Welcome to the film-related musings, complaints, and comments of Zack Clopton, an amateur film-critic, scholar, and screenwriter. Featured here are Director's Report Cards, essays, and other reviews. Enjoy!
Last of the Monster Kids
"LAST OF THE MONSTER KIDS" - Available Now on the Amazon Kindle Marketplace!
The release of 2021's "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" did not seem to generate much enthusiasm. The noxious backlash to the 2016, women-led reboot seemed to have sullied the entire brand in many people's minds. "Afterlife," in general, took a weirdly reverent approach to the legacy of a movie where Dan Aykroyd got a blowie from a sexy lady ghost. However, "Afterlife" made enough at the box office for Sony – still determined to turn this series into a profitable franchise – to justify making another one. The idea of a sequel to "Afterlife" seemed to excite few people. Even Jason Reitman, who pushed through the legacy sequel as a homage to his late father, passed on directing the follow-up. Instead, Gil Kenan, previously of "Monster House" and the instantly forgotten "Poltergeist" remake, would take the helm of what is technically the fourth addition to this storyline. Eventually entitled "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire," the film hasn't inspired much praise, even among fanboys of the series. Maybe the low expectations worked in the sequel's favor, as I found myself surprisingly enjoying it.
Two years after the events of "Afterlife," the newest additions to the ghostbusting legacy have moved to New York City. Callie Spengler – along with her kids, Phoebe and Trevor, and boyfriend Gary – have taken over her dad's old business. Yet busting ghosts still proves to be a perilous exercise, with the teenage Phoebe soon being benched from participating, much to her frustration. When a stranger named Nadeem brings an ancient artifact into Ray Stantz' shop, it unwittingly begins a chain reaction that unleashes an ancient god of ice and ghosts named Garraka. As Garraka turns Manhattan into a frozen wasteland, the latest generation of Spenglers must team up with friends new and old to fight the evil entity.
Despite giving it the softest of recommendations, I can't say I remembered much about "Ghostbusters: Afterlife." My main issue with that follow-up, from what I can recall, was that it was far too beholden to the first movie. "Frozen Empire" certainly contains its fair share of callbacks to the franchise's history. Slimer, the baby Stay Puft Marshmallow Men, and some mood slime all make brief appearances. William Atherton is back as Walter Peck, now the mayor of New York and just as antagonistic as ever. Composer Dario Mariabelli extensively quotes Elmer Bernstein's original score. Another set piece takes place in the city library, with the shrieking ghost librarian getting a cameo. The sequel even canonizes the Ray Parker Jr. music video, the toys, and the breakfast cereal as things that exist in-universe. Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, and Bill Murray all have much increased roles from the previous installment. In general, the firehouse, the containment unit, the Proton Packs, ghost traps, and the Ecto-1 are all prominently placed in the story. "Frozen Empire" is absolutely cashing in on any nostalgia people may have for "Ghostbusters" as a cultural phenomenon.
Despite all this, "Frozen Empire" doesn't do a whole-sale regurgitation of the original's plot, like "Afterlife" did. It actually expands on the ghostbusting premise in some interesting ways. In-between the events in of the various sequels, Winston Zeddemore has set up a whole institute for ghostbusting technology. This leads to some new gadgets, like a wrist-mounted proton blaster and a machine that can extract ghostly spirits from possessed objects. This laboratory is set up in an old aquarium, acting like a zoo/prison for a whole group of different ghosts. This allows for an ensemble of oddball spirits, such as a mischievous poltergeist that can leap from object to object or a weird little guy that sprays goo everywhere. "Frozen Empire" is invested in the idea that there's many different types of spirits and entities, governed by different rules, existing on different dimensional planes, and requiring different methods to confront them. This is more-or-less what I've always wanted to see from the "Ghostbusters," proving the idea that we saw in the two eighties movies were just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what spirits exist and the technology used to capture and study them.
In fact, that's exactly the approach that "The Real Ghostbusters" animated series, and it's underrated sequel "Extreme Ghostbusters," took. Those cartoons seem to have been a big source of inspiration for "Frozen Empire." Like the episodes of those shows often did, the film introduces a new threat with its own surrounding lore. In this case, that would be Garraka, a smoky evil god who can commands any other ghost and brings with him a freezing storm. Garraka is depicted as a threatening presence, towering and demonically horned lich that is always taken seriously. The design seems like it could fit in with the cartoon's character designs while also working within the film's reality. The backstory surrounding the villain, linking him with ancient societies and dead languages, is properly mythic. As is the idea that modern ghostbusting techniques are just the latest version of a practice that goes back centuries. The gear has changed but encircling ghosts with rays of fire and trapping them within sacred containers is nothing new.
"Frozen Empire" is definitely an ensemble piece. The film's cast is quite large, juggling the original generation of Ghostbusters, with the Spengler family and friends introduced in "Afterlife," and a new set of supporting characters introduced here. It can be a tall order at times and some actors really just put in token appearances. Finn Wolfhard's Trevor doesn't really have much to do, while Carrie Coons' Callie is reduced to a supportive mom and not much more. Meanwhile, the friends from last time, with names like Podcast and Lucky, float around the margins the whole time. Even more roles are filled with familiar, colorful personalities, like Patton Oswalt as a typically nerdy folklorist, Kumail Nanjiani as Nadeen, and James Acaster as a very dry, supernatural engineer. Honestly, when paired with Paul Rudd as the lovably warm Gary, you get the feeling that these are the sort of guys that might've started in a "Ghostbusters" installment ten or so years ago. In comparison to their extended cameos last time, Murray, Aykroyd, Hudson, Annie Potts have bigger roles here as well, acting more as mentors to the two new generations of comedians and heroes. This makes "Frozen Empire" feel like more of a proper legacy sequel, the old guys showing up, getting one more chance at glory, and passing the baton to the next era. And it doesn't hurt that Venkman, Ray, Winston, and Janine are just as funny and eccentric as they were back in the eighties. These performances clearly still have it.
