Director Report Card: Destin Daniel Cretton (2026)

 

7. Spider-Man: Brand New Day

Getting to direct a "Spider-Man" movie must be a real double-edged sword by this point. He's one of those superheroes that nearly everybody has strong feelings about. Thousands more kids grew up watching the cartoons and movies or playing the video games or with the toys than those that ever bothered to read a comic book. You're going to be judged and scrutinized by hardcore nerds and filthy casuals with spider symbol decals on their cars. At the same time, a film actually about Spider-Man – and not one of his villains or a blind lady he talked to a few times – is guaranteed to be a massive success. Also to consider is that the Marvel Cinematic Universe house style is so ingrained at this point that it's unlikely to make any filmmaker a household name. I'm sure Jon Watts and Marc Webb have done just fine for themselves. However, their stints with the web crawler did little to raise their profiles beyond earning the scorn of hyper-online nerds. These types of gigs are surely beneficial to the directors' bank accounts at the cost of any public artistic identity.

So you're Destin Daniel Cretton. You've directed some well regarded indies and two Oscar Bait dramas that didn't win Oscars. Marvel scoops you up to direct a project conceived during the period when every movie they were making, no matter how obscure the source character was, became a huge success... But the movie releases after the pandemic, when the air is fast running out of that balloon. I thought "Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings" was among the best of the studio's post-"Endgame" slate and it did okay at the box office. Nevertheless, a prospective sequel and spin-off series got lost in the corporate shuffle to re-right the ship and your leading man said some kind of weird shit online. You're going to direct the next "Avengers" movie but then you aren't, because that project's leading man got real-deal canceled and took the entire planned direction for the franchise with him. Your prestige mini-series about Japanese-American soldiers in World War II is slow to develop and another Marvel TV project – the shrinking number of people still watching those like it – is the only thing you've actually directed in the last four years. Your Disney corporate overlords offer you the next "Spider-Man," maybe to make up for the "Avengers" fiasco. Do you take the job? Of course, you do. "Spider-Man: Brand New Day" has opened to predictably enormous box office, so I'm betting Cretton is feeling fine about all this. But what of the film itself? Let us investigate further. 

Despite taking its subtitle from a controversial comic story line, "Spider-Man: Brand New Day" is not set in the aftermath of a deal with the devil and Aunt May is still dead. Instead, the new status quo established by "No Way Home's" ending has Peter Parker forgotten by all his friends and loved ones. He has focused his life entirely on being Spider-Man. While this has made the web head New York City's most beloved hero, it's left Peter feeling isolated. His spider powers begin to develop in strange ways, his body producing organic webbing and Peter going into rage fueled black-outs where he acts dangerously. Soon, a new threat emerges: A psychic presence that can inhabit any body and seems determined to break into the Department of Damage Control. This new villain directly targets MJ, who Peter still loves but who no longer remembers him. The Spider-Man is going to have to learn to control his new powers, consider the cost of reconnecting with those who have forgotten him, and unravel the true motive behind this enemy all at once.

Filmmakers keep saying they have a desire to make a "street level" Spider-Man movie. While the character is certainly involved in universe reshuffling shenanigans regularly, most of his villains are of more humble ambitions than world dominance. Of course, every superhero movie has to be an event now, meaning the last several appearance of the character have been crossovers or globe-trotting adventures. At various points in development, it was promised that "Brand New Day" would finally refocus on the neighborhood part of Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man. And for about a half-hour in the first half, it actually is that. There's a highly energetic montage devoted to showing encounters with a series of B-list villains, each one patterned directly after a classic cover. This is part of a longer first act, in which Spidey is directly in contact with the chief of police and simply stopping whatever petty super-crime comes along. Even after the mind swapping threat appears to centralize the story, this more casual energy remains for a while. This is, in fact, the pace and tone I've always wanted from a Spider-Man movie. Aside from the thrill of seeing, say, Tombstone on-screen, a Spidey who is always swinging in and out of other adventures works great for me. 

Of course, this is not meant to last for the entire runtime. Each of the MCU Spider-Man movies have been reluctant to let the character stand alone, bringing Iron Man, Nick Fury, or Doctor Strange into the plot. You would think that, of all of Marvel's characters, literally their most popular would be able to stand alone. Whether this is a result of the Byzantine contractual obligations between Disney and Sony that make these movies possible or simply a desire to establish this Spidey as thoroughly part of the cinematic universe, that trend continues in “Brand New Day.” The Punisher appears early in the run time and reoccurs throughout. Dr. Bruce Banner gets a conversation with Peter before his green, angry alter ego is spotlighted in a later action sequence. The mysterious antagonist of the film turns out to be exactly who everyone has speculated they would be, another very well-known  Marvel character re-debuting on-screen. The superhero supporting cast is so prominent throughout “Brand New Day” that it might as well have been called “Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends” or “Marvel Team-Up Featuring Spider-Man.”

The stated goal of wanting to be a lower stakes story simply about the web-slinger, his civilian buddies and love interest, obviously conflicts with high-profile characters showing up. It also creates another tiring feeling, of sitting through a big budget superhero flick that is merely an extended preview of another big budget superhero flick that Marvel Studios' brain trust is presumably hard at work on. Can we not just enjoy a story by itself? Must every tights-wearing motion picture be a part of a massive web of crossovers and brand synergy? Ya know, Peter Parker swinging over to a college campus and getting some advice from Dr. Banner is one thing. That would be a fairly standard event in the pages of the comics. However, here this scene merely proceeds a showdown with the Hulk later on. Devoting the primary villain role to another hotly anticipated character is a more questionable decision, tying Spider-Man to a character he's not that associated with and promising more adventures – more corporate product we must consume – down the line. 

Of all the guest stars, the Punisher is one that gives me the most pause. The blood thirsty vigilante first appeared as a Spider-Man adversary, of course. I've not read every appearance the two characters have made together. I'm sure, at one point or another, they interacted in a more cooperative manner. However, it still feels a little weird to have Spider-Man bantering with a character that has been acknowledged in-universe to be essentially a mass murderer. Jon Bernthal and Tom Holland have some decently amusing chemistry. The contrast between the younger hero's irrelevant style and Frank Castle's gruffness is worth a laugh or two but, by the end, we are meant to have genuinely warm feelings about their relationship. Which feels like a kind of weird thing to do with such a hard-boiled character. The script never quite acknowledges that the Friendly Neighborhood hero is being all buddy-buddy with a brutal killer throughout, one presumably wanted in connection with hundreds of homicides. Perhaps I am simply too much of a nerd to overlook the disconnect here and the average theater-goer will be less bothered by this. 

