Halloween 2022: September 20th

Scream (2022)

The term “Everything old is new again” has always been truest in Hollywood, where studios are increasingly dependent on revitalizing commercially proven intellectual properties. The horror genre, with its love of long-running series, is especially ripe for reinvention and revival. And so we are in a new cycle of reboots of the most profitable horror franchises. Since Jason and Freddy are wrapped up in endless litigation and negotiation, Ghostface would be the next killer to return after Blumhouse's “Halloween” kicked open the floodgates. 2022's “Scream” – which missed a real opportunity to call itself “5cream” – arrived back in January. Director collective Radio Silence, of the likable “Ready or Not,” were hired to breathe new life into things while paying homage to what came before.

We return to Woodsboro 25 years after the first Ghostface killings and eleven years after the last spree. Once again, a teen girl is brutally attacked in her home by a masked assailant that first quizzed her over the phone about horror movie trivia. Tara survives and this brings her estranged sister, Sam, back to the town. Sam and her boyfriend, along with Tara's group of friends, realize they are caught in someone's twisted scheme to create the perfect "Stab" sequel. This is most evident in how many of the teens are related to people from the earlier incidents. Sam, most notably, is the secret illegitimate daughter of Billy Loomis. Inevitably, it's only a matter of time before familiar faces from the past return to Woodsboro, in order to unravel who has taken their love of scary movies too far this time.

When a new "Scream" was announced, it was a chance to reinvent the series. The original film was a self-aware slasher film, commenting on the rules of the genre that Gen-X audiences were all too aware of. It did so in a way that appealed to their ironic sensibilities. Today’s teens have no attachment to the slasher genre, which has largely fallen out of favor. Different types of horror define the modern age. "Scream 4" stubbornly refused to get with the times, sprinkling in some half-assed attempts at found footage before becoming a commentary on reality TV for some reason. A new "Scream" would've, ideally, taken shots at the "elevated horror" style and its constant desire to deconstruct trauma. Clearly, that is what resonates with the young people that now make up horror's core audience. This likely would've meant leaving behind Ghostface and slasher shenanigans, causing risk-averse producers to shit their pants.

2022's "Scream" gives shout-outs to "The Babadook," Jordan Peele, and Ari Aster. The words "elevated horror" and "trauma" are said. Yet it's all window-dressing on a story about something else. Randy's niece is here to exposition-dump about the rules of what normal people call "legacy sequels" and what this movie insists are called "requels." The script knowingly makes sure that all the new characters are related to the original's cast members. It includes mentor roles for the returning stars. Yet this desire ultimately bends towards a last act rant about an entirely different matter. The killers are revealed to be toxic fans, outraged at the perceived "wokeness" of the most recent "Stab" movie, and determined to inspire a proper legacy sequel. The duo met on Reddit and there are quips about being "radicalized." This means 2022's "Scream" isn't even about horror... It's about "Star Wars." The sequel even brings back a deceased character as a Force Ghost-like hallucination. More broadly, 2022's "Scream" is about the culture wars and nerd entitlement and incels and Trump and all the shit that is quickly becoming lazy narrative shorthand for our modern societal boogeymen.

Making a legacy sequel that comments on legacy sequels isn't a bad idea. Yet the new "Scream" doesn't take potshots at the capitalistic nostalgia-baiting behind the latest waves of reboots. Instead, it's a slightly winking but otherwise straight example of the trend. There are countless, gratuitous call-backs to the original film. The climax even takes place in the same house. The returning cast members are given grand reintroductions and there's a heroic sacrifice among the veterans. Lines of dialogue and songs reappear. Even whole scenes are recreated, namely the recursive moment where Randy watched “Halloween” on TV. The film occasionally finds clever riffs on the expected “Scream” trademarks. The modern indifference to landlines is cutely referenced in the first scene. The ubiquity of cellphones and aps are utilized to create a handful of clever suspense scenes. Ultimately, the script is much happier to nod at the familiar then do anything new.