Even though "Frozen Empire" is clearly an ensemble picture, at the center of the film is what might be a star-making performance. McKenna Grace was likable as Phoebe Spengler in "Afterlife." The character is going through a lot more here though. In its best moments, "Frozen Empire" is a coming-of-age story about a teenage girl at a pivotal moment in her life. Phoebe is trying to define herself, to stand up to her parents, to become her own person. She a forges a friendship with a female ghost – played nicely by Emily Alyn Lind with a Rachel haircut, subtly cluing us into when the character died – that quickly turns into a lot more, causing her to take some big risk that end up costing her. Grace says so much with just a glare, telling the viewer everything without saying a word. The biggest improvement "Frozen Empire" could've made, as much as I could've enjoyed it as a hang-out movie, if more focus has been given to Grace, it would've been even stronger. She absolutely controls the screen, playing a riveting young woman blooming into maturity.
Oh yeah, another improvement that could've been made is that subtitle. "Frozen Empire" really only refers to New York getting iced over, when something speaking to the themes of growing up, family, or history would've been preferable. Or they could've just called it "Ecto Cooler." I would've liked that. Anyway, most people seem to be dismissing the sequel. Even hardcore fans have responded pretty softly. I guess I'm the odd-one-out here because I actually had a really good time with "Frozen Empire." It's overstuffed, yeah. It skates by a lot on a build-in love for the franchise. Yet it's also an imaginative creature feature, with excellent effects work, a really fantastic central performance, some fun supporting takes, and a willingness to expand the premise in interesting ways. Maybe trying to continue the "Ghostbusters" franchise is like trying to recapture lightning in a bottle. Yet, ya know, I have to say, this one made me feel pretty good. [7/10]
Ya know, I love “Ghostbusters.” I grew up with the cartoons and toys. I have nostalgia for Ecto Cooler and all that. But it says a lot about how fucking weird things have gotten that a harmless blockbuster from the eighties would become a center point of the Culture Wars. That a fan backlash to a comedy reboot would be a foundational part of a sexist, racist political faction. Whatever you thought of that 2016 movie – I thought it was okay – it didn't make the kind of money Sony was hoping for. Back to the drawing board they went, deciding to capitalize on another recent trend in I.P. expansion: Decades later sequels. “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” positioned itself as a “real” “Ghostbusters” movie, so determined to show fidelity to the original that it's directed by Ivan Reitman's son. This has also been a controversial decision, as some have complained that this was Sony bending the knees to the horrible fanboys. All of this overlooks a pretty crucial question: Is “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” even any good?
Callie receives news that her father, Dr. Egon Spengler, has died. She has been willed a crumbling farm house in Summerville, Oklahoma. She moves with her two kids, rebellious teenager Trevor and brilliant pre-teen Phoebe, to the middle of nowhere. There, Phoebe discovers that her grandfather was a Ghostbuster. Led by Egon's spirit, she uncovers a basement full of equipment. With help from a podcast obsessed classmate and her teacher, a Ghostbusters fan himself, Phoebe also finds something more frightening: That Ivo Shandor, the occultist who nearly summoned Gozer back in 1984, operated out of this town. That the machinations he set into motion are preparing to bring the evil god into our world again.
Due to movie studios relying on it so heavily to help sell big budget tentpole releases, like this, film fans have endlessly debated the merits of nostalgia. And it's true that, sometimes, filmmakers rely on knowing nods and callbacks to older, beloved properties to smooth over any flaws with their actual movie. “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” is awash with nostalgia. The film is a direct sequel to the original “Ghostbusters” and revisits many of its ideas. Beloved creations like the Terror Dog, the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, and the Cab Driver Zombie return in one form or another. The climax patterns itself directly after the original's conclusion, in many ways. Even Elmer Bernstein's score is quoted extensively. “Afterlife” frequently goes out of of its way to remind viewers of the older movie, to reassure us that it was made by people obsessed with “Ghostbusters.” It feels a little desperate at times, especially when the movie is recalling the Keymaster/Gatekeeper plot point from the original.
Yet, at other times, “Afterlife” does put some clever spins on the older ideas it's utilizing. If it's determined to revisits so many beloved pieces of “Ghostbusters” history, it at least occasionally does something kind of different with them. Stay Puft returns via an army of miniature doppelgangers, who are all driven to commit suicide in dessert mimicking ways. Which almost leads like a critique of the babyification of various characters, if the little Marshmallow Men weren't so marketable. A chase sequence through the town involving the classic Ecto-1 and Muncher – seemingly the stand-in for Slimer, who is strangely absent – has a few neat gags. Like a ghost trap being installed on a remote control car. Or a gunner seat being installed in the vehicle. As much as “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” goes out of its way to say “Hey, remember this thing?,” it does have some fun with these old toys. It expands on the mythology of the first film in some interesting ways.
“Ghostbusters: Afterlife” is also a rare example of a son directing a sequel to his father's film. Jason Reitman – one of his earliest credits is as a kid in “Ghostbusters II” – at least had already established himself as a successful director before this point, so it's slightly less nepotistic than it looks. Part of “Afterlife” involves Callie dealing with her resentment towards her father, who was emotionally distant. When a son directs a sequel to his dad's movie, that involves a crucial hug between an alienated child and their remote father, one can't help but assume the filmmaker put some of himself into the material. I don't know, maybe Jason has a great relationship with his dad. Either way, the lingering daddy issues in the air does give “Afterlife” a far more bittersweet tone than the previous entries in the franchise.
In fact, when the earliest trailers for “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” came out, some people noticed the overly reverent tone. This was certainly sold as a “Ghostbusters” movie that had no jokes in it. Well, I am happy to say that “Afterlife” does have jokes in it. A lot of these laughs are owed to the cast. Paul Rudd was such a natural pick for a “Ghostbusters” sequel, because he has that similar vibe to Bill Murray. Where he's so relaxed, so funny in an off-handed way. He makes gags, like getting a classroom full of kids to watch “Cujo,” that would probably be clunkers in anyone else's hands, and turns them into highlights. Logan Kim also gets a surprisingly high number of laughs as Podcast. His gimmick, of always recording everything and narrating in a hyper-dramatic way, probably should've been annoying but it's a surprisingly versatile joke that continuously produced laughs.
Among the next generation of Ghostbusters in this film, the biggest star is Finn Wolfhard as Trevor, Egon's teenage grandson. And I still don't know if Wolfhard is actually a good actor or not, as the teenage petulance he displays here is a little too accurate. Luckily, Grace McKenna, as his little sister, makes up for it. She's the real protagonist of the movie anyway. She's regularly funny but, more importantly, is incredibly charming all throughout. Phoebe is an inquisitive, brilliant young lady but McKenna manages to make sure these attributes never come off as overly precocious or annoying. I think she's going to become a big star.