That “Brand New Day” is so preoccupied with slightly distracting crossovers is all the more frustrating as the premise has an intriguing question behind it. Peter Parker has always been pulled between the duty he feels as a superhero and his devotion to his friends and family. In this film, he's essentially chosen his crime fighting over his love life, in an attempt to keep them safe from the consequences of being connected to Spider-Man. All he can do is watch from afar as his best friend and the girl he loves both easily move on without him. This addresses an anxiety perhaps all of us have felt: How vital are we to other people's lives? If we disappeared suddenly, would the people so important to us find us equally important to them? The push-and-pull between wanting those we love to be happy and move on and what value this assigns to our own existence strikes me as an extremely Spider-Man-like emotion to explore. 

This idea takes center stage in the film's middle section, when the focus turns to Peter and MJ's relationship. Tom Holland and Zendaya continue to have strong chemistry, making these moments even more compelling. The script, at first, seems like its sticking to its guns and isn't going to magically undo past events. The blank slate is indeed blank. Obviously, this is the emotional backbone of the entire movie. Frustratingly, that relationship is entirely sidelined during the actual climax, which basically removes MJ from the story all together. Instead, the script repeatedly focuses in on a much less compelling idea, asking Peter if he truly has to do this all by himself. This moves towards a more generalized struggle against grief and finding the strength to go on after such a loss. This is a much less interesting idea, that never quite squares with the story actually being told here and ultimately feels like a somewhat desperate attempt to connect Peter's story with that of the antagonist's. 

Another common enough Spider-Man trope is Parker's personal anxieties effecting his ability to fight crime. “Brand New Days” draws a little from storylines in which his spider side mutates further, this time as a manifestation over his fears of losing MJ for good. The sequel stops short of having Peter sprout extra arms or turn into a full-on human/spider hybrid. Instead, he merely wakes up in his own webs at one point and develops fully black sclera. This is disappointing in its own right, as it feels like this subplot never quite pays off. Further more, the way this is ultimately resolved really (excuse the pun) bug me. Spider-Man continues to struggle with a fear that he's losing control of his own abilities up until a pivotal moment where... He closes his eyes, thinks about it real hard, and seizes control. At which point, he suddenly has access to a whole new plethora of superpowers that give him the boost needed in a big fight scene. This, to me, feels like video game logic infecting Hollywood screenwriting. Peter Parker levels up, simply by progressing through events, and can now control that which he previously couldn't. It does not feel earned, like a proper pay-off to the hero's development, and simply has him being able to do these now because it's that time in the story. 

Writing like this, distressingly becoming more common in big budget cinema of late, undersells the idea that the story's deeper themes mean anything. How can we accept “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” as an actual reflection on grappling with loss, trying to stone-wall our personal pain, or anxieties that our loved ones will be fine without us if it all wraps up with some shonen fighting anime style power-up? That points towards a problem all blockbuster cinema has, in our increasingly corporate age. The last third of “Brand New Day” sees all of New York City rallying around their local hero, cheering for him to make a brave recovery. There's a lengthy montage of the character's distinctive red and blue web pattern appearing in all sorts of public contexts. At this point, the question becomes if the sequel isn't much more than a self-indulgent act of corporate self-promotion. Look upon this hyper-valuble I.P., mere mortal movie goers, and think about how much you love Product. Is the film's script built upon the nostalgic, emotional connection the audience has to the “brand” itself and not to the story its telling? 

It's entirely possible I'm overthinking this. That I've gotten too old and cranky to simply embrace a special effects driven spectacle for its own sake. Maybe my brain is too full of worries about corporate waste as the world faces down threats much more important than costumed villains. Popular films are ostensibly a reflection of the world they are made in. There are hints throughout “Brand New Day” of how fucked-up shit has gotten in America. A scene where a character is abducted off the street by black-clad government agents, shoved into a van, and un-person-ed in broad daylight is a (possibly questionable) reflection of ICE raids and anti-fascist protesters getting dragged off. The story bends towards an easily guessed twist, that the agencies we have designated with protecting us might be more interested in consolidating their own power instead. Of course, these ideas are never seriously confronted. As in past Marvel movies, the abuses of power by the government are dismissed as the acts of bad apples. Spider-Man stops the bad guy and they get arrested by the cops. He doesn't dismantle the architecture of systematic repression and control. Such short-falls are to be expected but it represents the film's unwillingness to actually make us care, to invest its world with the proper amount of reality. 

Which points towards another problem I have with “Brand New Day,” one that necessitates I enter Extremely Obvious Spoilers territory to address: Why is Jean Grey the bad guy in a Spider-Man movie? From the minute up-and-coming redhead actress Sadie Sink was cast in an undisclosed part, fans assumed she was playing the future X-Woman. The script reveals this is the case about half-way through, as if the filmmakers are admitting how obvious this would-be twist must be. While Miss Grey has been possessed by genocidal cosmic consciousnesses from time to time, she's not typically a villain. A viewer with a basic measure of comic book knowledge can anticipate that she's acting this way for a good reason. While the origins we're familiar with have been rearranged, it still presents an underwhelming reveal about what is really going on.

Sink is fine in the role. Her big blue eyes can convey a degree of pain and emotion that suits what her character is going through. I'm sure she'll do fine in the surely forthcoming “X-Men” movie Disney is working on right now. Occasionally, “Brand New Day” utilizes its telepathic villain for some exciting sequence. People rag-dolling for a second as another mind takes over their bodies is inconsistently portrayed, usually being used as visual shorthand to show us who is under Grey's control at that moment. (Which does remove some of what is supposed to make her powers frightening, the idea that this threat can be anyone at any moment.) However, the sequence where Peter has to outrun the body-hopping possessive entity across the streets of New York is well-done. It's certainly better than the CGI infused finale, that turns this into a city-wide threat with lots of explosive special effects also depended on the idea of a character suddenly gaining control over new powers. Again, I'm just left wondering why these events are being focused on over elements of the story that obviously mean a lot more to these characters and everything that came before. 

The answer to that question is obvious: Because it's a Marvel movie. Getting a soratonin spike out of the audience simply by putting a familiar name or face on-screen is what these films have increasingly been designed to do. It's frustrating because, occasionally, “Brand New Day” does prove to be compelling blockbuster film making in its own right. A highlight of Cretton's “Shang-Chi” were action scenes that balanced acrobatic martial arts with the expected CGI spectacle more often. There's some of that in Cretton's “Spider-Man” as well. Not only when Peter is swinging through the city or tossing webbing around to capture opponents. During several clever spots, the point-of-view itself inverts and swings around the action, truly putting the viewer in the center of this thrill ride. When battling a group of acrobatic ninjas or a free-fall struggle with the Hulk, I was able to get caught up in this. If I'm being especially generous, “Brand New Day” is better than most comic book adaptations of putting the visual dynamism of the four-color medium in motion on the big screen. If I'm being more honest with myself, these moments represents brief surprises in-between a lot of far less memorable lighting, blocking, and cinematography. 

