Last of the Monster Kids

Last of the Monster Kids
"LAST OF THE MONSTER KIDS" - Available Now on the Amazon Kindle Marketplace!
Showing posts with label crime & gangsters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime & gangsters. Show all posts

Saturday, April 25, 2026

CHUCK'S ROUNDHOUSE: Logan's War: Bound by Honor (1998)


By 1998, “Walker, Texas Range” had been running for seven seasons. This was clearly a deal that had worked out for Mr. Norris and his bosses at CBS. Why not expand this surely profitable partnership some? That year would see the network airing “Martial Law,” a similar series mixing police procedural elements with martial arts and starring an action icon: Sammo Hung, Jackie Chan's old pal. While not a direct spin-off, Sammo would crossover with “Walker” and the show was clearly an attempt to recreate its success. A direct “Walker” spin-off would follow next year, with “Sons of Thunder.” That program only ran for six episodes but at least it made it to series. The same cannot be said for “Logan's War: Bound by Honor,” a TV movie Norris co-starred in that aired after a new “Walker” episode on November 1st of '98. 

Logan Fallon is the ten year old son of a district attorney. The boy seemingly has psychic premonitions of danger. His dad prepares a case against gangster Sal Mercado, despite his son's warning. This leads to the Fallon family being assassinated, Logan as the sole survivor. He's adopted by his uncle Jake, a former Army Ranger/kickboxing expert who has retired to a horse ranch following years of adventures. Logan swears vengeance against the mobsters who killed his parents and sister. Uncle Jake teaches him everything he knows, Logan following in his footsteps by becoming an Army Ranger. After returning home, Logan goes undercover in the Chicago mob, posing as a hit man. His final plan is to infiltrate the Mercado operation until he's close enough to take out Sal himself. 

By 1998, Chuck Norris would be pushing sixty. While “Walker” would run for another two seasons, it was clear that the action star could not pull off those roundhouse kicks and spin punches with quite the same level of limberness as he did in his glory days. Obviously, the instinct is to pass the baton onto to the next generation of acrobatic brawlers who can't act. Thus, “Logan's War” sees Norris stepping into a mentor role. The title character is played by Eddie Cibrian, Chuck mostly appearing at the beginning and end of the film. Honestly, it's a shift that Norris had been building towards for a long time. He was already depicting himself as a teacher to younger characters in “The Hitman,” “Sidekicks,” and “Forest Warrior.” Amusingly, while the film mostly sees Chuck passing on his knowledge and teaching Cibrian his bad-ass ways, he does leap right back into action at the end. In fact, “Logan's War” sees Chuck pulling off his trademark move of jump-kicking through a car's windshield. The implication is clear: Younger dudes must appear to fill these roles but that doesn't mean grandpa still can't kick some ass too, presumably in a reoccurring guest role in future episodes. 

While the star's production company would come onto “Walker” after the premise had already been conceived, “Logan's War” is based on a story by the Norris brothers. This means that, while the aging Lone Wolf does not play the title character, Logan is still blatantly a Chuck Norris type hero. Uncle Jake is a cowboy and an Army Ranger and an expert in melee combat. He passes all these skills onto Logan, who has a glorious and commendable career in the Army as well as being highly skilled in kicking and fighting. “Logan's War” also has the new guy involved in a very Norris-like subplot, wherein he defends a troubled woman and her young son from an abusive, shit-head boyfriend. This plot point contributes to the story in no meaningful way, there strictly to show audiences how noble and tough this guy is. That the script goes the extra mile and gives Logan an actual superpower is almost unnecessary. He's already hyper-capable and able to fight his way out of any situation.

Unsurprisingly, this means that Logan's precognitive abilities basically disappear from the story about half-way through. Why the guy has some sort of Spidey Sense is never explained. This is another symptom of “Logan's War” making its hero such a talented guy. The script is hopelessly top-heavy, as it sets up all of Logan's back story. First the extensive flashbacks to establish his need for vengeance. Then the lengthy training and sparring sessions and brave army record. By the time Logan is actually infiltrating the mob, “Bound by Honor” is already half-way over. The guy's trip into the criminal underground doesn't amount to much beyond some rough-housing, a quickly executed initiation ritual, and one hit. Is that all it takes to become a made man? When he pulls a gun on all the gangsters and reveals his true identity, nobody seems that shocked. Probably because they barely know this guy and have little reason to trust him anyway. 

Indeed, why should the audience give a shit about Logan either? Eddie Cibrian does not have the action star legacy of Chuck Norris. He was predominantly a pretty boy TV guy, having previously starred on “The Young and the Restless,” “Sunset Beach,” and the supernatural investigation spin-off of “Baywatch.” He can convincingly deliver a kick. Or at least swap places with a stunt double decently. He simply doesn't have much charisma. This pairs with a presentation that is nothing but workmanlike. Director Michael Preece was a TV lifer, whose most prominent work includes seventy episodes of “Walker” and sixty of “Dallas.” Which is to say that “Logan's War” never looks anything more than average, the blocking being extraordinarily standard and the imagery largely bland. I'm honestly surprised that the film features some passable action in its back half. When Chuck is punching and kicking, the film almost starts to feel a little more lively. 

While “Logan's War: Bound by Honor” ends with its title character getting his revenge, the film was clearly still designed to launch a series. The final scene has the protagonist being asked what he plans to do next, the obvious implication being that more adventures are to come. With Chuck still starring on “Walker” at the time, I suppose Uncle Jake would have only made occasional guest appearances. We'll never know, since no further installments followed. Considering how hard the film leans into the cowboy angle, not much effort was taken to avoid comparisons to “Walker” anyway. Mostly thanks to a story more focused on set-up than pay-off and a lead lacking any charm, “Logan's War” is a snooze. I'm glad Chuck got to fly through the wind shield of a car one more time though. [4/10]

[THE CHUCK OF NORRIS: 5 outta 5]
[X] Facial Hair
[X] Jumps or Kicks Through a Window or Wall
[X] Performs Spin Kick or Spin Punch to Enemy's Face
[X] Shows Off His Hairy Chest*
[X] Sports Some Cowboy Getup


*Wears a low-cut tank top during a sparring scene, the Carpet of Virility briefly visible

Monday, April 20, 2026

CHUCK'S ROUNDHOUSE: The Hitman (1991)


Watching your way through a movie star's entire career allows you to see how their style and screen persona evolved. There's always been a bit of a contrast between Chuck Norris: Memetic Bad-Ass, as depicted in his more ultra-violent eighties action-fests, and the distinctly Americana-infused cowboy do-gooder of “Walker, Texas Ranger.” The actor intentionally softening his image in the late eighties also, probably not coincidentally, dovetailed with his own brother taking over directorial duties on most of his movies. Despite that, I guess the industry and the demands of the marketplace can still throw you a curve ball sometimes. Right at the start of the nineties, the Norris siblings would work on a project originally conceived for Charles Bronson, who had starred in increasingly grittier variations on his “Death Wish” movies all throughout the previous decade. Being roughly three hundred years old at the time, however, forced Bronson to pass the mantle over to another mustachioed tough guy. The resulting film, “The Hitman,” would be “presented” by the barely-hanging-on Cannon, with no involvement from the company's previous execs. It represents an odd fusion of Norris' preferred style and the more intense violence that was becoming popular in the action genre at the time.