Whatever your opinion on nostalgia poisoned cash grabs like this, they can usually be counted on for one thing: A fidelity to the special effects legacy of the original. Oh, sure, there's a lot of CGI in “Ghostbusters: Afterlife.” Yet the movie makes plentiful use of practical creature effects and animatronics, especially in the sequences involving the Terror Dogs. That was refreshing to see. Even when CGI is utilized, effort was taken to replicate the look and feel of the photography effects in the original. Muncher frequently moves in a slightly stiff way, which seems designed to recall similar moments from the original. If sequels must be made “for the real fans,” at least extra care is taken to ensure they look better than a lot of other big budget would-be blockbuster.
“Ghostbusters: Afterlife” certainly didn't generate the maelstrom of angry screaming and cultural conversation that Paul Feig's reboot did. Most of the controversy that greeted the film dealt with the on-going debate around digital necromancy in modern films. A lot of people dismissed the entire sequel. Some fans did, indeed, really like it. It did decently at the box office and it remains to be seen whether Sony will continue down this path or reboot the franchise again in a few years. I can't say “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” is the generation defining comedy classic that the original was. I don't think you can catch that lightning in a bottle again. Yet it's a decent little follow-up, too beholden to the original but with enough charm of its own to justify its own existence. Bustin' makes me feel, eh, pretty good, I guess. [7/10]
Depending on who you ask, the director/writer team of Patrick Lussier and Todd Farmer are either geniuses or total hacks. In-between the two of them, they have created flashy, trashy horror flicks like “Jason X,” “Dracula 2000,” “My Bloody Valentine 3D,” and “Drive Angry.” At one point, they were so successful that they had been chosen to reboot iconic franchises like “Halloween” and “Hellraiser.” It seems like the duo has had more trouble getting their projects off the ground recently. The two has largely worked in television since 2011. However, the infamous twosome return this year with “Trick,” an original slasher flick set around the Halloween holiday. What the hell, I'll give it a shot.
In 2015, high school student Patrick Weaver – known to all his friends as "Trick" – goes on an inexplicable rampage on Halloween night. He slashes several of his friends to death while wearing a pumpkin mask. Injured, he ends up at a local hospital where he escapes, getting shot and tossed out a window by Detective Mike Denver. Trick disappears after that... Until Halloween of next year, where he kills more people at another party. For the next two years, Trick reappears on October 31st to claim more victims. Denver becomes obsessed with tracking down the killer, believing Patrick Weaver is still responsible. Meanwhile, Trick becomes a cult figure on the internet. As Halloween approaches, Denver and his former partner prepare for the killer's inevitable return.
At the very least, “Trick” is trying to put a clever spin on the slasher genre. The film is attempting to show how a Michael Myers-like figure would emerge in the modern age. Trick's violence is unprompted, without explanation, a seemingly normal teen turning vicious killer. Like Myers or Jason, he reappears every year on the same day. He can seemingly shrug off any wound, always slipping away from the cops at the last minute. Rather accurately, the film posits that such a killer would immediately become a figure of fascination among internet denizens, even attracting obsessive fan-girls. The film eventually reveals why Trick is capable of these amazing feats, the filmmakers clearly finding this twist far more clever than the audience does. (Let's just say I've seen it done before and in a film one of the co-stars here appeared in.) Still, coming at the slasher premise from this angle – attempting to squeeze an entire series into one film, basically – is almost a fresh take on the genre.
That last act reveal – which goes on for way too long, the film smothering any remaining plot points – is not the only time “Trick” thinks itself more impressive than it actually is. The killer has another gimmick. He always spins his knife, spin-the-bottle style, when selecting his victim. The murderer swoops, leaps, spins, and flicks his blade around like a henchman in a “John Wick” movie. Trick also builds elaborate, Jigsaw-style death traps that people are repeatedly caught off-guard by. He's also a genius plotter, seemingly always one step ahead of his cop adversary. The point is clear: We are suppose to think Trick is cool and bad-ass. It's a good example of a movie trying too hard to impress the audience, without realizing that kind of style eventually becomes silly-looking.
Despite hyping up its killer like he's a big deal, the gore in “Trick” is actually pretty underwhelming. There's lots of stabbing, slashing, a disemboweling or two. None of its that memorable. The decapitations we do get are hampered by obviously fake-looking blood. That's not the only janky special effect, as CGI muzzle flashes afflict the guns in the film several times. Eventually, “Trick's” plot degrades into one endless chase scene after another. The scenery changes – a dock, a haunted attraction, a midnight double feature, a hospital – but “Trick” never gets any closer to building some actual tension.
Omar Epps gives an okay performance as Denver, staying grounded no matter how obsessed he becomes with wanting to capture the killer. Yet the only truly memorable performance is from Tom Atkins, returning from “My Bloody Valentine 3D,” as the folksy and lovably smart-ass owner of a local diner. But that's just Tom Atkins being cool. Lussier's direction is frequently overdone, with images flashing on-screen, handheld shots, and over-editing. “Trick” has a decent premise and some bitchin' Hallowen atmosphere – a hallway full of jack o'lantern is a nice touch – but the film is ultimately almost a textbook definition of “trying too hard.” [5/10]
One of the first movies I watched during 2019's Halloween Horror-fest Blog-a-thon was a killer robot flick. So it only seems fair to me that one of the last movies I watch this year also be a killer robot film. In the 1950s, Hungarian playwright and filmmaker Ivan Tors – who later became famous for producing animal adventure shows like “Flipper” and “Gentle Ben” – would produce a trilogy of science fiction films. The connecting fiber between these films was the Office of Scientific Investigation, a fictional organization meant to decipher sci-fi mysteries. The third, and most famous of these films, is 1954's “Gog.” Unlike the other two, “The Magnetic Monster” and “Riders to the Stars,” “Gog” was filmed in color and presented in 3D. It also features a pretty cool killer robot, perhaps its greatest claim to fame.