And that brings me back around to the question of Destin Daniel Cretton's authorial fingerprint. I'm sad to say that you don't see much of his personality coming through the film. Learning how to square away personal trauma and continue on with your life is certainly a present theme in the film, as it was in his “Wonder Man' series as well. However, like I said, that often takes a back seat to the bombast. Cretton's other pet themes, of daddy issues and cultural integration, simply aren't present at all. In fact, aside from some of those “Shang-Chi”-like action scenes, the only move here that strikes me as indicative of Cretton's previous work is a soundtrack that's heavy on indie rock needle drops, especially during plaintive montages. That gave me some “I Am Not a Hipster” flashbacks. Otherwise, it's hard not to conclude that the “Short Term 12” auteur has been thoroughly swallowed up by the blockbuster machine. 

It is, in other words, just another Marvel movie. “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” has its moments, a splash of color or inventive action work that got my heart pumping. The cast remains likable. That opening act really did give me hope that this would be a proper day-in-the-life-of-Spider-Man adventure and not merely a teaser for the next massive crossover to come. Sadly, that's not the case. The mere sight of my childhood comic book collection being brought to life on-screen is not enough to subsist a whole movie anymore. This lack of novelty, the sense that the product itself has become the point and not whatever thoughts or feelings it might invoke, is what has made superhero cinema a lot less interesting to me lately. “Brand New Day” isn't bad. It's fine. Will I ever feel the need to watch it again? That's a question I have a much less certain answer to. Good luck with that "Naruto" movie, Destin. [Grade: C+]

 

Halloween 2025: October 4th

Witchboard (2024)

Chuck Russell had a damn good run for a while. He got his start as a line producer on “The Hearse,” “Hell Night” and “Dreamscape” before making his directorial debut with what a lot of fans consider their favorite “A Nightmare on Elm Street” sequel. What followed was a beloved remake of a fifties classic, one of the movies that made Jim Carrey a superstar, probably the best of Arnold's late nineties flicks, and the first blockbuster starring the Rock. For reasons I've never found a satisfying explanation for, Russell took a fourteen year hiatus from feature film making. When he came back, it was with forgettable entries into the usually forgettable “geezer teaser” industry. While action movies had always been good to him, Russell had been plotting his proper return to the horror genre... With, of all things, a remake of “Witchboard.” The project was first announced back in 2017 and, through numerous starts and stops in production, Russell remained attached. He co-wrote the script too, so we can only assume he was genuinely passionate about remaking the eighties cult classic. After a long wait, the film finally came out last August. 

A botched robbery in a New Orleans museum ends with the thief dead in the woods with one stolen object: A 300 year old pendulum board, with which real witches used to contact otherworldly spirits. The board is found by Emily, while hunting for mushrooms in the forest. Her boyfriend, Christian, is preparing to open a fancy restaurants in the city's French district. At a party the night before the opening, Christian's ex Brooke puts in an appearance. She's into all that witchy shit and instantly recognizes the board for what it is, teaching Emily how to use it. Emily, a recovering addict, soon becomes hooked on talking to the board. She experiences bizarre visions of witchcraft and fiery executions. Meanwhile, bizarre deaths and the presence of feral cats begin to disrupt Christian's new business. He teams up with Brooke, to seek the advice of a local expert in the occult. Christian doesn't know it yet but his girlfriend is at the center of a revenge plot three centuries in the making to resurrect the witch Naga Soth.

As far as remakes go, this “Witchboard” is on the looser side. The scene where the spirits win the female protagonist over by helping her find a lost ring is about the only moment taken from the original. The decision to change your standard ouija board into a “pendulum board” – works on the same principal but with a witch's finger on a chain, instead of a planchette – shows the direction the film hopes to take the idea. Of the two words in the title, “witch” is emphasized over “board” in this telling. There are extensive flashbacks to medieval France, depicting the backstory of Naga Soth and the witch hunter obsessed with destroying her. The element of a cult devoted to fulfilling the witch's prophecy is included, bringing lots of decadent pagan ritual vibes to several scenes. The key presence of psychedelic mushrooms in one sequence cements what Russell and his gang where going for with this one. They wanted to get some modern day folk horror chocolate in Kevin Tenney's eighties possession/slasher movie peanut butter. It's an idea of debatable merit but, at the very least, setting the film in the New Orleans French District does give it a slightly more concrete connection to that old world setting. 

Considering the last horror movie Russell made twenty-five years ago and also bad, I had my doubts the director still had it in him for this one. This instinct was mostly correct but, every once in a while, 2024's “Witchboard” worked for me. The poltergeist-like activity of the original returns in a sequence where a little spilled gumbo and a sandwich slicer result in a surprisingly gory mishap. Another callback to the 1986 version involves Emily being abducted by spirits while in the shower. During this moment, and an earlier one where corpse-like hands reach out from her bed to grab her body, this “Witchboard” actually achieves that spook-a-blast feeling. Considering the obvious Raimi influence Tenney showed, incorporating that kind of chaotic, frenzied energy to scenes of supernatural menace isn't a bad idea. That scene with the poison mushroom has some serious flaws but, once the blood really starts to fly, I found myself enjoying it. The film needed more of that wacky, bloody sense of recklessness. 

Russell made extensive use of special effects in his eighties classics and nineties blockbusters. It is something of a trademark of his. That desire is still present in “Witchboard” but 2024's subpar digital effects do not have the charm of eighties rubber and latex. More than a few times, his “Witchboard” throws CGI spectres of screeching witches, demonic faces, or spring-loaded cats into the viewer's face. If the deployment of that last cliché sounds improbable, Russell actually builds several entire sequences around the evil kitties. One, in which a drug dealer falls from a rooftop onto a statue's up-lifted sword, is a good example of how the mediocre special effects drain some of the fun from the movie's ideas. The longer the film goes on, the more enamored it becomes of such digital trickery. Clouds of CGI green smoke, slow-mo dagger dives, or trippy distorted faces do not have the same appeal to them as Freddy's chest full of twitching souls or the bubbly tentacles of the government-engineered blob. 