In fact, Radio Silence's “Scream” follows another hallmark of the series: All the supporting characters are more interesting than the protagonist. Melissa Barrera, who plays Sam, may be a decent actress but she's saddled with the sequel's most melodramatic arc. Her backstory of familial trauma, addiction, and cursed bloodlines comes off as trite, leading to a histrionic performance. Sam is outclassed by almost everyone around her. Jenny Ortega is far more compelling as Tara, who is both vulnerable and indomitable. Mikey Madison, as wide-eyed and dark-haired Amber, and Jasmin Savoy Brown, as Randy's similarly nerdy niece, are also highlights of the cast. Jack Quaid as Richie, Sam's milquetoast boyfriend, got a few laughs out of me. Of the returning characters, Dewey and Gale's interactions are given added weight by David Arquette and Courtney Cox's real life baggage. All of them do a much better job of handling the film's frequently dreadful dialogue than Barrera or Neve Campbell, who seems at least slightly less bored with than she did in “Scream 4.”

That dialogue, which leans on colorful profanity far too often, is a big problem. Radio Silence's “Scream” is trying so hard to recreate the clever writing of the original that it often falls into the trap of everybody speaking in R-rated sitcom banter. Eye-rolling conversations and thuddingly obvious social commentary were also weaknesses of Radio Silence's “Ready or Not.” Yet, whatever flaws the directorial team bring to the material, they do excel at gory mayhem. The stalk-and-slash scenes in 2022's “Scream” are well executed. The filmmakers make sure that every blow and stab is keenly felt by the audience. Blades protrude from necks and hands. Bones are crushed and brains blown out. A disemboweling with two knives is especially brutal. It’s not just the extra-wet gore that makes these scenes work. The duo spruce up the stalking scene, with car headlights or Ghostface leaping from a shed door adding some novelty to otherwise routine slasher scenes. 

It seems film producers of the 2020s are obsessed with reinventing the slasher genre for the zoomers. Most of the attempts have tried to marry updated understandings of sexuality, trendy buzz words, or modern cultural woes to the ever-mutable genre. These films have been indifferently received by audiences. The new slashers that have been commercially successful, like this "Scream," mostly seem to just do the same thing as older films with a new coat of paint. And maybe that's the secret to success. "Scream 6," with the same creative team and cast, is already in active production. I can't help but find either approach a little tiresome. "5cream" is fine, an entertaining and competently assembled motion picture that made me smile or gasp once or twice. It's also totally resistant to changing or updating the elements of this franchise that are stale in any truly challenging ways. Maybe the next one will go a little crazier. Until then, I'll rank 2022's "Scream" as perfectly serviceable and nothing more. [6/10]

Before I Hang (1940)

Once again, the time has come for me to talk about a Boris Karloff mad scientist movie from the very beginning of the World War II era. In 1939, the man who was Frankenstein would make “The Man They Could Not Hang” with director Nick Grinde for Columbia Pictures. It must have been successful because, the very next year, the star and director would re-team for two more movies in the same vein. “Before I Hang” and “The Man with Nine Lives” – whose titles and premises are so similar that I frequently mix them all up – both followed in 1940. By this point, Karloff was already a veteran at playing these roles in these types of movies. Yet “Before I Hang” still gets singled out by classic horror nerds as better than most. I thought “The Man They Could Not Hang” was quite good, so let's give this one a shot.

As in the last Grinde/Karloff flick, Boris plays a well-meaning scientist who is on-trial for murder. This time, he's Dr. John Garth, who mercy-killed an ailing friend while perfecting a drug that will reverse aging. He's sentenced to death but allowed to continuing his experiments while awaiting his visit to the gallows. He creates a serum from the blood of an executed murderer and tests it on himself. It works and, soon, Garth is regaining his youth. Yet the serum has a horrifying side effect: Garth is overwhelmed by a desire to strangle people at unpredictable times. After he's freed from prison following a seemingly heroic deed, he re-enters the world, slowly becoming aware of his newly murderous impulses. 