Cliff Carret is a Seattle police officer, investigating drug smuggling operations run by the local criminal empires. During one such bust, he is betrayed by his partner, Delany. Shot in the chest and pushed out a window, Cliff's heart stops momentarily in the emergency room. His police chief seizes this opportunity to have Carret declared dead. Under the new identity of Danny Grogan, a ruthless hitman, he goes undercover with the Luganni mafia family. The Lugannis are currently attempting to consolidate their empire with the LaCombe family across the border, against an in-coming intrusion into the area by Iranian criminals. Garret/Grogan, secretly in the employ of the police, attempts to complicate this fusion and dismantle both families. All the while, he continues to live a double life, helping out a bullied youth in his apartment building while still plotting revenge against his crooked partner.

Some ads promoted "The Hitman" with tagline “No more Mr. Nice Guy!” Unavoidably, the gimmick here is that Chuck is playing a “bad guy” or, at least, a violent anti-hero. Considering Norris had already portrayed a remorseless mass murderer in “Invasion USA” and “The Delta Force,” that really says a lot about the relative morality of eighties action movies. I guess it's okay when Commies and brown people are being slaughtered. The star sports a greasy looking mullet, a scar over his left eye, a black trench coat, and tough looking sawed-off shotgun.  He has multiple scenes devoted entirely to intimidating people and is re-introduced into the story blasting an unarmed man across a room. This choice is reflected in the tonal atmosphere of “The Hitman.” This is a story of rival mafiosos, peppered generously with outrageous profanity. There's at least two scenes of extended torture, one involving pig guts being shoved into someone's mouth and face. Racism is a reoccurring theme, alongside betrayal, greed, and corruption. The film also features Chuck's character evidently going down on his female love interest, something that's definitely not happened in any of his previous roles. If that scandalized any of his more religious fans, don't worry, she's shot in the head in the next scene or so. 

For a brief series of scenes, “The Hitman” seems like it's actually committed to the idea of Norris playing an irredeemable criminal. Perhaps whatever good was left in Cliff Carret died on that operating table, Grogan emerging as a Hydeian alter ego. That would've been interesting but “The Hitman” quickly gets cold feet. Upon returning back to his apartment, the “Grogan” persona is dropped entirely. He befriends a latch-key kid in his apartment, the boy's mom working three jobs just to support them. He enthusiastically shows the kid his model airplanes, as wholesome a hobby as a professional killer could have. When the lad reveals that he's being bullied, Grogan teaches him martial arts for self-defense. This leads to a light-hearted montage of the two training, set to a whimsical score. (There's also a scene where Grogan talks about growing up on an Indian Reservation as a white kid, getting bullied by darker skinned boys, which would probably be an insensitive thing to say to a black kid but this is apparently a real anecdote from Norris' own childhood.) This subplot – alongside inexplicable moments like mulleted Chuck basking in the quiet majesty of a Beluga whale – removes any ambiguity from the premise. See, this guy might be a brutal killer of bad men but he's ultimately a good man, who fights for justice and protects kids. He, in fact, is a nice guy.

The tonal disconnect between these two parts of the film is amusing, as if a hyper-violent shoot-em-up is randomly interrupted by a B-plot from a moldier episode of “Walker, Texas Ranger.” That's exactly how Aaron Norris and cinematographer João Fernandes shoot these scenes too. Funny enough, the rest of “The Hitman” actually looks quite moody. Fernandes' talent for misty urban locations, blue head lights and street lamps piercing the shadows of corners and alleyways, get a good work-out here. That slaughterhouse torture scene definitely reminds you of Fernandes' horror roots. Setting the film in Seattle and Vancouver – cities whose criminal empires I was previously unfamiliar with – with so many scenes happening in dark warehouses inevitably make this feel like an episode of “Highlander: The Series.” Joel Derouin's musical score, which is heavy on the warbling saxophones and bouncy synth bops, repeatedly draw attention to how cheesy and cheap “The Hitman” is overall. It's another contrast in the film, some decent neo-noir visuals standing alongside TV melodrama and a soft jazz soundtrack. 

If “Delta Force 2” suggested that Norris was becoming aware of Steven Seagal's style of limb-twisting action nudging into his territory, “The Hitman” makes me think that “A Better Tomorrow” must have made its way to Texas by 1990. The scenes of Chuck duel wielding firearms while dodging around further bullets brings the Heroic Bloodshed style to mind. While the heroic part is debatable, the film definitely has plenty of bloodshed. The squibs here are very big and wet. Limbs are blown apart, blood splatters from every wound, and people are visibly agonized by their injuries. A notable moment has a grown man reduced to blubbering like a child after a gut shot, an unexpectedly realistic moment in an otherwise exaggerated action movie. Again, if not for so many other things about “The Hitman,” it would be a pretty gritty crime flick. The bad guy explodes into flailing bloody giblets in the final scene, which is presented as a moral victory. 

The result is a bit of an odd ball. “The Hitman” seems designed to challenge Chuck Norris' established good guy act in many ways while also hilariously backtracking to cuddly, kid movie antics. All the actors playing the mobsters and crooks are giving suitably hard-boiled performances. Michael Parks is his usually colorful self as the film's main villain. The somewhat convoluted subplots concerning the mob world double-crosses point towards this possibly being a more serious crime movie. Then we'll leap back to the son/little brother figure that Chuck has to support or him rubbing a whale's head. Fascinating in its own way, it represents the direction the action genre was going in opposition to what Norris wanted to keep doing. He would pick the cheesy kids movie/TV stuff, mostly leaving the hard-hitting violence (and that awful mullet) behind. [6/10]

[THE CHUCK OF NORRIS: 4 outta 5]
[X] Facial Hair
[X] Jumps or Kicks Through a Window or Wall
[X] Performs Spin Kick or Spin Punch to Enemy's Face
[X] Shows Off His Hairy Chest
[] Sports Some Cowboy Getup
 

Thursday, April 9, 2026

CHUCK'S ROUNDHOUSE: Forced Vengeance (1982)

 
As I mentioned in yesterday's review, the threshold of entry into the action genre is relatively low. Or at least it was in the seventies and eighties. Once you locate some dudes that can actually fight, humans being the most durable special effect of all, you've got all the spectacle you need. That's presumably why Chuck Norris' earliest brawlers were independent productions, made outside the big studio system. Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer wasn't going to drop some real dollars on this wooden karate guy nobody has heard of, ya know? By 1982, people actually had heard of this wooden karate guy though. That's the year that Chuck made his major studio debut in both “Silent Rage” and “Forced Vengeance,” the former for Columbia and the latter for M-G-M. “Forced Vengeance” actually had the highest budget of the star's career up to that point, at five million dollars. Were karate nerds in 1982 decrying Chuck for selling out or were they happy their boy had finally made it to the big days? While you dig up Usenet posts from forty-four years ago, I'll write my review of “Forced Vengeance.” 