Deep within the New Mexico desert, there is a top secret, high-tech, underground facility designated with designing space stations. The nuclear-powered lab is operated by a super-computer called NOVAC. But something is going wrong down there. Two scientists and a monkey are killed when a freezing chamber malfunctions. Prototypes all over the property are beginning to act up fatally, without warning. Dr. David Sheppard and Joanna Merritt, agents with the OSI, are sent in to investigate. They begin to suspect that a mysterious robot jet flying over the base might be a cause of the deadly malfunctions. Soon, they are fighting for their lives against the berserk machines, specifically two robots named Gog and Magog.
“Gog” doesn't get as much tension out of its underground setting as you'd hope. This being an upbeat 1950s sci-fi flick, the facility is not claustrophobic. Rather, it's brightly colored and roomy. However, that isn't to say “Gog” doesn't have its tense moments. The rather slow first act is largely devoted to introduced all the gizmos that are then turned into dangerous weapons. It's necessary though, or else these sequences probably wouldn't be as suspenseful as they are. A fight with a solar-powered death ray inside a very small room is probably the film's highlights. A sequence involving a series of out-of-control tuning forks is certainly a novel threat. “Gog” stacks up a surprisingly high body count, as it thinks up more high-tech ways to kill its various supporting characters.
While some of the technology-run-amok moments in “Gog” are genuinely suspenseful, many come off as silly. A gyroscope spinning two astronauts to their deaths looks like a piece of playground equipment gone horribly wrong. This double-edge sword is no more apparent than with the titular robot. From a design prospective, Gog and Magog are kind of cool. They don't seem practical by any means but their spherical heads, multiple antennas, six flailing arms, and tank-like bodies make for a memorable sight. The only problem is the damn things don't move around very well. The murderous machines are incredibly awkward whenever they have to move. This makes their eventually defeat by the human heroes, bludgeoned or burned into submission, seem inevitable. In order to utilize the 3-D effect, the film repeatedly thrust the robot's limbs towards the camera, which doesn't make them look any less goofy.
Yet this is the campy but still oddly grim world “Gog” inhabits. The movie reflects the time it was made in some very strange ways. The story is built around the concept of sending man into space, if it's even possible, which was still something scientist where trying to figure out at the time. This leads to a ludicrous sequence of potential astronauts doing ballet in a zero-g environment, while wearing outfits that look like glittery bathing suits. This gee-whiz space age optimism is paired with a Cold War tension. The saboteurs that cause the facility's machines to go nuts are never identified. They are only referred to as “America's enemies.” The film reflects an era when people were still a little too nervous to even mention the Soviet Union – and, thus, imply the Cold War and the concept of nuclear destruction – in their ultimately light-hearted sci-fi monster movies.
That mixture of camp and political concerns is also reflected in some of the movie's minor plot points. The fear of exposure to radiation runs throughout the entire movie... Until its heroine collapses from exactly that at the end. In the next scene, she's making out with the hero, assured that “it's nothing serious. Just a little too much radiation.” I'm sure that's the attitude she'll have when she develops cancer in a few years. This oddball contrast – and those lovably dorky killer robots – is what makes “Gog” way more interesting than it probably would've been otherwise. Should I give the other films in the OSI trilogy a look? I've never heard a word about them, good or bad. [6/10]
The first season of “The Real Ghostbusters” introduced a couple of iconic villains that would reoccur throughout the show's run. Such as the Boogeyman. Or, most pressing to tonight's topic, Samhain. Yes, the pumpkin-headed ghost of Halloween from “When Halloween Was Forever” would return in season three episode “Halloween II ½.” This time, the spirit of Halloween is freed when two imp henchmen of his break into the Firehouse and sabotage the Containment Unit. Freed again, Samhain turns the Ghostbusters' headquarters into his own base, capturing the Junior Ghostbusters in the process. It's up to Ray, Winston, Venkman, Egon, Slimer, and Janine to save the day once again.
Obviously, a pumpkin-headed pagan god associated with October 31st was too cool a villain not to brain back. Sadly, Samhein’s second appearance is not up to snuff. This is another season three episode focused on the Junior Ghostbusters. These characters were introduced early in the show's run, as an obvious attempt to appeal to the younger viewers. And they are super annoying. They take up so much time, they practically steal the spotlight from the main heroes.
The third season would also re-design Janine, giving her a less stylized look and a less grating voice. This softening really begins to show its strain. (Kath Soucie uses nearly the exact same voice she’d use later on “Rugrats.”) Slimer, too often an obnoxious comic relief character on this show, is also given an extended role. All this makes sure “Halloween II ½” is packed full of annoying elements. Samhain isn’t as threatening as last time either, mostly taking over the firehouse and sending lesser ghosts out to do his bidding. His defeat is almost comical. It’s a fairly weak episode but does have some decent Halloween atmosphere, such as they opening scene devoted to the trick-or-treaters. [5/10]
Here's your required bit of punk rock-influenced, Halloween-themed, absurdist comedy. The titular organization of the Stas' brothers' 2016 short are made up of four Halloween-obsessed weirdos. Each have a totally useless but spooky superpower. For example: Franklin can stop his heart for a second, Marge can temporarily go stop-motion, and Whitby vomits at least once a day. On Halloween day, the Spooky Club decides to steal back the missing skull of Vincent Price and cremate it, just like the rest of him was. This quest will both be easier and more difficult than anyone the group imagines.
“Spooky Club” packs its brief four minute run time with as many gags as possible. Which is your favorite? The hilarious on-screen realization of someone going stop-motion for few seconds? How about the relative ease with which Vincent Price's skull is received? (The actual break-in occurs totally off-screen.) Maybe the best gag is the not-so-intimidating guard dog that the Spooky Club treats like a major threat. The Stas brother's visual sense is energetic, the movie driven by a rowdy rock soundtrack. The aggressively wacky tone occasionally pauses for moments of quiet comedy or even oddball pathos. Such as the final sequence or the unexpected death of one of the members. The cast is committed, especially Simon J. Curd as the very enthusiastic Franklin. The makers of “Spooky Club” haven't tried their hands at features yet but I hope they do someday. [7/10]
What even qualifies as “underrated” in the horror genre these days? Thanks to digital releases and streaming, even weird and tiny movies can find an audience. It's become more possible than ever for movies to sneak up on fans, even those that really keep abreast of the genre. Earlier this year, I started hearing buzz about a sequel to “Hell House LLC” premiering on Shudder, every horror fan's favorite streaming service. Here's the thing though: I had never heard of the first “Hell House LLC.” Apparently, it was a Halloween-themed found footage flick from two years ago. I'm touch-and-go on the found footage style but the film still sounded like a good choice for the 30th of October.
