prop, the tree that seems benign in daylight but becomes a monster in the shadows, etc - but I think I'll let this review end here.  Why discuss what is already widely known?

9 out of 10 - though I might give it a 9.5 depending on my mood.

Review: Razorback (1984)

This is a mean-spirited movie.

I don't say that lightly:  This movie kills with abandon.  Whether they are good or bad, all sorts of terrible things happen to the characters in this movie, and not just as a result of encountering the titular creature.  The movie is 91 minutes of unadulterated horror: no comedic moments to lighten the mood, it goes hard and has a singular focus.

Which isn't to say it's a bad movie.  I'd daresay it is a bit refreshing for a movie to have a genuine sense that anybody can die.  There's a menacing tone throughout that makes the movie feel relentless, and even when the movie isn't focused on imminent danger, it never feels as if it is far away - things could go bad to worse to worst at any given moment.

I want to give a special shout out to the animatronic for the murderous razorback.  While not realistic by today's standards, it still holds up incredibly well for a 40-year-old movie.  The cinematography is also top tier, and really adds to the atmosphere of the movie.

The movie does lose a little steam towards the end, though that is largely the result of the script moving from the openness of the Outback to a canning facility for the final confrontation.  Granted, the facility itself also has an abundance of atmosphere (it is very much the type of facility that could only exist in a movie, but that is not a strike against it), it just pales in comparison to what the viewer has experienced before.

What's surprising about this film is that it is director Russell Mulcahy's first feature film.  There's a part where the hero of the film (who I won't reveal, as the film does an excellent job of misleading as to who the eventual protagonist will be) wanders the Outback hallucinating from dehydration that manages to be exquisitely surreal while never feeling out of place or dropping the ever-present menace the film has cultivated to this point.

Would I recommend this movie?  Yes, but with a caveat: I don't think someone who is a casual movie watcher would enjoy this much.  Fans of horror would be more open to it, though if they don't care for creature features, this likely isn't the one to win them over.  It's a movie I feel I could show to 10 different people and get 10 largely different opinions.

That said, 8 out of 10.

2024 Movie List

The Movies:

Alien: Romulus

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire

Hit Man

In a Violent Nature

Late Night with the Devil

Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim

A Quiet Place: Day One

Salem's Lot

Taylor Tominson: Have It All

Twisters

Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey 2

Review: Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey 2

I did not know what to expect going into this one.  The original Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey was a quickly-made, low budget film made to capitalize on the newly-public domain source material.  With such a mercenary approach, I went into it with low expectations.  The movie was not great, but I was entertained and the slightest bit charmed by it - it very much gave the vibe of similarly low budget slashers of the 80s, and didn't pretend to be more than it was.  I walked away happy from the film.

The second movie has a budget - a much larger one.  And with that larger budget came the grand ambition of the Poohniverse (no, really).  I was skeptical that the charm it managed in the original would bleed into the sequel, especially with a cinematic universe to be built.

Imagine my surprise when, again, the movie managed to win me over.  It won't make any all-time lists, but the acting is solid (including an appearance from a slumming Simon Callow), the new appearances for for Pooh and Piglet are solid and the additions of Tigger and Owl aren't terrible.  The kills are suitably gruesome and more varied than I expected.

The movie isn't without its faults - You get no sense of how the city is laid out (which, given a path-of-destruction plotline, seems necessary) and it is fairly obvious who the meatbags are among the cast.  While the first had a pair of subversive kills, this one doesn't manage any that are surprising.

The movie also goes out of its way to show some naked breasts which isn't unforgiveable unless you account for the fact that it has a shower scene with a man that doesn't give the gays/women in the audience anything.  At least be equal-opportunity with your gratuitous nudity, filmmakers.

Can I recommend this film?  Not really - it mostly knows who its audience will be and doesn't really try to do anything to pull in non-horror fans.  I'm not even sure most horror fans will enjoy it, even if it does manage a bit of throwback 80s vibe again.  Basically, if you think you will enjoy it, you probably will.  If you think it looks terrible, you probably won't like it.

5 out of 10

PS: The announced movies in the Poohniverse look especially stupid, but I'll be damned if I am not curious.  Might I be the rare blogger to cover them all?  That will require a rewatch and proper review for the first Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey if I decide to commit.  The question is: Should I?