Josh Randall was a U.S. Navy chief who was kind of drifting through life. After getting into a brawl in a Hong Kong casino called the Lucky Dragon, Josh catches the attention of the business' owner, Sam. He takes the guy under his wing, employing him as the casino enforcer and treating him like a surrogate son. Randall sorts his life out, finding a girlfriend in a pretty blonde named Bonnie, and considers his next move in life. That is when Sam is murdered under mysterious circumstances. Randall immediately knows who is responsible: Hong Kong gangster Stan Ramandi, himself an heir to a local criminal empire. After the rights to the land goes to Sam's daughter, Joy, Randall has to use his martial arts skill to protect the girl and her property from the killers sent after her. 

Those critical of action movies, or any genre that relies on repeatable formulas for that matter, complain that these movies are interchangeable with each other. That you can put on any Chuck Norris movie and get basically the same thing. While I don't think this is an entirely fair criticism, “Forced Vengeance” does do little to distinguish itself from Norris' prior films and many other fight films from similar performers. Revenge plots are extremely common across Norris' flicks and, as the title indicates, that's what “Forced Vengeance” does too. The premise, of a casino owner being killed by gangsters after his land who then attacks the dead man's family, is extremely generic. To the point that it resembles the story of “The Way of the Dragon” to a degree. “Forced Vengeance” doesn't go out of its way to dispel perceptions, is my point. M-G-M wanted to make a Chuck Norris movie but they clearly didn't want to mix up the formula any.

The script from Franklin Thompson – most of his credits are as a consultant on Perry Mason episodes – seemingly tries to mix things up by piling on a number of supporting characters. Norris' hero gets both a girlfriend and a surrogate sister figure to protect. He has a former war buddy who becomes involved for a little bit. A Hong Kong detective accompanies Norris in a few scenes. Frustratingly, many of these characters come and go from the story, getting shuffled out of the plot in sloppy and quick ways. The film also includes multiple villains for Chuck to kick through. The final boss of which is not introduced until ten minutes before the end credits roll. Having the big bad of the story be an infirm old man in a wheel chair is intriguing but not much is done with it. Much of “Forced Vengeance” is like that, as if a bunch of ideas were thrown together quickly without much time to assemble them into a satisfying whole. 

Chuck Norris might be one of the origin points for the widely held belief that action heroes can't act, that they are strictly physical specimens without any of the intellectual artistry that goes into the craft of creating a character. Now, I do think Chuck actually has a degree of charm and physicality. He's got a winning smile and an easy-going, relaxed screen presence that makes him fun to watch. When it comes to delving into deeper emotions, anger seems to be the one he's most effective at portraying. There's a moment in the last third of “Forced Vengeance,” where Norris' character has lost almost everything. He slips on his old military uniform, marches down a hallway, and beats goon to a pulp inside a public bathroom. It's one of the better moments in the film. However, Norris' weakness as a movie star become apparent in how he does not maintain that sense of ferocity and rage throughout. Randall's characterization seems to change from scene to scene, how pissed-off or relaxed he is different at any point. The first scene sees him intimidating a guy who owes the casino some money, causing you to believe that maybe this character is a bit of a jerk. When hanging out with his girlfriend, he's cuddly and sweet. When on the warpath, he's a cold-eyed avenger. The film cannot tie these elements into a coherent whole. He also has an extremely half-hearted voice over narration. 

Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. The action is what we are here to see, after all. Director James Fargo, previously of “The Enforcer” and “Every Which Way But Loose,” has a decent grasp on that. For a good chunk in the middle, “Forced Vengeance” becomes a chase movie, as Randall leads Claire and Joy around Hong Kong and tries to protect them from a succession of attackers. This is probably the most fleet-footed, exciting series of moments in the film. When Chuck is caught off-guard at a train station, the film briefly becomes exciting. Cinematographer Rexford L. Metz – second unit guy on “Jaws” and many other high-profile works whose primary D.P. credits are mostly TV movies – cooks up a few eye-catching visuals. One fight takes place in silhouette against a large neon sign, a moment so striking it was reused for the opening credits. 

The fight choreographer features the smooth, powerful blows from Norris that we've come to expect. Credit where it is due, the film manages to convincingly sell the idea that Michael Cavanaugh is an actual threat to Chuck Norris, by emphasizing him swinging a pole arm around. “Forced Vengeance” also tries to distinguish itself by making the action a little bloodier and bolder than in some other previous examples. The villains memorably splattery death scenes. The grittier approach is also present in what happens to Chuck's primary love interest, a darker element that doesn't seem to match up with a lot of the other tonal choices made here. In fact, both female leads get pawed at by villains, pointing towards this being a sleazier exploitation movie that is never built on. 

The Hong Kong setting does add some color and novelty. That includes an amusing homage to Bruce Lee. However, “Forced Vengeance” ultimately feels a lot sloppier than Norris' last few films, which were only getting stronger up to this point. A story that is both generic and unorganized, with a bunch of ideas that never come into focus, keeps this form being a truly satisfying brawler. Maybe I should have expected a generic example of action schlock, what with that unimaginative title. I suppose the idea is that the villains' wicked actions force Chuck into enacting some revenge against them? Kind of awkward though, as he still willingly goes about his roaring rampage. Another example of how maybe this wasn't the most well thought out motion picture. Cool cowboy hat though. No doubt Chuck can rock a Stetson like nobody's business. [5/10]

[THE CHUCK OF NORRIS: 5 outta 5]
[X] Facial Hair
[X] Jumps or Kicks Through a Window or Wall
[X] Performs Spin Kick or Spin Punch to Enemy's Face
[X] Shows Off His Hairy Chest
[X] Sports Some Cowboy Getup


Friday, February 6, 2026

OSCARS 2026: Sinners (2025)

 
(In an unlikely turn of events, the bloody vampire movie I reviewed last September has become the most nominated movie in Academy Award history. Please don't held it against me if I reuse my review I wrote last fall during this Oscars season, as my opinion is unlikely to have changed much since then.) 
 