Like far too many modern productions, what causes this “Witchboard” to droop the most is a script overburdened with backstory. As Christian and his friends are being introduced at that party, each one casually reveals their defining characteristic. Here's the jokey friend, the Caribbean one, the wiccan ex-girlfriend. The moment Emily is announced as a former junkie, you know that the witchboard is going to become her next addiction. Here's her former dealer, wandering randomly into the story to up the body count later on. No attempt is made to foster this connection with a deeper meaning. It's all mercenary plot construction, not an expression of a bigger idea. This is most evident in all the screen time focused on both the backstory of the witch and the man who cast her out of society. Adding some historical context to the idea of a “witch”board is nice and all, admitting that historical “witches” were usually persecuted women at the mercy of patriarchal systems. At the same time, the original didn't need fifteen minutes of flashbacks to make us understand that Malfeitor was a bad guy. It weights the movie down.

I went into the “Witchboard” remake with measured expectations, after the movie sat on a shelf for a bit and debuted to mixed reviews. I secretly hoped that Chuck Russell would make a strong come-back with this one. Alas, it is not the eighties anymore. Incorporating a more folkloric approach to the titular relic wasn't the worst idea. (Not to mention it helps distinguish the film from the officially licensed by Hasbro Ouija movies that have been made.) Occasionally, the remake comes close to making me crack a smile. Unfortunately, it is disappointingly short of spark, humor, and venom. The humble charms of the original are not much present in this largely overstuffed and far too technical a take. Russell shouldn't have left out the homoeroticism, wacky medium, axe murders, or hair metal theme song. That would've gone a long way to redeeming this one, a good idea executed in mostly juiceless fashion. [6/10]

Santo Vs. the Vampire Women (1962)

Santo contras las Mujeres Vampiro

I've never been a pro-wrestling watcher. I am, however, fascinated by the mythology of pro-wrestling, the idea that real men become larger than life characters within this ephemeral space where fantasy and reality blur. Nobody did this better than the golden age luchadores enmascarado, who often wore their distinctive masks in all facets of public life. When El Santo, the most popular and beloved of them all, began starring in movies in which he played himself, fighting monsters and supervillains, it further muddied the boundaries between the real man, the Superman-like do-gooder he played in the ring, and the mythic folk hero he had become in the public's mind. I know all of this without having seen any of the movies Santo starred in, because anybody who knows anything about Mexican film history knows this stuff. Of the 53 motion pictures El Santo appeared in, only four received stateside distribution, with most of them still unavailable with English subtitles today. The best known of Santo's starring roles is "Santo contras las Mujeres Vampiro." Released dubbed in the U.S. as "Samson Vs. the Vampire Women," the film was a common presence on late night creature feature shows and largely shaped the public perception of what Mexican horror movies are in this country. While most Mexican horror movies actually don't have masked wrestlers in them, "Santo Vs. the Vampire Women" remains an iconic film. Thankfully, the uncut, subtitled version is fairly accessible now. 

Zorina, the queen of the vampires, has awoken from 200 years of slumber. She calls upon Tundra, her craftiest vampire follower, to find a successor for her before she returns to Hell to marry Satan. Tundra targets Diana, the descender of the same woman she attempted to turn into a vampire centuries ago. Soon, the vampire woman is lurking outside Diana's window and calling to her. Diana's father, Dr. Orloff, is well aware of the family prophecy that vampires are after his daughter but is reluctant to tell her. (Especially not to ruin her recent, happy engagement to Jorge.) With no one else to turn to, he calls upon Santo, El Enmascarado de Plata, professional wrestling star, part-time superhero, and the last in a long line of masked monster hunters. Santo tries his best to protect Diana, fight off the vampiric henchmen Zorina sends after her, track down the bloodsuckers' lair, and still do his gigs in the squared circle.

From my previous viewings of “El vampiro” and “The Brainiac,” it was clear that the Universal Monster movies and Bava's “Black Sunday” were big influences on the look and feel of Mexican horror films in the sixties. “Santo Vs. the Vampire Women” adds a little Franco to the mix, by naming a character Dr. Orloff, but the focus clearly remains on replicating that classic horror ambiance. Almost the entire first ten minutes of this movie is set entirely within a dusty, shadowy, cobweb strewn crypt. All the shots of crickly-faced vampire women awakening in their coffins, rubber bats flapping through the darkness, or the shadow of a cartoonish devil cast huge on the wall is more than enough for me to love this one. “Santo Vs. the Vampire Women” never quite tops that mega-dose of monster movie flair again. (A shot of the normal looking vampire woman being reflected in a mirror in her monstrous form comes close though.) However, the film is still rich with that same creaky, cheesy, comforting atmosphere. 

The next ten minutes are devoted to establishing Diane, Dr. Orloff, and Jorge. These scenes are talky and kind of slow, in the same way the thirties Universal flicks were too. This crashes right into Dr. Orloff activating a secret monitor that puts him in direct contact with Santo, the kind of set-up Adam West's Batman would've approve of. From that point on, “Santo Vs. the Vampire Women” never stops having maximum fun bashing its action figures together. The brawny vampire henchmen sent to combat Santo run through the night, their hands holding their outstretched black capes, the exact same way a little kid would when playing pretend as a vampire. That child-like sense of glee is present thoughout, when a cop has to remind his fellow officers that Santo is a good guy or the masked wrestler leaps into his convertible. The lovingly rendered close-ups of the vampire women preparing to bite their prey is pure classic horror. When that gothic opulence contrasts against the inherent silliness of a grown man in tights and a mask, solving all his problems with punching and body slams, it creates the most beautiful kind of disconnect.

The nexus point between those two bizarre extremes arrives during a sequence when Santo's regular opponent in the ring has been replaced with one of the vampire servants. His deadly karate chops nearly defeat the mighty Santo before our hero manages to unmasks the fiend.. And reveals that he is a pro-wrestler werewolf! Yes, there is quite a lot of grappling in “Santo Vs. the Vampire Women.” At least two lengthy sequences are devoted entirely to watching a regular pro-wrestling match between Santo and whoever he's fighting that night. As somebody with little knowledge or grasp of wrasslin' as an artform, I can still appreciate the acrobatics of the leaps, slams, and leg-locks on display here. It's certainly not as much fun as the monster movie shenanigans or when the two worlds meet. However, the shots of crowds cheering and shouting for Santo – clearly meant to invoke similar reactions in theater going audiences – are infectious in their own way. 