In the year 2009, a new haunted house attraction opened in a small town in New York state. Called Hell House, it was built inside the Abaddon Hotel, a local landmark with a history of hauntings. That night, something went horribly wrong. Fifteen people ended up dead. Years later, speculation still runs rampant over what actually happened. Now, a documentary crew has interviewed the only known survivor of the incident. She presents them with raw camera footage. In the weeks leading up to the attraction's opening, the crew moved into the abandoned hotel. They documented everything they did and soon began to witness extremely strange things.
I don't know why but the found footage genre has a bad habit of featuring asshole characters. Maybe it's just because the characters insisting on recording things, even after they go bad, reflects poorly on their personalities. “Hell House LLC's” filmmaker is kind of a prick. He constantly references being attracted to one of the female characters. He casually sexually harasses her in several scenes, which the movie tries to play as cute. Alex, the CEO of the attraction company, is also something of a jerk. Long after it's become clear the hotel is haunted, he insists in staying there. On the opening night, despite a litany of bad omens, he still goes ahead with letting crowds inside. It seems the film's writer/director had some of the characters act like morons or jerks to justify the contrived story.
Having said that, “Hell House LLC” does utilize the found footage format to create some creepy moments. An important prop in the film is a large dummy of an evil clown. More than once, this mannequin appears in place where it shouldn't be. One especially effective scene has its head turning in the course of a single shot. Another mildly creepy scene has a feminine figure walking into someone's room, over their shoulder, the audience seeing her before the guy does. The climax takes us right into the story's central chaotic night. These scenes capture a decent sense of panic. The best moments in “Hell House LLC” maintain an ominous feeling, using its creepy setting to create a general air of unease.
The movie is also guilty of the cheating often seen in the found footage genre. And I'm not just talking about so much of this stuff being recorded when there's no reason for it. Several moments feature a musical score, a huge distraction in a found footage thriller. More than once, the footage slows down to give us an extra look at something creepy. Wouldn't it have been better to just let those scenes play out naturally? Digital distortion is used at least once, likely to cover up some edits. The movie is also too long. After the climax, the exact fate of two characters are unnecessarily shown on-screen. A lengthy denouncement follows that, returning to the framing device and taking us back inside the house. Both of these scenes contribute little to the movie. Honestly, “Hell House LLC” could've cut the framing device and not loose much.
I'm pretty surprised that “Hell House LLC” received some of the rave reviews it did. The film is fine, gets in a few decent scares, but in no way rises above the frequent pitfalls of this style. I'm tempted to read into the film. Early on, a talking head interview mentions how people came to the attraction for “safe” scares, only for real horror to interrupt them. Is the film attempting to speak to modern anxieties, in our world where mass shootings or terrorism can occur anywhere? If so, “Hell House LLC” looses most of the vitality once the flashback begins. If the film had run with that element, focusing more on the panic of that night, it certainly would've been interesting. As it is, “Hell House LLC” is a slightly above average example of its genre. [6.5/10]
Vincent Price will always be remembered as a horror icon. Yet if you're really familiar with his career, you'll know that he acted for twenty years before really becoming famous in that genre. Even after the 1953 break-out success of “House of Wax,” Price wouldn't become truly synonymous with horror movies until the end of the decade. However, there was at least one attempt to cash-in on “House of Wax's” popularity. A year after that hit, Price would star in another Victorian set, 3-D thriller about an artist who takes revenge on those who scorned him. “The Mad Magician” even has the actor appearing in a disguise for lengthy parts of the story. The similarities have not gone unnoticed, by critics or fans.
Gallico the Great is a stage magician on the brink of greatness. He's a brilliant performer, a master of make-up, and a pitch perfect impersonator. His latest trick involves a giant buzz saw. However, just as he's about to perform it for an audience, the show is interrupted. The provider of the prop insists he has the copyright on the trick, preventing Gallico from performing it. Enraged, Gallico kills the man with the buzzsaw contraption. From that point on, he uses his make-up skills to disguise himself, murdering other rivals and taking over their lives. The police and an amateur mystery writer are soon on his trail.
“The Mad Magician” is not a particularly good movie but it does have one thing going for it. Watching Vincent Price ham it up will always be entertaining. And Gallico the Great is an incredibly hammy character. The part allows Price to dress up in a number of different costumes, to vamp under several personas. When confronted with his enemies, Price gets to rant and rave about how the world has wronged him. He's also given lots of chances to outsmart people around him, Price adding an egotistical streak to the already melodramatic villain. There are even a few scenes where Gallico is afraid of being caught, Price allowed to bring some vulnerability to the part. The filmmakers certainly cast the right man in the leading part.
As fantastically entertaining as Price's campy villainy is, it only goes so far to make up for 'The Mad Magician's” shortcomings. The film's plot is quite ridiculous. Gallico may be a master of disguise but having him so perfectly trick so many people quickly strains credibility. There are multiple scenes where the film seems to forget the magician gimmick, focusing far too much time and effort on the disguises. It doesn't help that Price's voice is dubbed when he's undercover, making his transformation seem even more improbable. Needless to say, Gallico probably should've been caught many times before he actually is. He's terrible at covering his tracks.
Aside from Price hamming it up, there was one other thing I liked about “The Mad Magician.” Most of the supporting cast is not that interesting. Eva Gabor has a showy part as Gallico's adulterous ex-wife. Mary Murphy is pretty and screams a lot as the distressed damsel. She's not introduced until mid-way through the film but Lenita Lane's Alice, the mystery author and would-be detective, is a cute addition to the story. Lane is spunky in the part, energetic and funny. Moreover, she makes a far more interesting protagonist than Patrick O'Neal's utterly forgettable police detective.