Perhaps I was the last movie nerd in the world to underestimate Ryan Coogler. Establishing himself in 2013 with ripped-from-the-headlines indie drama "Fruitvale Station," Coogler would bring that same level of grit and sincerity to franchise filmmaking with "Creed." "Black Panther" would launch him into the stratosphere but, I felt anyway, at the sacrifice of a lot of his more intimate style. This was truer still of the superhero blockbuster's inevitable sequel, which wasn't all that distinguishable from any other mid-tier Marvel movie. A lot of smaller directors have signed up for massive studio projects with the understanding that this will give them a blank check to fund their weird, personal efforts from now on, an agreement that is increasingly unfulfilled. It seemed like Coogler was going down this same path but, actually, I'm a wrong idiot who is wrong. Coogler came back with "Sinners," a personal, gritty, weird genre hybrid that became a big hit earlier this year. It's also the best new release I've seen in theaters in a while and looks unlikely to be dethroned as my favorite film of 2025. Here, let me ramble about it some more. 

In Prohibition-era Mississippi, twins Elijah and Elias – nicknamed Smoke and Stack – return to their home town. Using money and booze stolen from the Chicago mob, they purchase an old sawmill with the intention of turning it into a juke joint. They recruit several locals to run it, including their cousin and aspiring bluesman Sammie, experienced musician Delta Slim, Smoke's ex-wife and Hoodoo practitioner Annie, and a pair of Chinese immigrant shop owners. The club attracts a crowd, including Stack's white passing ex-girlfriend Mary and Pearline, a singer Sammie takes a liking to. Sammie's soulful playing also draws the attention of Remmick, a white vampire recently chased into the area. Unable to enter the joint without an invitation, he begins to transform anyone who ventures outside into undead bloodsuckers. A tense standout ensues through the night that will change the lives of everyone involved. 

“Sinners” is a movie of great texture and I mean that almost literally. Cinematographer Autumn Durald Arkapaw shot the film on 65mm, ensuring a depth to the film's look that seems much more difficult to achieve with digital technology. Every shot of the film is filled with details, from the extremely precise period costumes to the production design that makes every setting seem like a real, lived-in location. This sense of specificity extends all throughout “Sinners.” The characters' backstories and pasts are discussed naturally through dialogue, suggesting a whole world existed before the viewer sees the events of the film. Whether its the fate of Smoke and Annie's unborn child, the brothers' history as World War I veterans or time working with the mob, or the personal recollections of Mary or Delta Slim's lives, it all adds up to create a world that feels utterly fully formed. The film embraces the shared histories of blues music, the lives of the black community in the American south, how Hoodoo grew out of African mysticism, and a vampire mythology all its own. This pairs extremely well with the Mississippi setting, where everyone is always glistening with a layer of sweat and dirt. 

Honestly, the first act of “Sinners,” devoted entirely to introducing this cast of extremely well realized characters and the world they inhabit, could have gone on longer than it did. However, “Sinners” is also a hard-hitting monster movie/action flick mash-up. A sequence in which the established cast stand in a circle and eat garlic cloves in order to determine if any of them are vampires is clearly inspired by the blood test scene in “The Thing.” It's a logical homage, as “Sinners” captures that same Carpenter-style mixture of anticipation and catharsis. Once the vampires outside become a known factor to the humans inside, “Sinners” turns into a tense stand-off. The undead taunt and interrogate the people inside, attempting to draw them out. This is broken up with some expertly crafted action sequences, of brilliantly devised gun fights, extremely physical close-quarters fights, and lots of spurting blood. When the vampires do make it inside the juke joint, it results in one of the most exciting climax in recent history. And “Sinners” isn't afraid of its status as a low-down horror flick either. These bloodsuckers flash their fangs, have eyes that glint in the darkness, leap eerily through the air, and grow increasingly more grotesque looking as the film goes on. 

By inserting its story into such a layered world, “Sinners” touches on about a dozen fascinating observations about America's racial history. Perhaps the most important idea present in the film is the power of music. Blues and black roots music is depicted as spiritually transcendent, melodies filled with so much emotion and power that they pierce spectral boundaries, time and space. This is fantastically depicted in a jaw-dropping sequence where Sammie's performance causes spectres from the past and present to appear throughout the juke joint. It's almost like a crash-course in the history of African-American music, its relevance as a spiritual and cultural force, all in one spellbinding scene. Coogler's film innately understands how music creates a ritual space and doesn't limit that power to any one culture or race. As wicked as the film's vampires are, they were once human too. Remmick is Irish, implied to be as old as the Roman invasion of the British isles. Him and his trope of vampires play bluegrass and dance jigs, equally driven into an almost religious frenzy by the sense of community created by this music. Their music is good too, the film acknowledging that all traditional folk music has the power to bring people together and create an otherworldly connection. 

Music also represents an escape from the troubles of daily life, of which people of color in the thirties south had more than their share of. The undead creatures pressing down on the juke joint feels, at times, like a metaphor for the pressures of existing as a black person in a racist, white-dominated society. The extended epilogue of “Sinners” establishes that, for a brief moment, they all had a taste of true freedom. Throughout the rest of the film, the white vampires – chased by Native American hunters in their introduction and, later, explicitly aligned with the Klu Klux Klan – attempt to force their way into this space. Remmick uses a need for money, a necessity to exist in a capitalistic culture, to try and worm in. At a key moment, a white authority figure similarly attempts to temps Smoke with an offer of money. Throughout the film, the evils of white Americans are aligned with greed and money. Some have read “Sinners” as arguing for racial essentialism when it seems much more critical of the cash-driven systems of repression than anything else. 

“Sinners” is an all-around work of infectious brilliance. The cast is excellent, lead by two extraordinary performances from Michael B. Jordan, who makes both brothers totally distinctive characters in their own right. Jack O'Connell and Miles Caton, as the villain and Sammie, should become stars based off this. Delroy Lindo, meanwhile, once again proves himself as one of Hollywood's most underappreciated character actors, turning Delta Slim into such a fully realized, funny, tragic character. After being a damn good ensemble piece and vampire thriller for most of its runtime, “Sinners” then turns into a bad-ass action film in its final act, featuring a shoot-out set piece for the ages. Nobody needs me to heap more praise on this one. Plenty of other folks have pinpointed it as the stand-out horror fusion of the year. On the big screen, it played out like a magnificent rush and proves just as thrilling, exciting, and touching upon re-watch. [9/10]
 

Thursday, September 4, 2025

Halloween 2025: September 4th

 

Perhaps I was the last movie nerd in the world to underestimate Ryan Coogler. 
Establishing himself in 2013 with ripped-from-the-headlines indie drama "Fruitvale Station," Coogler would bring that same level of grit and sincerity to franchise filmmaking with "Creed." "Black Panther" would launch him into the stratosphere but, I felt anyway, at the sacrifice of a lot of his more intimate style. This was truer still of the superhero blockbuster's inevitable sequel, which wasn't all that distinguishable from any other mid-tier Marvel movie. A lot of smaller directors have signed up for massive studio projects with the understanding that this will give them a blank check to fund their weird, personal efforts from now on, an agreement that is increasingly unfulfilled. It seemed like Coogler was going down this same path but, actually, I'm a wrong idiot who is wrong. Coogler came back with "Sinners," a personal, gritty, weird genre hybrid that became a big hit earlier this year. It's also the best new release I've seen in theaters in a while and looks unlikely to be dethroned as my favorite film of 2025. Here, let me ramble about it some more. 