Through it all, I couldn't help but notice an odd sort of meloncholey around Santo as a character. The love story is in-between Diana and Jorge. The tale of family is between Dr. Orloff and his daughter. Even the vampire women are a group, prowling together in their tombs. Santo is always alone. As the supporting characters embrace in the final scene, he drives off by himself. He defines himself as the last remaining member of a mythic bloodline earlier. Dr. Orloff notes that Santo's amazing skills do not gurantee that he'll succeed against the vampires. Unavoidably, the film paints him as a solitary figure, who lives only for wrestling and fighting evil. It's strange that a film as silly and cheesy as this one could stir such thoughts in me. Perhaps this is another sign that there is power in the most unexpected of images sometimes. In other words, “Santo Vs. The Vampire Women” is exactly my kind of thing. Classic monster movie vibes, camp, and culturally specific details combine to an oddly compelling B-movie. This is widely regarded as the best of the Santo films so I have no idea if any of the other ones are worth seeking out but I'm extremely curious now. [8/10]

Alien: Earth: Observation
 

The various subplots of “Alien: Earth” continue to roll along in episode four, “Observation.” Wendy is awoken from the strange coma she fell into at the end of the previous installment. It is soon discovered that she's learned how to speak the Xenomorphs' “language,” much to Boy Kavalier's amazement. Both Joe and Wendy desire to be kept together or to leave the island someday. Forces within the corporation naturally want to make sure this never happens. From outside the compound, Morrow continues to talk with Slightly, emotionally manipulating him into either procuring an egg for him or infesting someone with a Chestburster. The test continue on the eyeball parasite discovered at the crash site. Nibs, one of the other hybrid children, develops a sudden desire to become pregnant, confusing and frightening those overseeing her.

“Observation” makes a good case for the elements that annoy me the most about modern serialized television writing. Episode four sees the series reaching that inevitably point that all streaming shows reach sooner or later: Focusing an entire hour on a bunch of shit nobody cares about. The plot thread concerning Morrow worming his way into Slightly's brain obviously exists to lead to an inevitable containment break of the alien specimens. Kursh is also shown as being aware of their conversations, which will no doubt lead to more dramatic entanglements in three or so installments. The most eye-rollingly asinine of these dangling plot points is Nibs inexplicably developing baby fever. As two scenes are devoted to this subject, I could feel the sense of absolute indifference creeping into me. This is padding, plain and simple. It has no actual purpose in the story.

Far too many modern continuations of old franchises seem content to simply give fans what they want and provide no substance. “Alien: Romulus” was heavily guilty of this. On one hand, that makes “Earth's” various divergences from canon hypothetically interesting. What is this weird eyeball parasite that the Prodigy scientists are studying? The scene where it yanks out a sheep's eye and crawls into its skull is pretty gnarly. At the same time, this new extraterrestrial threat is not different enough from the Xenomorph to overcome the inevitable feeling of: When are they going to get to the alien hive? Why is the Alien not being given more to do in this series with “Alien” in the title? The scenes developing the Xenomorph's language is an actual example of building on previously established lore, as opposed to just tossing in some new stuff. I wish the episode focused more on that. 

I mostly found “Observation” to be tedious. You can almost feel the writers and show runners patting themselves on the back as they revisit the themes of motherhood and birth from the older “Alien” themes. Or in the repeated “Peter Pan” references. See, the overgrown man-child trillionaire never wants to grow up either! Once again, world-building is done not through naturalistic storytelling but through blatant exposition. There's another conversation about how the globe is broken up across five corporations. While the theme of corporate indifference to human suffering is another “Alien” Golden Oldie, it does lead to the one truly effective moment in the episode. When Joe insist that his sister is a human being, a cold representative of Prodigy reminds him that she is in fact corporate property. That's a more chilling reminder of how we will all be mere assets to the corporate oligarchs in the future. Needed more shit like that and less of Essie Davis trying to make an unhinged robo-adolescent understand that she can't be pregnant. [6/10]

Are You Afraid of the Dark?: The Tale of Apartment 214

Moving into a new apartment is an experience rich with potential for horror. There's the disorientating sensation of being uprooted from the familiar and the comfortable and being dropped into someplace alien and new. You are now surrounded by strangers, very close to you, that could be getting up to god knows what. Moreover, there's the lingering reminders that someone else once resided in this place you are trying to make your own now. Kids show schlock like “Are You Afraid of the Dark?” was aware of this too. “Tale of Apartment 214” follows Stacy, who is moving into a new apartment building with her single mom. Isolated and with no friends around, Stacy finds herself drawn to Madeline, the old woman who lives down the hall in Room 214. Madelyn informs her that her nephew abandoned on an important day, breaking a promise to never leave her alone. When Stacy goes to a concert with appropriate friend Angela instead, she finds Madelyn has abandoned 214. In fact, the old woman now appears to her as a threatening spectre, insisting that she “broke her promise.” Yes, Madeline is a ghost, haunting the apartment in which she lived and died after being left behind by those who swore to take care of her. And now that's Stacy's problem. 

Of the handful of “Are You Afraid of the Dark?” episodes I've written about, several of them have been about a young person being doggedly pursue by some ghost or entity. Often, they repeat a threatening message each time they appear, to re-enforce the moral of the episode. “Tale of Apartment 214” does this with an otherwise unassuming little old lady, who repeatedly shouts about this pre-teen girl “breaking her promise” to her. It's very silly and not especially creepy at all. I know Hollywood seems convinced that old women are the most terrifying sight imaginable but Madeline here is no Aunt Gladys. The scene where she glowers in front of a stormy window, over-enunciating dialogue about the day she died, is an especially comical moment. This isn't an example of kid-friendly horror so much as it is horror that only works if you are a kid.

After the central idea has been set-up, that Stacy has offended this elderly ghost and she'll continue to haunt her, “Tale of Apartment 214” more-or-less goes on like that. I'm not saying the episode is entirely without merit. A sequence where Stacy holds up a painting Madeline made of the two of them together, before the old woman appears right behind it, might have been effective without such a belabored set-up. A pan around the apartment prominently features a mirror. Unsurprisingly, the old woman's form shows up there too. A kid, not so familiar with horror tropes, might get a thrill out of that one. Again, it's all undermined by a kindly old woman being the central threat. The last act confirms that this ghost is not dangerous, merely misunderstood, to hammer home some half-assed moral about making new friends. While grown-ass adults continue to assure me “Are You Afraid of the Dark?” is a quality program, most of what I've seen inevitably strikes me as strictly for the elementary school crowd. [5/10]

Halloween 2025: September 17th

 

The Toxic Avenger (2023)