By the way, the 3-D effects are underwhelming. A fountain of water is directed at the camera once and there's one or two other gags. Generally speaking, the commitment to the gimmick is not as strong here as it was in “House of Wax.” I saw “The Mad Magician” on television years ago, at the end of a Vincent Price marathon. I was starting to doze by this point but recall enjoying the film. I certainly remembered the scenes involving the buzz saw and the crematorium. Half-asleep is, perhaps, the best way to watch this very silly and fitfully entertaining Price vehicle. [6/10]
Tim Burton is such a parody of himself now. It's easy to overlook that his particular style was established pretty much from the beginning. Take a look at “Vincent,” Burton's stop-motion animation short from 1982. Detailing the adventures of Vincent Malloy, a young boy obsessed with Vincent Price and gothic horror, you can see most of Burton's obsessions right here. The short is built around contrasting Vincent's sunny, suburban life with the nightmarish horrors he imagines in his head. The love of classic horror imagery is present, with shots of Vincent and his zombie-dog stalking through the fog. Or the expressionistic castles and laboratories Vincent daydreams about. The art style is, of course, immediately recognizable. The round eyes and elongated faces, along with the curving bodies of the various supporting characters, are Burton through and through. You can even spot some black-and-white spirals in a few scenes.
This is not really meant as a criticism. “Vincent” is delightful. The glee with which young Vincent Malloy imagines his gothic adventures perfectly capture the exuberance of youth. His Poe-inspired angst is intentionally overwrought. The images of dipping his aunt or wax or transforming his friendly dog into a monster are gleefully macabre. Cutting back and forth between the boy's horrific inner life and his sunny day-to-day existence produces several laughs. Most notably near the end, where Vincent's mother tries to convince him to go outside and play.
Two elements hold the short together even more. Getting Vincent Price himself to narrate the short turns it into a beautifully flattering homage. You can tell Price really enjoyed narrating this story. Secondly, Ken Hilton's musical score is perfect. It totally plays the boy's melocholey daydreams straight, giving this silly little short a surprisingly soulful streak. I guess “Vincent's” enduring appeal proves that we didn't get tired of Tim Burton's style. We just got tired of him using it in interesting or innovative ways. [8/10]
Really, I could probably review all of “The Real Ghostbusters” as part of future Halloween Blog-a-thons. You'll have to excuse me for singling out the first season's Halloween episode, as I really don't feel like squeezing in all 173 episodes later down the line. In “When Halloween was Forever,”the Ghostbusters have their hands full. Halloween is approaching and ghostly activity is increasing in New York City. Egon links this to a series of Celtic ruins being added to a museum recently. He's right. A pair of goblins sneak into the museum and release Samhain, their god and the Lord of Halloween. The pumpkin-headed deity organizes the city's lesser spirits and freezes time, making Halloween last forever.
Samhain would return a few times over “The Real Ghostbusters'” lifetime, even getting a cameo in the sequel series. It's easy to see why the villain was so popular with viewers. First off, he looks awesome, a pumpkin-headed wraith with a scratchy baritone voice. He also really cares about the other ghosts he summons, calling them his “little ones.” As far as villainous goals go, stretching Halloween out forever probably wouldn't be so bad if it didn't also cause ghosts everywhere to go crazy. “When Halloween was Forever” actually featurs a lot of fun, spooky moments. Such as a diner full of demonic skeletons, a fuzzy ghost eating a chair, a bizarre creature driving a car, and a briefly glimpse griffin-like entity.
To modern eyes, the series' vaguely anime-esque animation has aged pretty poorly. This is most evident in the scene where Janine is attacked by Samhain's minions, disguised as trick-or-treators. However, the voice cast is still top-notch. Lorenzo Music's deadpan vocals were a perfect fit for Venkman, actually making a few goofy one-liners funny. Maurice LaMarche was similarly well cast as Egon, mining humor out of the stuffy scientist's actions. Such as when he has to taunt some ghosts into attacking him. It's not high art but “When Halloween was Forever” works very nicely on All Hallows' Eve Eve. [7/10]
Last December saw the release of a high-profile Christmas-themed horror story. I saw “Krampus” on opening day, wrote a positive review, and was happy to see it do decent box office business. However, in the days after that film’s release, I heard rumblings about another Christmas-themed horror movie. “A Christmas Horror Story” got the VOD/DTV release standard for most indie horror flicks. It managed to pick up some decent reviews and, at the time, some where even willing to declare it the superior Christmas monster movie. It’s been twelve months but I’ve finally caught up with “A Christmas Horror Story.” I wish I liked it more than I did.
My first problem with the movie is apparent early on. “A Christmas Horror Story” is an anthology film. On Christmas Eve, in the Canadian town of Bailey Down, four stories play out. A group of teens explore a Catholic school, abandoned after murders occurred there a year ago. After a father and mother steal a Christmas tree off a secluded property, their son begins to act strangely. A bitter family on the way home from a long trip are beset by the Krampus. At the North Pole, Santa fights off a zombie-style plague infecting his elves. William Shatner, as an increasingly sloshed radio DJ, plays host. The movie takes a really weird approach to its anthology format. Instead of keeping the stories self-contained, the film cuts between them. Thus, the individual stories’ momentum is constantly interrupted. The audience has to mentally juggle the different characters and plots. There’s no reason to do this, as the stories don’t comment on each other. Instead, the device is merely distracting and prevents the film from building up a decent pace.
The second introduced story is probably my favorite of the bunch. The initial set-up, of the dad casually breaking the lawn in order to obtain the perfect Christmas tree, is a good starting point for a horror story. I was pleasantly surprised when the tale slowly revealed itself to be about a changeling. The parents’ probably should have been alarmed by the kid’s odd behavior – which includes scarfing down whole plates of spaghetti and stabbing dad with a fork – much sooner. The horror, of a parent realizing something is wrong with their child, connects the story with reality. The entire episode is set in a tiny apartment and primarily lit by the glow of a Christmas tree, which is a really nice effect. I also like Adrian Holmes as the stressed out dad who makes some questionable decision. The story ends on a nice note too.
The Krampus story doesn’t have a promising start. An asshole family pile in a car and travel to grandmother’s house. There, the boy breaks the elderly woman’s statuette of Krampus, which seemingly brings the demons wrath on them. Eventually, we learn that Krampus is hunting them because they’re all bad people. The dad has been embezzling money through a sham company. The son is a budding psychopath who likes to torture animals. The daughter is a kleptomaniac. Despite getting their just desserts, there’s something weirdly human about flawed, damaged people being targeted by the legendary beast. The Krampus design is cool too and much more traditional then the version that actually appeared in “Krampus.” He’s bone white, hella’ buff, and has long, curving horns. A notable gag involves the monster’s famously long tongue. There’s not much to this tale, and the ending is incredibly lame, but it’s still one of the better segments in the film.