In Prohibition-era Mississippi, twins Elijah and Elias – nicknamed Smoke and Stack – return to their home town. Using money and booze stolen from the Chicago mob, they purchase an old sawmill with the intention of turning it into a juke joint. They recruit several locals to run it, including their cousin and aspiring bluesman Sammie, experienced musician Delta Slim, Smoke's ex-wife and Hoodoo practitioner Annie, and a pair of Chinese immigrant shop owners. The club attracts a crowd, including Stack's white passing ex-girlfriend Mary and Pearline, a singer Sammie takes a liking to. Sammie's soulful playing also draws the attention of Remmick, a white vampire recently chased into the area. Unable to enter the joint without an invitation, he begins to transform anyone who ventures outside into undead bloodsuckers. A tense standout ensues through the night that will change the lives of everyone involved. 

“Sinners” is a movie of great texture and I mean that almost literally. Cinematographer Autumn Durald Arkapaw shot the film on 65mm, ensuring a depth to the film's look that seems much more difficult to achieve with digital technology. Every shot of the film is filled with details, from the extremely precise period costumes to the production design that makes every setting seem like a real, lived-in location. This sense of specificity extends all throughout “Sinners.” The characters' backstories and pasts are discussed naturally through dialogue, suggesting a whole world existed before the viewer sees the events of the film. Whether its the fate of Smoke and Annie's unborn child, the brothers' history as World War I veterans or time working with the mob, or the personal recollections of Mary or Delta Slim's lives, it all adds up to create a world that feels utterly fully formed. The film embraces the shared histories of blues music, the lives of the black community in the American south, how Hoodoo grew out of African mysticism, and a vampire mythology all its own. This pairs extremely well with the Mississippi setting, where everyone is always glistening with a layer of sweat and dirt. 

Honestly, the first act of “Sinners,” devoted entirely to introducing this cast of extremely well realized characters and the world they inhabit, could have gone on longer than it did. However, “Sinners” is also a hard-hitting monster movie/action flick mash-up. A sequence in which the established cast stand in a circle and eat garlic cloves in order to determine if any of them are vampires is clearly inspired by the blood test scene in “The Thing.” It's a logical homage, as “Sinners” captures that same Carpenter-style mixture of anticipation and catharsis. Once the vampires outside become a known factor to the humans inside, “Sinners” turns into a tense stand-off. The undead taunt and interrogate the people inside, attempting to draw them out. This is broken up with some expertly crafted action sequences, of brilliantly devised gun fights, extremely physical close-quarters fights, and lots of spurting blood. When the vampires do make it inside the juke joint, it results in one of the most exciting climax in recent history. And “Sinners” isn't afraid of its status as a low-down horror flick either. These bloodsuckers flash their fangs, have eyes that glint in the darkness, leap eerily through the air, and grow increasingly more grotesque looking as the film goes on. 

By inserting its story into such a layered world, “Sinners” touches on about a dozen fascinating observations about America's racial history. Perhaps the most important idea present in the film is the power of music. Blues and black roots music is depicted as spiritually transcendent, melodies filled with so much emotion and power that they pierce spectral boundaries, time and space. This is fantastically depicted in a jaw-dropping sequence where Sammie's performance causes spectres from the past and present to appear throughout the juke joint. It's almost like a crash-course in the history of African-American music, its relevance as a spiritual and cultural force, all in one spellbinding scene. Coogler's film innately understands how music creates a ritual space and doesn't limit that power to any one culture or race. As wicked as the film's vampires are, they were once human too. Remmick is Irish, implied to be as old as the Roman invasion of the British isles. Him and his trope of vampires play bluegrass and dance jigs, equally driven into an almost religious frenzy by the sense of community created by this music. Their music is good too, the film acknowledging that all traditional folk music has the power to bring people together and create an otherworldly connection. 

Music also represents an escape from the troubles of daily life, of which people of color in the thirties south had more than their share of. The undead creatures pressing down on the juke joint feels, at times, like a metaphor for the pressures of existing as a black person in a racist, white-dominated society. The extended epilogue of “Sinners” establishes that, for a brief moment, they all had a taste of true freedom. Throughout the rest of the film, the white vampires – chased by Native American hunters in their introduction and, later, explicitly aligned with the Klu Klux Klan – attempt to force their way into this space. Remmick uses a need for money, a necessity to exist in a capitalistic culture, to try and worm in. At a key moment, a white authority figure similarly attempts to temps Smoke with an offer of money. Throughout the film, the evils of white Americans are aligned with greed and money. Some have read “Sinners” as arguing for racial essentialism when it seems much more critical of the cash-driven systems of repression than anything else. 

“Sinners” is an all-around work of infectious brilliance. The cast is excellent, lead by two extraordinary performances from Michael B. Jordan, who makes both brothers totally distinctive characters in their own right. Jack O'Connell and Miles Caton, as the villain and Sammie, should become stars based off this. Delroy Lindo, meanwhile, once again proves himself as one of Hollywood's most underappreciated character actors, turning Delta Slim into such a fully realized, funny, tragic character. After being a damn good ensemble piece and vampire thriller for most of its runtime, “Sinners” then turns into a bad-ass action film in its final act, featuring a shoot-out set piece for the ages. Nobody needs me to heap more praise on this one. Plenty of other folks have pinpointed it as the stand-out horror fusion of the year. On the big screen, it played out like a magnificent rush and proves just as thrilling, exciting, and touching upon rewatch. [9/10]
 

 

I've written about a good number of old dark house movies over the years, that hybrid of murder mystery and slapstick comedy set in creepy old mansions that frequently featured cliches like masked villains in fedoras, hidden rooms, family secrets or buried treasure. I've also already written about Mary Roberts Rinehart's “The Bat,” one of the most popular examples of the subgenre on-stage, which inspired quite a few imitators along the way. Such as “The Monster,” written by Crane Wilbur, a screenwriter and director better known for starring in influential silent serial “The Perils of Pauline.”  By 1959, the old dark house was a thoroughly old, dead horse. However, Wilbur must have maintained some fondness for the format. He would write and direct the third cinematic adaptation of Rinehart's play that year. Wilbur previously penned the scripts for “House of Wax” and “The Mad Magician,” establishing a working relationship with Vincent Price. Price so happened to be a fan of Rinehart's play, having seen it on-stage as a child, and lent his talent to this throwback “Bat” made as the fifties were about to become the sixties. 