If nothing else, “Before I Hang” is distinguished from Karloff's previous mad scientist flick, and many of future ones, in an important way. Dr. Garth genuinely wants to help people. Before his sentencing, Karloff delivers a grandiose speech about how he sees the fight against aging as the ultimate goal of all modern science. He doesn't plan on killing anyone and never sets out to do evil deeds. Instead, this is basically a Jekyll and Hyde scenario, the story of a good man who undergoes a transformation he has no control over that turns him into a murderer. Karloff, who could make even the greatest villain sympathetic, certainly excels in the part of a kindly old man who unknowingly becomes a monster. His pleas to help humanity are very sincerely delivered, in the way that only Karloff could.

With “The Man They Could Not Hang,” Nick Grinde showed that he could bring some visual flair to a routine horror screenplay. While “Before I Hang” doesn't look quite as good, it still has some sharp black-and-white cinematography. The shadows get stylized inside the prison. The fog grows heavier as the story progresses, especially whenever a prison gate is present. Before Garth turns evil, the darkness is ratcheted up around his face to visualize the change taking place. Though we only see it briefly, there's at least one cool set here comparable to the booby-trapped house in “The Man They Could Not Hang.” Garth's home has a neat checkered pattern on its marbled floors, evident in a few scenes. It's not the sharpest looking forties horror movie I've ever seen but Grinde and his team clearly put in some work to still make the film look good. 

Unfortunately, not as much effort was taken with “Before I Hang's” screenplay. The cliché of forties mad scientist films is that they always include the message of “man mustn't meddled in God's domain.” This is the moral imperative to justify all the monster mayhem we just witnessed. “Before I Hang” probably has the most half-assed example of this I've seen recently. Garth's goals are nothing but altruistic. His age-reversing serum, which is subtly depicted in a realistic manner, would be a world-changing discovery. Yet because he draws his blood sample from a murderer, he becomes a killer too for thinly-defined reason. Essentially, “Before I Hang” sees a fundamentally good man being punished for no crime other than trying to save other people's lives. Garth comes to blame himself. The story comes to treat him as an irredeemable monster, his daughter even growing scared of him. The idea of a good man becoming evil for no reason isn't what the film is trying to make scary. Instead, it seems to just be furthering a message of science being bad.  

“Before I Hang” is further weakened by its heroic protagonists, played by Bruce Bennett. He's a guy so indistinct and forgettable that I remember nothing about him right after watching the movie. At least there's some novelty here in seeing Edward Van Sloan, previously of “Frankenstein” and “Dracula,” actually interacting with Karloff in a civil manner. A strong Karloff performance and some cool shadowy visuals are enough to occasionally create some tension here,. This is most obvious during a scene where Garth tries to convince someone he's not a threat, while proving why he is. Ultimately, it's not enough to define a movie with a script that is half-formed in many ways and a moral center that is baffling even by the standards of the time. Maybe the next Karloff mad scientist flick I watch – he made five for Columbia in total and yet more elsewhere – will be more even. [6/10]

Creepshow: Mums / Queen Bee

While the first two seasons of Shudder's “Creepshow” series did not fill the “Tales from the Crypt”-filled void in my heart, I've enjoyed the show enough to continue on with season three. “Mums,” based on a Joe Hill short story, follows teenage Jake. His mother plans on taking the boy away from his father, Hank, a gun nut and would-be right-wing terrorist. When he discovers this, Hank murders Bloom and buries her in the family garden she loved so much. Soon, Jake notices that huge flowers are growing from the garden, which provides the path to get revenge on his father. In “Queen Bee,” a trio of teenage stans learn that Regina, the pop star they are obsessed with, is delivering her baby in a local hospital. They sneak in to get a look at the birth, only to discover that their idol is actually a hideous, insectoid monster.

It seems “getting revenge on abusive parents” is to “Creepshow” what “unfaithful spouses are punished” was to “Tales from the Crypt.” From the opening minutes of “Mums,” I knew where this was going. The pun of the title points towards the method of supernatural vengeance Jake and his mom will get on his asshole dad. While the rubbery, killer flower puppets are cool, “Mums” advances in an unsurprising manner. The execution lacks the campy humor and energy that made even “Tales from the Crypt's” most routine episodes' entertaining. “Mums” also contains the level of social commentary I expect from the son of the writer of “The Mist.” Hank is such a cartoonishly rotten scumbag, checking off every quality we expect from modern right-wing douchebags, that it essentially becomes meaningless. Though competently executed by director Rusty Cuddieff, and featuring a decent performance from Brayden Benson as Jake, “Mums” is the definition of mediocre.