Troma Entertainment has always prided themselves on being crude, ridiculous, offensive, salacious and independent. Despite that, a Hollywood-ized version of their trademark character has been in development for thirty years. Shortly after the hyper-violent and perverse “Toxic Avengers” films were inexplicably turned into a kid-friendly cartoon and toy line, New Line Cinema bought the movie rights to “Toxic Crusaders.” In 2006, Lloyd Kaufman would publish a novel version of the story that promised a big budget remake was in development. By 2010, Steve Pink of “Hot Tub Time Machine” had signed on to direct, Arnold Schwarzenegger was in talks to play Toxie's mentor, and a PG-13 rating was promised. Both had dropped out by 2016, with DreamWorks animation director Conrad Vernon now attached. Two years later, Legendary Pictures acquired the rights with Macon Blair writing and directing. The previously sanitized adaptations were discarded, as Blair promised to make a movie that was true to Toxie's roots. He achieved this too well, it seemed. Despite starring recognizable actors, the reboot's content made distributors nervous. After two years on the festival circuit, Cineverse put the movie in thousands of theaters without an MPAA rating. This did not replicate the unrated success the company had with “Terrifer 3” last year but at least Blair and company can rest assured that they made an uncompromising re-imagining of “The Toxic Avenger.”

The city of St. Roma's Village, New Jersey is owned and run by pharmaceutical mega-corp BTH. Their drugs give customers horrible diseases. Their factories pump chemicals into the water supplies. The townsfolk live in fear of the mob, who directly work with BTH CEO, Bob Garbinger. Winston Gooze is a humble janitor for BTH, a single dad trying to raise his step-son, Wade. Winston learns that he has a terminal illness. Treatment exists but, of course, his insurance doesn't cover it. Desperate, he tries to talk to Garbinger at a company event only to be kicked out. With no other options, he dips his mop in some caustic chemicals and tries to rob his work place. He gets mixed up with a whistleblower attempting to expose the company and winds up shot in the head by BTH's personal hit squad/nu-metal band. His body is dumped into the chemical infested lake, which interacts with his tumors in a unique way. Winston is transformed into a hideously deformed monster hero of superhuman size and strength. Acts of vigilante justice make him beloved among the populace and hated by BTH. Winston must team up with the revolutionary if he hopes to expose the company, stop Garbinger's evil scheme to steal his blood, and save Wade. 

That major studios were determined for so many years to make a proper superhero epic out of "The Toxic Avenger" is especially bizarre. The Troma brand is built upon a particular aesthetic and attitude that has grown only more willfully abrasive as the years have gone on. Despite having the backing of Legendary's private equity money, Macon Blair and his team have done a shockingly good job of maintaining the maximalist Troma tone. This "Toxic Avenger" is packed with bodily dismemberment, profanity laced dialogue, freakish practical creature effects, a fatal fisting, and includes one (1) urinating mutated monster dong. The movie is intentionally cheap looking, with a lot of janky digital effects interacting with all that fake blood and rubber intestines. The script includes the kind of anti-capitalist humor Lloyd Kaufman is known for, depicting its corporate CEO as a cartoonishly corrupt, self-involved man-child who is openly in cahoots with organized crime. There are vague shout-outs to hot button topical issues like cancel culture, police brutality, nerd entitlement, and social media. More than anything else, Blair's movie is unendingly loud, self-aware, hyperactive, and obnoxious. It's never as crude as a home-grown Troma movie would be. The reboot is noticeably short on sex, nudity, violence against women, paraphilias, and slurs. However, this still looks and feels like a Troma movie with some semblance of a budget that inexplicably stars actors you've actually heard of. 

As well defined as the Troma brand is, most of the movies featuring their logo are also acquired productions made by lunatics far outside the Hollywood system. Films like “Redneck Zombies” or “Beware! Children at Play” are also packed full of bizarre digressions and weird in-jokes. The kind of dumb shit that makes the director and his friends giggle that anyone outside that social circle – the entire audience – will not understand. That would likely be removed by the creative process of a bigger production. Surprisingly, Blair's “Toxic Avenger” captures this feeling as well. The little brother of the main villain is a hunchback named Fritz, a Universal Monsters reference, that inexplicably manages an Insane Clown Posse/Slipknot-like rap/rock group. These guys are a surprisingly big part of the film, their individual band members getting defining gimmicks. Like the corpse paint wearing DJ who speaks in an indecipherable language subtitled with obscure symbols. Or the parkour dancer dressed like the Zodiac Killer. In his adventure, Toxie also meets a raving homeless man who is prone to elaborate rants or going on unrelated digressions.

It's weird and specific in a way a mainstream superhero movie assuredly is not. Did I personally find it amusing? Sometimes. Blair's script is so loaded down with screaming and swearing that it becomes overwhelming immediately. The reboot also replicates Lloyd Kaufman's nihilistic world view, in which the entire planet is a corrupt and stupid place pressing down on a handful of decent people. (Who are also ultra-violent mutants, usually.) However, there is enough pointed weirdness here that I chuckled a fair amount. A running gag that Winston's exact condition is never specified is well done. Toxie's pee having an acidic quality comes back around nicely. The comedic timing is too often off. Decent gags, like an attempted seduction going awry in all the right ways or the reveal of what's under a particular mask, feel off-balance in how they are delivered. However, I did laugh a fair number of times, so I suppose I got my money's worth.

What might keep the movie truly afloat is a cast trying awfully hard to invest this utterly manic material with some heart. Kevin Bacon, as the Peter Thiel-like villain, focuses hard on bulging out his eyes and being perpetually awful. That's the tone a lot of the supporting players go with, probably because it's what the material demanded of them. However, Peter Dinklage is utterly sincere as Winston. He's such a kind-hearted guy trying his best – if beaten down by a relentlessly cruel world – that you kind of don't buy his transformation into a blood-thirsty do-gooder. Jacob Tremblay, as the ambiguously autistic step-son, is game for the crazier elements of the script while acting like he's in a far tamer film. Weirdly, the relationship between Toxie and his kid is the heart of the film and that element works surprisingly well. It certainly works better than the subplot of Taylour Paige as the left-wing agitator seeking to expose the evil corporation. That entire element of the film is also played largely straight and never quite integrates with the rest of the story. 