Cornelia Van Gorder, popular author of mysteries and thrillers, has recently moved into the Oaks, a secluded manner in an isolated forest. The local area is being terrorized by a serial killer known as the Bat, a faceless man with steel claws, who has also apparently released rabid bats into the woods. This threat has scared off all of Cornelia's staff except her loyal maid Lizzie and her mysterious chauffeur. Meanwhile, bank president John Flemming – landlord of the Oaks – has recently stolen a million dollars in securities from his place of work. He threatens his doctor, Malcolm Wells, into helping fake his death and covering up the crime. Wells shoots him in the back instead. That same night, Lizzie spots the Bat lurking outside the Oaks. The police are called, Lt. Anderson arriving to investigate. Wells is called to the home as well after Lizzie is bitten by a bat. Cordelia is inspired by the case – which includes rumors of a secret room in the house – for her next novel, as more people gather at the mansion. A search is on to identify the Bat before he strikes again and steals the hidden riches. 

While "The Bat" resides firmly within the horror genre, thanks to its monstrously clawed and murderous villain, it's important to remember that Rinehart was a mystery writer first and foremost. The plot is engineered to leave the viewer guessing about who among the cast is the killer. To achieve this, 1959's "The Bat" loads its narrative down with an abundance of red herrings. Obviously, the audience expects Vincent Price to play the villain. By having Dr. Wells commit murder in the first act, he's clearly designated as an amoral and distrustful man. It is later revealed that Cornelia's chauffeur is an on-the-run bank robber, though he insists he's incapable of taking a life. There's yet more warm bodies buzzing around the story: The cop, the worker Fleming framed for his crime, his young wife, another woman who works at the bank, and at least one other guy whose name I can't recall. Most of these characters are introduced in quick succession in the first half, giving the viewer little time to memorize who is who. While some become victims of the Bat, I spent entirely too much of the runtime trying to recall the significance of each face to the overall story. 

It is a bummer that "The Bat" is belabored with too large a cast and too many plot threads. When focused on Agnes Moorehead as a sharp-witted and observant writer trying to untangle a real mystery, the film proves mildly distracting. The 1926 version had Lizzie the maid as obnoxiously shrieking comic relief. As played by Lenita Lane – the director's wife – Lizzie becomes Cornelia's plain spoken sidekick. (And possibly more, as the two are noted to share a bedroom. Considering ever-campy Vincent Price is introduced on a weekend retreat with another man, feel free to add this one to your queer horror histories.) The two have a delightful rapport. Moorehead easily grounds the film, adding far more wit and charisma to the protagonist than was probably necessary. "The Bat" concludes by having Moorehead face the camera and dictate the closing lines of her latest novel, a de facto breaking of the fourth wall which had me leaving a movie I was otherwise unimpressed with smiling. 

To classic horror nerds like myself, obviously "The Bat" is of most interest because of its masked bad guy, spooky location, and Price's role. While the 1926 "Bat" had the titular antagonist dressed as a hideous flying mammal, this version opts for a fedora, an overcoat, a black stocking that renders the face featureless, and black gloves outfitted with steel claws. It is a striking image, especially when the villain is lurking in the shadows or thrusting his claw right into the camera. (An influence on Bava, whose "Blood and Black Lace" features a similarly dressed killer, perhaps?) The shots of the Oaks standing among a fog-strewn wood pair well with the shadowy interiors and twisting tunnels. Cinematographer Joseph Biroc is best known for his work on "It's a Wonderful Life" and "The Towering Inferno" but he photographed his share of noirs earlier in the fifties. Some of that atmosphere is definitely brought to "The Bat," especially in a cool shot of the killer running up the stairs and casting his sinister shadow on the ceiling. 

As for Price, he brings his irreplaceable charm to a handful of scenes when his character shows his more sinister side. Otherwise, the horror star isn't given nearly enough to do and exits the film too early. I didn't recognize Gavin Gordon as the detective but knew I had heard his voice before. A quick check revealed that, while twenty-four years younger, he played Lord Byron in the "Bride of Frankenstein" prologue. Released on the back-end of a double feature with Hammer's "The Mummy," this "Bat" probably would've been forgotten. That is if it hadn't fallen into the public domain, leading to many late night TV screenings, free availability online, and countless VHS and DVD reissues. Most of those releases slapped a distinctive publicity still of Price, smoking a cigarette before a shadowy silhouette of a bat, onto the cover. That ubiquity accidentally made this one of the most iconic images of the actor's career. Price would dismiss the film, saying the script wasn't very good. He was right and it's a jumbled screenplay that keeps an otherwise sturdy, atmospheric thriller from being more compelling. [6/10]



One Step Beyond: The Tiger

Here's another episode from “One Step Beyond's” third and final season, made in England. Like most installments of the program, it is about psychic powers. “The Tiger” follows Pamela, an utterly adorable little girl who has a close relationship with her nanny, the elderly Mrs. Murphy. After Murphy takes Pamela to the circus and purchases her a stuffed toy tiger, they are introduced to the girl's new governess, Miss Cartwright. After Pamela informs Miss Cartwright that Murphy regularly performs witchcraft, she dismisses the nanny. Afterwards, the cruel governess confines Pamela to a “punishment room” in the basement, taking her toy tiger away, and generally doing everything she can to crush the child's imagination and independence. That's when weird shit begins to happen around the home, doors and furniture clawed at as if by a wild animal. Pamela believes a tiger is responsible, one that she has “wished” into existence, a fantastical belief Miss Cartwright is eager to dissuade the girl of. 

Too often, “One Step Beyond” was a rather melodramatic and maudlin series. There were way too many episodes about predictions of the future. “The Tiger,” however,” feels a bit more like something E.C. Comics might have published, if less lurid. This is a classic tale of a person with a rotten heart getting punished for their crimes, usually via machinations of their own making. Miss Cartwright, as played by a suitably cruel and ice cold Pamela Brown, truly is a miserable villain. She seems to delight in punishing a child simply because she does not confirm to her ideas of acceptable behavior. The kid is so sweet and harmless but Miss Cartwright, without ever raising her voice, responds only with belittlement and harshness. She's a total bitch, in other words, and exactly the kind of person in need of an ironic punishment. 

Obviously, the script implies that little Pamela has latent psychic abilities. The poltergeist activity, in the form of spectral tiger attacks, are the result of the girl's telekinectic powers. Considering her old nanny was said to be a witch, this events could easily be the result of literal magic too. However, I much prefer the reading that the imaginary Tiger is a manifestation of the anger she feels towards her governess that she's far too sweet and proper to actually express. Either way, glimpses of clawed up clothes or chairs or off-screen roars prove a lot creepier than any clear shots of an actual tiger could be. Host John Newland chimes in during the epilogue, assuring us that the episode is inspired by paranormal events documented by Charles Dickens in 1871. That would've been a year after Dickens died, by the way. Truly, a strange event! Either way, “The Tiger” is a solid one, showing that “One Step Beyond” was better when focused on supernatural revenge than psychic premonitions. [7/10]
 
 


 
 
The Addams Family: Morticia's Romance: Part 2 
 
The second part of “Morticia's Romance” only half-way acknowledges the suicide pact the first half seemed to end in. Pugsley asks about it but Gomez and Morticia do not elaborate on how they decided not to kill themselves. Instead, they recount how Gomez remained extremely nervous about the prospect of marrying Ophelia. Grandmama and Mother Frump make various financial deals to push the marriage through, while Gomez and Morticia remain in love with each other. Seeing no way out of being forced to marry her sister, Gomez grows increasingly despondent. That's when Fester touches upon a solution: Trick Ophelia into falling in love with someone else! Cousin Itt is quickly chosen as her potential beau but Gomez' cowardice makes him reluctant to wiggle out of the already made arrangements. 