Unfortunately, “Queen Bee” is much crappier than the first segment. The segment's entire premise revolves around an extremely dumb pun: Beyonce's obsessive fans call her Queen B., so “Creepshow” turns a parallel character into a literal queen bee. The how and why a pop star is actually a giant bee monster is never explained. Her voice has some sort of hypnotizing effect, turning the hospital staff into zombies with glowing, green eyes. The episode has nothing to say about fan culture. Its characters are dreadful, hypocritically doing awful things – like pushing a security guard down the stairs – and then continuing on as if nothing happened. Greg Nicotero turns up the neon lights and squishy special effects to compensate for a script that is incredibly thin, meaningless, and progresses in dumb ways. This debut does not bode well for the rest of “Creepshow: Season Three.” [Mums: 5/10, Queen Bee: 3/10]

Chucky: Death by Misadventure 

The line between television and film has all but vanished. Blockbuster movies are going straight-to-streaming. Big budget shows have production values akin to summer movies. Creators are treated the same way as major directors. If Marvel expects fans to keep up with a dozen shows as well as several tent-pole cinema releases every year, horror fans can follow a thirty-year-old franchise from movies to TV. This was likely the thought process Don Manchini had when he decided to continue the successful direct-to-DVD “Chucky” movies with a TV show. The idea of a foul-mouthed living doll gorily killing people every week on basic cable was unfathomable once but the TV landscape is different nowadays. The “Chucky” series debuted last fall to rave reviews, so I guess it's my duty as a horror fan – and a late-comer to this franchise – to catch up this year.

The premiere episode follows Jake, a socially awkward, queer, artsy teenager living in Hackensack. Jake is constantly bullied. His mechanic dad doesn't understand his art projects – which involve making sculptures out of old dolls – and resents his sexuality. His crush, a local kid with a true crime podcast, doesn't know he exists. His richer cousin makes fun of him. At a yard sale, he buys a vintage Good Guys Doll that says its name is Chucky. Jake figures out that Chucky is a valuable collector's item, with a weird history of violence associated with it. He soon discovers the doll is more than it appears to be. After Jake pantomimes a ventriloquist act at a talent show with the doll, the body count begins...

The first episode of “Chucky” smartly updates the original “Child's Play.” Before the idea of serial killer Charles Lee Ray was introduced, the first film was going to have Chucky acting on the subconscious resentment little Andy felt towards the grown-ups around him. In “Death by Misadventure,” the notorious killer doll becomes the avatar of a gay teenager's repressed rage. He fires back at the bullies at school. He coughs up the secrets the people around Jake hide. Inevitably, after Jake's dad makes his disapproval of his son's hobbies and preferences known, he becomes the first victim. This is a timely idea, considering the on-going cultural debate over sexuality in young people. And it's a perfect fit for “Chucky,” as this series has always reflected the sensibilities of its gay creator. 

Just as an hour of horror television, “Death by Misadventure” is fun too. We all know Chucky is an autonomous killer, something the episode has fun teasing out. The doll stalking the mean bitch in Jake's class – who bullies via the internet and in-person – and carving up a science lab frog are fun sequences. Before too long, Brad Dourif's beloved sneer is coming out of the doll's plastic lips once more. The special effects are on par, and maybe a little better, than the last movie. The actual kill scene is fairly tame, and largely comical, though it makes clever use of alcohol. 

There's plenty of plot threads dangled here that future episodes can follow up on. The history of the franchise hinted at. It seems “Chucky” is going to delve into Charles Lee Ray's past, while Jake's family clearly has lots of secrets the show can get into. There's also already connections to the past films. Whether that'll be compelling as the season winds on remains to be seen. Serialization in shows like this tend to wear me out quickly. The music cues are a little obvious here. A song with the lyrics “This is how villains are made” play as Jake turns against his dad. Yet “Death by Misadventure” is a good start, allowing this franchise to do what it's always done best while finding an exciting new context for its star killer to rampage around in. [7/10]