What the film noticeably is not is a parody of modern superhero movies. The only time the reboot stops to comment on the formulas popularized by Marvel is in a piss-take on the entire concept of a post-credit scene. Which is also maybe the best joke in the whole movie. I can see why absolutely every big distributor looked at this film and passed on it. Not only because its content. Despite its proudly trumpeted unrated status, I only think two gags truly exists outside the boundaries of modern, R-rated gross-out comedies. No, the movie is also kind of a slapdash mess, never as funny as it wants to be or as bold as it needs to be. However, I'm still glad this motion picture exists. I laughed and smiled a good number of times throughout its runtime. If nothing else, the sheer unlikeliness of a “Toxic Avenger” movie starring actors that have been nominated for Emmys, Golden Globes, and Teen Choice Awards is a novelty that's hard to overlook. I would assuredly take this messy, off-balanced, and clearly personal take on Toxie over whatever a remake squeezed through the mainstream blockbuster meat grinder would've looked like. Better an off-kilter half-success than the face of independent adolescent punk-rock horror/comedy splatter becoming more slop for the streaming factory. [7/10]
 

Spellcaster (1988)

Recently, I had to make the extremely heartbreaking decision to cut SiriusXM from my monthly budget, deciding I can no longer justify paying for radio. This means I had to say goodbye to 1st Wave, the station devoted to “classic alternative and New Wave.” Truly, how will I get through my daily commute without hearing “Never Say Never” by Romeo Void and “Major Tom (Coming Home)” by Peter Schilling every morning? Jokes aside, I did grow fond of that station's on-air personalities during my years of being subscribed to the service. Especially recent Hollywood Walk of Fame recipient Richard Blade. Best known for his role as a DJ on influential and beloved California radio station KROQ, Mr. Blade did make a few attempts to break into other branches of the media over the years. Among his handful of mostly music-related acting credits is “Spellcaster,” a Charles Band production from 1988 that features most of the things you associate with Charles Band productions filmed in the eighties. In other words, the Halloween Horror-fest Blog-a-Thon has presented me with an unlikely chance to put a face to the accented, high-energy voice I'm now no longer hearing on a regular basis. 

Presumably because they don't have parents, orphans Jackie and Tom are working in a crappy fast food restaurant. They recently entered a contest through Rock-TV, their favorite music video centric cable station, and are elated to see they've been selected. The two are flown out to an obscure corner of Europe, to a sprawling castle owned by the mysterious Mr. Diablo. People from all over the world have been invited to participate. Video jockey Rex seems to be hosting the event, partially as an advertising effort for pop star Cassandra Castle. (Whose career is taking a downturn lately because of her alcoholism.) A check for a million dollars has been hidden somewhere in the castle. The first person that can find it, gets to keep it. However, it soon becomes apparent that something unusual is happening here. People are starting to disappear or act oddly. As the weekend goes on, Jackie and Tom are witness to bizarre monster emerging from the shadows and attacking people. It turns out that the contest is connected to Cassandra and the unseen Mr. Diablo. 

If the internet is to be believed, “Spellcaster” would begin production in 1986. That's right around the time Charles Band bought an actual fucking castle in the countryside of Rome, a 12th century structure known as Castello di Giove. This is also around the same time that Empire Pictures, his then production company, started to collapse into financial disarray. This might explain why “Spellcaster” has what can be called a loose plot. The film is largely devoted to the various characters wandering around the castle, trying to have sex with each other until some sort of monster appears to kill or attack them. The biggest problem with this set-up is that none of the characters are all that distinct. The easiest way to tell the various players in “Spellcaster” apart is by their accents. There's a French girl, an English girl obsessed with hunting, a sleazy Italian guy. The difference in voices is especially important as several of the women are varying shades of blonde, making it easy to mix them up. Aside from their nationalities, the cast members are given few other defining characteristics. You know things are bad when the token fat guy, obsessed with food, is one of the more fleshed-out participants. 

The impression that “Spellcaster” was an almost improvisational production is also supported by its creature effects. John Carl Buechler was Band's go-to monster guy during this period, supervising the creation of many slimy, wrinkly, weird creatures for motion pictures ike “Ghoulies,” “Troll,” and “TerrorVision.” Those films had some sort of unifying visions behind their monstrosities though. In “Spellcaster,” the cast members explore the castle until some sort of threat emerges from the shadows or curses them. There are plenty of cool and fun ideas here. A sequence where a large, wooden throne springs to life and devours the person sitting in it isn't bad. A suit of armor comes to life. Upon being decapitated, a flying, flesh-y worm beast pops out.  A painting depicting a horned creature embracing a maiden leaps into reality, providing the film with its most comic book-like beastie. I can enjoy all of this stuff for its ingenuity, the gooey and slightly cartoonish latex and rubber being a joy to behold in its own right. But it would've been nice if there was more rhyme or reason to the how and why of these things appearing. 

Richard Blade plays the VJ, Rex, a character that is essentially a rather sleazy horn-dog who seems most interested in getting into the pop star's pants than the contest he's supposed to be hosting. Said pop star is portrayed by Bunty Bailey, most famous for her starring role in a-ha's “Take On Me” music video. The above-the-title talent in “Spellcaster” is Adam Ant, formally of the Ants and probably the most visible of the New Romantic style in the early eighties. All of which suggests that “Spellcaster” was designed to cash-in on the popularity of MTV at the time. This forms the closest thing the movie has to an actual point. Clearly, Cassandra Castle is miserable about something. She's so dependent on booze that she licks it up off the floor at some point. Throughout the film, people are tempted by the offer of money, sex, or fame. When Jackie finally confronts Diablo in the last ten minutes – the only time Mr. Ant is actually on-screen – he is quickly revealed as a Luciferian figure of some sort. Yes, he purchases souls in exchange for the fulfillment of fantasies in the most diabolical of ways. The observation that the entertainment industry, and the music world especially, is comparable to a deal with the devil is nothing new. “Spellcaster” certainly doesn't have any fresh thoughts on the idea, the epilogue leaving the viewer unsure of how these soul-selling agreements work. It remains the sole semi-coherent premise in a movie that feels more like a bunch of unrelated ideas tossed together.

“Spellcaster” was directed by Rafal Zielinski. This was his first horror movie, as he seemed to specialize in ribald farces like the “Screwballs” trilogy or “Recruits” before this. You can still tell that titty comedies is what Zielinski had experience with. Aside from the many goofy touches in the film, an air of horniness floats over all of “Spellcaster.” Not the fun kind either. There's at least two sequences of a woman luring a man in with a sexy shower or bath before pushing him out of her bedroom, leaving him sexually frustrated. Later, one of the rejected men gets more insistent in demanding sexual services from a random female. There's also a scene where some rotting mummies yank down the top of a body double clearly bustier than the actress she's posing as. I guess we can assume the film is criticizing men who feel entitled to women's bodies. The entire movie is a bit too leering and corny to accept that. Yes, one can't help but declare this to be one of those old eighties movies that come across as rather “Rape-y” to modern eyes. 