Easily the showiest segment is the Santa-centric one. It’s definitely the best looking story in the film, shot through a moody greenish-blue lens. There’s a certain pulpy appeal to a bad ass Santa Claus slicing through zombie elves with a bladed crosier. And it is fun, for a while anyway. However, this sequence has nothing else to offer. The segments just scuffles pass one elaborate fight scene to another. Furthermore, George Buza’s performance as Santa is slightly off-key. He’s playing up the character’s warm and fuzzy attitude, which badly jives with the story’s content. The elves, after becoming possessed, scream profanity at the fat man, which is nowhere near as amusing as the film seems to think it is. The story concludes with a fight between Santa and Krampus. Sure, that’s neat. It also misunderstands the legendary figures’ relationship. Santa and Krampus aren’t arch-enemies. They’re partners. The twist ending, which ties into the film’s framing device, admittedly caught me off-guard.
I really like William Shatner’s framing device. His mood degrades from up-beat and full of Christmas cheer to weeping and drunk. This provides plenty of opportunities for some fine Shatner shenanigans. Overall though, “A Christmas Horror Story” was a bit disappointing. Obviously setting out to be the “Trick r’ Treat” for Christmas, it’s bizarre story structure and collection of mediocre stories sees it falling very short of that goal. [6/10]
With all the discussion this past year about “Ghostbusters,” I think the old cartoon show is worth a visit. Yes, of course, there was a Christmas episode of “The Real Ghostbusters.” While driving through a snow storm after a rough job in upstate New York, the four Ghostbusters accidentally travel through a time portal. This tosses them back to Victorian London. There, they stumble upon Ebenezer Scrooge and the three ghosts of Christmas. Mistaking the situation for a regular haunting, the Ghostbusters zap and capture the spirits. Upon returning home, they discover a world that hate and despises Christmas, a belief popularized by a book written by… Ebenezer Scrooge! Now, in order to ensure the continued existence of Christmas, the guys must travel back in time and free the ghosts once more.
I re-watched a handful of episodes of “The Real Ghostbusters” earlier this year, in anticipation of our podcast episode on the topic. The series fluctuated between really dire stories that would barely pass kid’s show mustard and surprisingly entertaining, clever episodes. Luckily, “X-Mas Marks the Spot” mostly falls into the latter category. There’s very little slapstick antics involving Slimer, which was always the series’ weakest attribute. The humor is silly but in a good-natured way. Before freeing the Christmas ghosts again, Ray, Venkman, and Winston have to dress up as the spirits and convince Scrooge that they’re really ghosts. (Because, apparently, they know enough about “The Christmas Carol” story to replicate it but not immediately recognize it.) There’s also some amusing moments where Janine agrees to help Egon, not because she wants to save Christmas, but just because she loves him so much.
The emotional subplot, about a grouchy Venkman learning to love the holiday again, is standard stuff but handled in a fairly light manner. The sequence devoted to Egon entering the containment unit to free the ghosts features a surprise homage to “2001: A Space Odyssey,” some surreal architecture, and cameos from previously featured ghosts. The voice cast for this show was also better then average, as Lorenzo Music, Maurice LaMarche, and Laura Summer all do good work. It’s not the weirdest version of “A Christmas Carol” – it’s not even the weirdest version starring a proximity of Bill Murray – but it’s still a decently seasonal way to kill a half-hour. [7/10]
Hey, July is nearly over! Shouldn't you put out a podcast episode or two this month?
I'm glad you ask, hypothetical reader! Of course, I'll be rushing out two episodes of the Bangers n' Mash Show this month. Don't you know my method by now, which is to procrastinate until the last minute and then rush everything out in a mad daze?
Anyway, JD and I recorded an episode recently. This actually went up, like, four days ago. It's about the Ghostbusters movies, including the new one. Also, we talk about the cartoon shows and toys too. Another one of these is in the editing bay and should be out in a few days. Probably on the 31st because, let's face it, that's my technique.
If you can't get enough of me talking aimlessly about movies and/or TV on the internet, I also talk on The So Weird Podcast and the Jean-Pod Van Damme. My Tobe Hooper Director's Report Card will conclude later today, after I get roughly six to eight hours sleep and work enough to justify receiving a paycheck. Thank you and good night.
No film of 2016 has attracted more controversy then “Ghostbusters.” Any time a beloved, nostalgia property is remade, there will be some inevitable fan backlash. Yet the reception that the female led reboot of “Ghostbusters” received, even before any trailers or posters were released, was unprecedented in its negativity. Some of this was expected but a distressingly large amount of the backlash was undeniably sexist. These assholes have set the nerd fandom back twenty years. Anyway, now that the movie is actually out, it can be judged on its own merits.
Dr. Erin Gilbert is trying to make it as a legitimate physics professor, putting her history as a paranormal researcher behind her. That is until childhood friend and former colleague Dr. Abby Yates starts selling the book they co-authored on Amazon. When Erin confronts Abby about this, the two ends up going on an adventure and discovering irrefutable proof of ghosts. Along with eccentric new partner Holtzmann, the three set out as a business, busting ghosts. It soon becomes apparent that something strange is happening in the neighborhood. A villain has built devices that amplify the ghostly activity in an area, prepping for a full-blown spirit invasion of the living world. Teaming with a street smart subway clerk, the Ghostbusters seek to protect the world.
While much of the backlash against the new “Ghostbusters” was simply gross, some of it was based in legitimate concerns. The original “Ghostbusters” is one of the most beloved comedies ever made, retaining a loyal and passionate fan base despite being more-or-less stagnant for twenty years. It’s a hefty comedic legacy to stand up to. I didn’t know if Paul Feig, Kristen Wigg, and Messlia McCarthy were the right fits for the job at first either. I wasn’t very familiar with Feig or Wigg and found many of McCarthy’s most recent characters to be obnoxious. However, the more I saw, the more I realized this could be more then a cheap cash-in. 2016’s “Ghostbusters” isn’t as funny as the original. But what films are? It is, however, a entertaining modern day blockbuster.