I somewhat suspect that, based on the success of the first season, “The Addams Family” crew got a slightly bigger budget for the second season. That would explain why this episode includes some rather elaborate sight gags involving newly made props or sets. These include: Fester having a watch that is an hour-glass strapped to his wrist, Cousin Itt shrinking to a tiny toy size under a hair dryer, and Gomez hiding in a cave with an echo that can be turned on and off. These are all A+ gags, especially the latter. Turns out Cousin Fungus just lives in a cave underneath the Addams house. Always makes me happy to learn more about the extended lore of this particular brood. 

Of course, the interactions between the cast is the real thing that keeps this show so consistently entertaining, even if those sight gags are all straight-up bangers. A rather circular conversation about Gomez being a spineless coward is good one. As is Grandmama tricking Mother Frump into upping her options for a dowry. John Astin and Carolyn Jones' chemistry remains unmissable. The moment when they consider their sealed fate but cannot hide their obvious passion for one another is an easy highlight. As is the declaration near the end that they intend to go up-stairs and make some thunder of their own, another naughty joke I can't believe they got away with. I guess if there's anything distracting from this perfectly amusing half-hour is the script simply informing us that Ophelia isn't to Gomez' liking. She doesn't seem any more or less eccentric than the rest of the family, though I do enjoy watching Carolyn Jones be more aggressively wacky in her behavior. [7/10]
 

 
 

Friday, March 28, 2025

Director Report Card: James Wan (2007) - Part Two



In 1972, prolific author of crime thrillers and westerns Brian Garfield would publish a novel entitled “Death Wish.” The story of a pacifist accountant who becomes a vigilante after his wife is murdered and his daughter is assaulted by home invaders, it was a searing tale about how vengeance is useless, violence degrades everyone, and crime is a problem that can't be solved with a bullet. Not a best seller at first, “Death Wish” did win positive enough reviews to catch Hollywood's attention. Sidney Lumet was originally attached to direct and he wanted Jack Lemmon to star. Instead, the movie ended up being made by outspoken conservative Michael Winner and starred action hero Charles Bronson. Unsurprisingly, the resulting film did not reflect the anti-violent message of Garfield's book. In fact, it came across basically as a pro-vigilante film. That didn't stop “Death Wish” from becoming a box office success. An influential one too, eventually spawning four increasingly outlandish sequels and a whole slew of imitators about family men taking justice into their own hands. 

Brian Garfield was not too pleased about this. In 1975, he would write a sequel to his book called “Death Sentence,” seeking to reiterate his themes and dismiss the film adaptation's ideas about cowboy justice. The damage had been done by that point, however. The words “Death Wish” would always be associated with hyper-violent action shlock about avenging fathers with more than slightly racist undertones. James Wan was certainly aware of the Charles Bronson movies, as they had long since become cult favorites. Upon reading Garfield's novels, he became inspired to create a more faithful adaptation. He went so far as to invite Garfield to write the screenplay. Garfield's drafts were not used for “Death Sentence,” which ended up not resembling either of his novels much. It is notable, however, as Wan's first departure from the horror genre and his first movie not written by Leigh Whannell.

Nick Hume is a regular man with a humble office job. He loves his wife, Helen, and their two sons, Brendan and Lucas. Brendan is an aspiring athlete, considering attending university in Canada on a hockey scholarship. They stop at a gas station on the way home from school one night, when two armed thugs burst into the room. Brendan is killed by a man named Joe Darley, in order to initiate himself into his family's gang. Nick gets a good look at Joe's face, the police quickly arresting him. Upon learning that the killer will go away to prison for a few years at most, Nick willingly gives a testimony that lets Joe walk... Before hunting him down and, in a grief-fueled rage, killing him. Joe's gang quickly deduces that Nick is their brother's murderer and attacks the man. In the resulting confrontation, Nick kills another member of the gang. He soon finds himself the target of the Darley family, unleashing a chain reaction of violence that threatens everything he holds dear. 

"Death Sentence" is a movie that clearly wants to be about the futility of revenge. The thesis seems to be violence never brings justice, only destruction. After murdering Joe, Nick feels a momentary rush of joy. Shortly afterwards, he collapses in the shower, overwhelmed by remorse. He remains deeply paranoid about being found out, hiding a wound on his hand from his family and co-workers. Most obviously, his act of revenge only dooms him further. He kills the man who killed his boy, prompting that man's family to seek retaliation against Nick. This continues until he has lost everything. The idea is evident in the sequence most taken from Garfield's "Death Wish" novel, in which the criminals break into the Hume house and attempt to massacre the whole family. The murder of Nick's son was a senseless act but, trying to pay blood for blood, simply leads to yet more bloodshed. Moreover, in the finale, Nick has shaved his head and turned himself into a ruthless killer, prompting one of the crooks to point out that he's just like them now. His vigilante "justice" hasn't made things right, it's only turned him into something as bad as those he sought to punish. That's a revelation taken directly from Garfield's text.

That's the message "Death Sentence" wants to send and proclaims in unsubtle fashion several times. There's a problem, however. Wan's film depicts the Darley gang as cartoonish bad guys, with wild accents and lots of overcooked tough guy dialogue. In contrast, the Hume family is portrayed as loving and stereotypically wholesome. In the last act, the humble family man remakes himself into an action hero. He dons a leather jacket. He barks intimidating dialogue and muscles his way into bars. After a sequence in which he buys a bunch of guns – that luxuriates in the glory of the macho power of firearms – we get a thunderous montage of Nick loading his pistols and strapping up. By the time he's driving a muscle car through the front door of his enemies' lair, "Death Sentence" has become indistinguishable from the countless unironic vigilante flicks that followed in "Death Wish's" wake. The stated message of how revenge is bad and violence is self-destructive is seriously undermined when you joyfully depict your protagonist as a total bad-ass, as an avatar for the rage of every frustrated dad in the audience, guns as the righteous tools to deliver that vengeance, and his victims as bad guys that have it coming. 