Intended for release in 1987, “Spellcaster” got caught up in Empire's money problems. The movie would sneak out onto TV in 1989 before a VHS release followed in 1992. By which point, the extremely eighties aesthetic of the entire production must have seemed quite dated. I don't know what Adam Ant was up to by then but it certainly wasn't burning up the charts. Ant's character mostly appears as a set of hands vamping around a crystal ball, suggesting Band was only able to get the pop star for a day or two of filming. This exposes “Spellcaster” as another low-budget rip-off job. (Also apparent in the song that plays over the end credits, which definitely was not sung by Adam Ant but could be mistaken for him if you aren't paying attention.) There is a certain charm to its goofier touches and those rubbery monster effects. The film simply doesn't hold together as anything but a handful of set-pieces with a lot of padding otherwise though. Not Richard Blade's best work, in other words. [5/10]

In Search Of...: Moon Madness

Last year, I declared “In Search Of...” to be, for me personally, the most relaxing television series that could conceivably be called “horror.” Which does not mean that the show didn't tap into the same sort of hysterical paranoia and doom-saying as any of today's pseudo-scientific, quasi-documentary programs. A typical such example, identifiable as from the later seasons because of Leonard Nimoy's uneven mustache, is the episode “Moon Madness.” It sees “In Search Of...” examining the long-held belief that the full moon causes people to act in erratic ways. The episode presents Arnold L. Lieber's 1978 book “The Lunar Effect: Biological Tides and Human Emotions” as the main evidence for the scientific credibility of this often-discussed idea. Lieber presented the theory that, since the Moon's cycle can effect the planet's tide, it can also effect the level of water in our bodies. He supposedly correlated the crime statistics in his city with the new and full moons, as proof of this idea. 

For its credit, “In Search Of...” does bring on lauded astronomy professor, and founding member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, George Abell. Abell and his extraordinary beard expose this idea as bullshit. Humans are so tiny and minute that any conceivable effect the moon's gravitational pull could have on our brain chemistry is negligible. A mosquito on the shoulder exerts more gravitational weight on us than the moon does. Despite that – as Nimoy's most famous character would say – highly logical conclusion, “Moon Madness” is still packed with alarming recounting of homicides, robberies, and general criminal acts, that the script insists rises and falls with the waning and waxing of the lunar body. These factoids are paired with footage of erratic urban activity, emergency rooms, and newspaper headlines. Any kid watching this half-hour when it was new could conceivably be tricked into believing that the moon was coming to fucking kill them.

The interviews with Mr. Lieber are supplemented by footage of him looking at very important seeming charts, computers, and case files. Still, it's obvious that wouldn't make for much of an exciting half-hour of television. That's when “In Search Of...” does what it did best and bring up a bunch of barely related but fascinating digressions. A sequence is devoted to the idea that primitive men hunted better during the full moon. That their female counterparts noticed their fertility changing on a monthly cycle, not unlike the moon's. The story of 18th century Edinburgh cabinet maker William Brodie, who was a deacon by day and a burglar by night, is brought up. Especially his claim that his unseemly behavior was caused by moon madness. Even Nimoy's narration must dismiss this idea by saying the jury was unconvinced, while bringing up the unlikely possibility that Brodie had dissociative identity disorder. We can reasonably say that Brodie did inspire Robert Louis Stevenson to write “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.”  

To horror fans, that last point stems from probably the most interesting element of “Moon Madness.” Naturally, the episode must discuss the myth of the werewolf. This is paired with Nimoy lurking around a shadowy forest at night and footage of a hairy wolfman stalking the moors. As far as I can tell, that footage was shot specifically for “In Search Of...” and isn't from any movie. The episode also concludes with what I found to be its most amusing moment. That would be a digressions about Georges  Méliès' “A Trip to the Moon.” Nimoy strangely refers to the film as a cautionary tale, calling the famous shot of a face in the moon “demonic.” Really? You sure about that, Leonard? This leads to a hilarious monologue about the Apollo moon mission and how it was actually a moment of earthly peace and brotherhood, in opposition to the idea that moon causes madness. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I mean that in as complimentary a manner as possible. I love this stupid shit. [7/10]

 

The Addams Family: Morticia & Gomez vs. Fester & Grandmama

Awkward as this one's title might be, it does point towards this being one of the few episodes of “The Addams Family” that gives all the main cast members something to do. Gomez hears that a bad storm dubbed Hurricane Zsa-Zsa is blowing in on the cost. It's the perfect romantic circumstances for him and Morticia to have a second honeymoon, retreating to the same rickety hotel they visited years prior. A problem emerges, however. Recent incidents with dynamite and wrestling alligators has caused the parents to worry Uncle Fester and Grandmama might be spoiling Wednesday and Pugsley. They seek out a governess to watch the kids while they are gone. This greatly insults the uncle and grandmother, who enact a series of petty rebellions against the rest of the family. Upon arriving at their dilapidated vacation resort, Morticia realizes that she grabbed the governess' bag instead. Upon seeing what is in Miss Thud's bag, the parents begin to doubt her abilities after all. 

“Morticia & Gomez vs. Fester & Grandmama” – that makes this sound like a legal battle themed episode – does pack in some fine sight gags. After Fester and Grandmama get insulted, they paint a line down the middle of the house, separating the home in two. “The Munsters” did this joke too. However, this does set-up some funny moments. Such as when Lurch is asked to split the newspapers between the rival factions, which quickly proves overwhelming for the butler. I'm impressed with how long that joke goes on. There's also a good, throwaway gag where Fester thumps on his chest a few times, producing different sounds. Instead of the governess being horrified by the Addams' style, she is thoroughly into it. Ms. Thudd considers it cozy and, perhaps, might actually be more harsh than the Addams. She bosses Lurch around too. There's also a nicely random bit where a suit of armor starts coughing after Gomez tosses his cigar into its helmet. 

That suit of armor appears in an earlier scene, where Thing pops out of its hatch. I previously speculated that the boxes Thing appears out of contain portals of some sort, allowing the hand creature to leap around the house. Now I'm beginning to suspect that Thing can generate these wormholes itself. Another reoccurring observation I've had about “The Addams Family” is John Astin and Carolyn Jones' very real chemistry. The way she caresses his face here seems rather intimate. There's a great bit about him mistaking her cries of concern for pleas for him to embrace her. Once again, I'm a bit surprised at how clearly sexy these two's interactions were allowed to get. Finally, this episode reveals that the Addams' home has a mot with at least one alligator in it. I don't see the mot in any of the exterior shots of the house and a later line of dialogue confirms it being in the basement. Perhaps Thing is not an eldritch entity and it's the Addams' home itself that is non-euclidean in nature? [7/10]