The film does take a while to find its comedic rhythm. Early scenes featuring overly pithy or sarcastic dialogue are clearly straining for laughs but do not reach them. The characters, at first, strike a viewer as somewhat obnoxious. Everyone is a little too mean to everyone else in the beginning. The awkwardness of the early scenes reaches its peak during a painfully unfunny sequence. Melissa McCarthy tries on the proton pack for the first time and ends up sliding around an alley way in a moment of uncomfortably bad slapstick. During these scenes, I kept thinking to myself “This is going to get better, right?” Luckily, it does. Once the story finds it groove and the cast becomes comfortable with the characters, “Ghostbusters” starts reliably producing decent laughs.
Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig feel like an established comedic team, even though this is only their second movie together. The emotional crux of “Ghostbusters” is built around their characters' friendship. At the story’s beginning, Abby and Erin are isolated from each other, even outright antagonistic at times. By the end, they’re reunited as dear friends, saving each others' lives. The film plays down McCarthy’s more colorful physical comedy. There’s only one or two scenes of overdone slapstick, such as an exaggerated leap into the air. Wiig’s style of humor is more neurotic, often focusing on awkward, confused, or nervous reaction to other characters. Moreover, the two are funny together, playing well off one another.
In the original “Ghostbusters,” the all-male team was supported by a female secretary. The reboot switches this around as well, giving the all-female team a male secretary. However, Chris Hemsworth’s Kevin contributes more to the plot then Annie Potts’ Janine ever did. Hemsworth plays the character as an exceedingly eccentric simpleton. He wears glasses without lens. He doesn’t seem to understand how to operate a phone. He has named his dog “My Cat.” As a would-be actor, he shows off glossy of himself posing, shirtless, with a saxophone. It’s another example of the film creating characters perhaps too off-beat for their own good. Hemsworth, however, makes it work. He jumps into the part with full gusto, mining solid laughs from Kevin’s increasingly strange behavior. He also manages to find a heat, if not an intelligence, inside the character.
2016’s “Ghostbusters” seems to have anticipated the sexist nature of its backlash, to some degree. There’s a throw away line concerning YouTube comments. The main villain, meanwhile, is a socially inept male who spends a lot of time in a basement. Rowan, as played by Neil Casey, is an outcast who believes the world owes him recognition. He relates with the ghosts, similarly forgotten and shunned by the world. He looks to reek revenge against a society that rejects him. What I really like about Roman’s character is how much it reminds me of a comic book bad guy origin. Rowan starts out as brilliant but ordinary. His home-made ghost amplifiers are his main weapon. Before the end, he’s transformed into an honest-to-god supervillain. Casey nicely balances the character’s awkwardness with his budding sinister qualities. (Refreshingly, unlike certain other recent blockbusters, the villain has no personal connection to the heroes.)
Much of the criticism that has faced the reboot has been nonsensical. One that strikes me as especially false has been the criticism of the special effects. One of my favorite aspects of the new film is its ghosts. They look amazing. Skeletons glow inside translucent, colorful skin. Each of the film’s main spectres seems like variation on traditional ghost archetypes. One is an elegant woman in a fancy gown. Another is a convict who died in the electric chair. Each looks amazing, bringing a certain cartoon aesthetic to their designs without appearing improbably. The best utilized ghost is a large, dragon like entity. Equally skeletal and reptilian, it makes an impression. The new “Ghostbusters” doesn’t have any of the creepiness of the original. The best scare involves a mannequin, a moment equally comedic as spooky. But that’s fine, as scares isn’t really one of the new film’s objectives.
Despite being the purest definition of a reboot, telling a totally new story with a similar premise, the new film still felt the need to reference to the originals. Sometimes, this is more distracting then endearing. The way the Ghostbusters logo is created feels especially unneeded. Ray Parker Jr.’s theme song is heavily incorporated into the score, to the point of diversion. And, of course, there are cameos. These mostly work. Bill Murray’s appearance seems to play with his stated disinterest in the “Ghostbusters” franchise. Dan Aykroyd and Annie Potts’ scenes intentionally recall their roles in the original, to mild amusement. Sigourney Weaver’s cameo is a little too self aware. Ernie Hudson’s cameo is my favorite, as it pays off on a running gag set up throughout the film. Even Harold Ramis appears, in a sense, as a bust. However, the best cameos belong to Stay Puft Marshmallow – who is incorporated in a clever way – and Slimer. Slimer even gets a girlfriend, a delightfully silly addition.
The biggest problem facing 2016’s “Ghostbusters” has nothing to do with its talented cast or solid screenplay. Instead, Paul Feig’s direction seems ill suited to an effects driven film. He seems far more comfortable to uniform sequences devoted to characters standing around and talking. The action scenes are never incoherent but are often oddly framed. Like the film’s humor, even the visual direction seems lightly off at first. It’s not until the end, when a slow motion fight scene appears, that Feig appears confident in his action direction. The editing, meanwhile, is even more off. The film awkwardly cuts between big effects shots and unrelated reactions. It’s blunt, at best, and baffling, at worst.
When all things are considered, “Ghostbusters” is entertaining. This is most apparent during the lavish finale. The team is reunited. They converge in Times Squares, to battle a small army of different ghosts. Each of the main cast members get a moment to shine. All of the new weapons and gear introduced throughout the film are utilized. We see lots of cool new ghosts. The big finish has Rowan assuming the shape of the white spook in the Ghostbusters’ logo. What starts out as cute soon becomes giant and scarred. It’s not a visual gag equal to the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man’s original appearance. However, it’s a respectful nod towards the series’ history and something we haven’t quite seen before.
I have my nitpicks concerning the newest “Ghostbusters.” I wish the ghost traps had a bigger role, for one. A sudden cameo from Ozzy Osbourne is terrible. As is a rock group featured in one scene. For the most part though, the movie works fairly well most of the time. Whether or not this new “Ghostbusters” launches a new franchise remains to be seen. (Sony created an entire new production company – Ghost Corps – just to exploit the Ghostbusters I.P. So, even if this film underperforms, I suspect we’ll see new entries somehow.) The cast works the best once they grow into their characters, meaning a sequel would likely lack some of the bumpy edges this film has. As a long time fan of the series, overall, the new film satisfies me. It’s as true now as it was in 1984: Bustin’ makes ya’ feel good. [7/10]