There is one way "Death Sentence" might have been able to somewhat overcome the dissonance between what it says it's about and what it actually depicts. If the violence had been shown as realistic, as horribly uncomfortable for the viewer to watch as it is for the characters to experience. Considering Wan was coming from the cringe-inducing injuries of "Saw," you would think he could pull that off. You know things have gone wrong – and not only for our characters – when the criminals bust into the gas station and blow the attendant away in a massive spray of blood. Nick's eldest son then gets his throat slit with a machete, as if the gangsters were emulating Jason Voorhees. When Nick is fighting off the home invaders, there's an exciting stunt of him tackling a guy through the bannisters of the house. By the action hero finale, he's launching faceless goons across the room with shotgun blast, leaving huge gaping wounds in their chest. At one point, he blows a guy's leg off at the knee with some buckshot, the sort of gory spectacle that Jigsaw would employ against his captives. In other words, "Death Sentence" is taking too much joy in its violence. The film is directed not with a Peckenpah-ian sickening fascination with the mechanics of violence nor a mournful tone of how senseless this all is. Instead, Wan and his team think this shit is cool. 

The horror fanboy approach to the executions, the need to show off the creativity of the effects team by crafting "cool" gore, makes me wonder if I misread "Death Sentence." Is this, despite all its statements to the contrary, just another braindead vigilante flick? A mindless bit of Dads-ploitation about a middle-age man venting some righteous fury against unimportant crooks, as a cathartic way for the audience to unleash their own toxically-male desire to justifiably murder? At times, you get the impression that is exactly how Wan was approaching the material. Some of "Death Sentence's" best scenes are directed as a straight-forward thriller. When Nick seeks revenge on the man who killed his son, it's an exciting moment that makes good use of the claustrophobic setting by having the two men stumble around. A long one-take sequence is a chase through a parking garage, that climaxes in a genuinely clever and exciting stunt of a car rolling off the top floor. During the action-packed last act, when a sawed-off shotgun keeps blowing enormous and identical holes in the surrounding, I was wondering if I could enjoy this film simply as a goofy action movie. 

However, unavoidably, "Death Sentence" circles back to its own pretensions. Aisha Taylor has the thankless job of playing the police detective, aware of Nick's actions but lacking the evidence to arrest him, that appears to chastise the protagonist for his crimes. This is not the only time Nick is warned that he's starting down a path towards his own doom. In general, "Death Sentence" has a somber and serious tone. Multiple scenes are devoted to the family members crying and mourning for their dead boy, while an extremely on-the-nose song plays on the soundtrack. The film ends in an indecisive tonal place, that seems to both award Nick for his actions and consider them justified, while also leaving him a broken mess. (How broken depends on if you're watching the theatrical cut or director's cut, though the result is basically the same.) "Death Sentence" packs in over-the-top violence and action while also reminding us how bad this all is and putting its characters through misery. The result is a grim movie with a nihilistic tone. I suppose that does make you feel the futility of revenge but I don't think in the way the filmmaker intended. 

Another element that furthers the miserabilist mood of "Death Sentence" is its visual design. This was Wan's second film with the "Dead Silence" team of Leonetti and Knue, on photography and editing, but it actually resembles his debut more than his sophomore effort. The bleached lighting, grimy black and greys, and Lime Jolly Rancher green colors are back with a vengeance. A few times, the influence "Suspiria" and Bava has had on Wan is evident. There's some nicely foreboding reds in a few scenes. The action scenes are generally more controlled than usual but the film does fall into the spasmodic camera work and jittery editing of "Saw" several times. Most notably in the sequence where Nick awakens in the hospital, which does too good of a job of translating the character's disoriented mood to the viewer. In general, "Death Sentence" looks boring and ugly in the way a lot of horror and crime movies did in the 2000s. Everyone wanted to be Fincher and Romanek without studying what makes those guys' styles effective.

One must be forced to conclude that "Death Sentence" is, ya know, not very well written. John Goodman appears as the father of the crooks, putting on a bizarre Jersay accent and spiritedly spitting the script's most hard-boiled dialogue. He acknowledges that Nick is going to take his sons away from him, the same way his son took Nick's child from him. It's a nice bit of dramatic parallel that could have reinforced the uselessness of bloody revenge. Instead, the script throws that idea out there, has Goodman giving the murderer of his boy a weirdly understanding monologue, before disposing of the character in a way that only muddles the thematic waters further. The film wants it both ways. These bad guys are punks that deserve what's coming to him but also what our hero is doing shouldn't be emulated. (Though it does, the movie seems to think, look really cool.)

Another weird thing the film can't make up its mind about is what ethnicity the bad guys are. The "Death Wish" films can, charitably, be called "problematic" by having the creeps Bronson gunned down often be varying shades of brown. The films recalled, and reinforced, reactionary delusions about scary ethics coming to threaten the precious white family, raping and killing our wives and daughters. That cities are crime infested because they are also filled with people from different races and cultures. It was another way the films played into fantasies of good white men using good violence against bad foreigners. Wan seeks to avoid these racist undertones in "Death Sentence," by making the crooks Nick is after white people... Except when it doesn't. A lot of them speak Spanish. One of them is black. All-American Garrett Hedlund plays the eldest Darley brother but the shaved head and clothes they give him certainly recall the stereotypical image of a Latino gangbanger. When paired with the obvious working class roots of the Darley gang, and the Humes' more white collar background, the movie still invokes the same sort of racial divisions of the source material. 

What most holds "Death Sentence" together is a decent lead performance from Kevin Bacon. Bacon has, over the years, proven himself adept at playing both everyman leading men and scuzzy psychos, making him probably the ideal choice for this role. When playing an average family man who gets in way over his head, Bacon is quite good. He panics well and seems totally unprepared for what is happening but, at the same time, it's believable that he could be a threatening presence in a fight. He's also totally serviceable as an action hero in the last third. Unfortunately, the melodramatic streak in the script is something he can't convincingly play. Whenever the Nume family has to grieve, it always comes off as overdone and false. Since Kelly Preston as his wife has nothing to do in the story besides being sad about her dead kid and distraught partner, her performance is entirely made up of such theatrical notes. It's a good cast but, once again, they're let down by the confused script. 

"Dead Silence's" lacking script can be blamed on an admittedly exhausted writer and the studio insisting on doctoring up some scenes. I don't know if "Death Sentence" was vulnerable to a similarly rushed, pushy production. Its credited writer, Ian Mackenzie Jeffers, has only one other film of note: "The Grey," a similarly maudlin tale of manly grieving and bloody survival. So maybe this is simply his style. Released only three months after "Dead Silence" – one near the start of summer movie season, the other at the absolute ass-end on August 31st – Wan's third film grossed less at the box office and received equally bad reviews. (It probably didn't help that the two have similar sounding titles. They couldn't have found a name for this that wasn't a two word phrase that started with a variant of "Dead" and ended with a two-syllable S-word?) One person was pleased with "Death Sentence," however. Brian Garfield thought the gory violence was a bit much but said the adaptation respected the themes of his novels much more than previous adaptations. That is true. However, it turns out embracing the meat-headed tendencies of the material, Michael Winner style, leads to a more thematically coherent and entertaining movie than trying to be both a mournful meditation on the uselessness of revenge and a shoot-em-up action movie. [Grade: C]