Halloween 2026: October 6th

 

Scream 7 (2026)

Perhaps there will come a time when we can discuss "Scream 7" only within the context of being another sequel in a long-running franchise. Unfortunately, the circumstances around its production are impossible to ignore. How Michelle Barrera, the star of the last two entries, was fired after making pro-Palestine statements. How this led to an entire retooling of the next installment. How director Christopher Landon boarded the project and quickly left, amid harassment from fans. Whether it was even moral to go see the film was hotly debated in the months leading up to its release. With no other ideas on how to continue the story, I guess, series creator and now director Kevin Williamson went with the creatively bankrupt decision of focusing on Neve Campbell's Sidney. Simply put, "Scream 7" is a movie that shouldn't exist beyond the general reasons yet another slasher sequel probably shouldn't be made. None of this controversy stopped "Scream 7" from becoming the highest grossing title in the series' history. While all the bullshit had me skipping the film in theaters this past February, my dorky need to watch and review the entirety of a horror series has led me to finally judging "Scream 7" for myself. (And if you must know, I didn't pay to watch it, meaning the producers received no monetary gain from my viewing.) 

After years of being pursued by Halloween costume clad killers, the former Sidney Prescott has settled in Pine Grove, Indiana. She is now married to a cop named Mark and works at a local coffee shop. They have three kids, with teenage Tatum being the oldest. Despite having moved on, Sidney's history has led to tension between her and her daughter. This gets a lot worst when Sidney receives a video call seemingly from Stu Macher, one of the original Ghostfaces whose final fate has long been uncertain. Two of Tatum's friends are attacked and killed by a masked murderer at her school. After the town goes into lock down, a Ghostface sneaks into Sidney's home and attacks her and her family. Gale Weathers soon arrives in town, with "Scream VI" survivors Mindy and Chad in tow, to report on the breaking story. Sidney works with her old friend/rival to unravel this latest mystery and keep her daughter safe. Meanwhile, rebellious Tatum and her own friend group decide to take matters into their own hands. 

Aside from Ghostface's victims, another casualty of "Scream VI" was my interest in this series. It seems to me that, for quite some time now, "Scream" has been a series in search of a defining thesis. The original film is a deconstruction of the cliches of the eighties slasher movie. The second one does the same for the expectations around a slasher sequel, a phenomenon in its own right. Rather than evolve with the the times and take on whatever the current trend in horror was at any given moment, the later "Scream" movies have been content to simply eat their own tail. "Scream 3" was about nothing but "Scream's" own self-reflective nature. This was also true of "Scream 4," which gave some passing mentions to the found footage genre before inexplicably revealing itself to be about reality TV. While the fifth "Scream" found some relevance in discussing reboots and legacy sequels, while nodding at the "elevated" horror style, it wasn't about examining horror tropes and their relationship with the real world either. It was about "Star Wars" actually. The sixth film represented the series at its most self-indulgent yet. With the behind-the-scenes kerfuffle shifting seven's focus back to Sidney Prescott, there was almost zero chance of "Scream 7" on focusing anything other than the series' own backstory and unearned sense of self-importance. 

Well, I have some good news. "Scream 7" isn't another "Scream" movie about "Scream." Compared to sixth's masturbatory fixation on referencing past films, this one has fewer shout-outs. Unfortunately, "Scream 7" is also not a continuation of the original's premise of examining slasher stereotypes and the debatable effects fiction has on the real world. There's almost no mention of the "rules" or audience expectations, much less any mention of what is or isn't currently hot in the horror genre. All of which begs the question of what "Scream 7" is about. Well, I'm not sure it's about anything. However, that ever-present cultural boogeyman of "trauma" is mentioned. That Sidney's lingering scars from years of being targeted by serial killers might have had some effects on her own kids is brought up. This mostly manifests in limp arguments between our heroine and a typically temperamental teenager. Tatum resents living her life in the shadow of her mom's pain, which includes being named for the friend who had an unfortunate run-in with a garage door opener back in 1996. Generational trauma is certainly an idea worth discussing, especially as we millennials start to reach the same age our parents were when these movies first started getting made. However, I don't think the esteemed director of "Teaching Mrs. Tingle" has any interesting insight on this idea. The mother/daughter conflict in "Scream 7" mostly feels like petulant whining from Tatum. 

Instead, the only interesting idea inside the sequel revolves a lingering fear every parent has: That they can't protect their kids. Sidney has moved away from Woodsboro, stopped writing books about her life and disconnected from the true crime world. Neither that, nor marrying a cop or building a safe room in her house, does much to protect her daughter from the latest Ghostface. The only time the seventh film comes to life is when Sidney is desperately racing to the coffee shop, to save Tatum. Via an app in her phone, she can access the security cameras at the business. This is how she sees her daughter being stalked by a killer, while trying to talk her through it in a call. This recalls parents helplessly watching as news trickles in about a shooter at their kids' school, unable to do anything but watch or listen through phones and cameras. That's at least a reflection of our current world. "Scream 7" stubbornly resists developing this into coherent commentary. Instead, it merely exists alongside other indicators of modern anxiety, such as AI or the fear that your daughter's boyfriend might be a future mass shooter.  

"Scream 7" is uninterested in reinventing the wheel. The sequel seems to address, and hopefully bury, the incredibly dumb fan theory that Stu Macher somehow survived getting a big ass CRT TV dropped on his head thirty years ago. (While still bringing Matthew Lillard back for an easy pop from the fans.) That's in addition to a largely disconnected opening that sees the Macher house now having become a tacky tourist trap. Which could have been a commentary on the commodification of true crime or how all popular series are wrung out for every dollar until they are a pale imitation of themselves. Williamson doesn't do that either. The eventual reveal of who the Ghostfaces are this time, and the motivation for their murder spree, is somehow the least inspired element of the film, a thrown together twist that is delivered like a half-hearted sigh. 

This is the biggest problem with "Scream 7." At no point can it justify its own existence. I did not find myself caring about any of the new characters or cast members. Joel McHale is Sidney's husband and he shares some okay chemistry with Campbell. The script frustratingly leaves little room fie McHale's trademark sarcasm. Isabela May is mildly irritating but mostly uninteresting as Tatum, a mildly irritating but mostly uninteresting character. Most of her friends are of little note. The true crime fanatic next door or the boyfriend of debatable merit are nothing but obvious red herrings. Rising scream queen McKenna Grace shows some spark as Tatum's BFF but let's just say she exits the film early. The lack of energy behind the new cast would be somewhat forgivable if the script also wasn't so out of ideas of what to do with the old cast too. As has been the case since the third movie, Neve Campbell seems deeply bored with this character and her world. There's an attempt to build something between Sidney and Gale Weathers' relationship. Courtney Cox does what she can but you can't play off a brick wall much. When the film trots out a few more familiar faces, it feels like nothing more than a desperate attempt to spark another burst of dopamine from the dying, overstimulated synapses of an aging fan base by jingling familiar keys in front of our eyes. 

That a sense of franchise fatigue floats over all of "Scream 7" is disappointing. When taken as a simple slasher flick, it's at least got the required amount of gruel and grimness. Much like the sixth flick, there are some well engineered set pieces. The sequel is adapt at putting its characters in unfortunate situations. A young lady is suspended in a Peter Pan rig in a school auditorium while Ghostface lurks below. A cool shot sees the slow reveal of the killer's hiding place within Sidney's home. This proceeds a decently suspenseful sequence where the two final girls have to squeeze through a hollow wall while the attacker on the other side tries to pinpoint their location. That's a good demonstration of the laws of suspense, in showing the audience something the characters may or may not have figured out yet. A stalk-and-slash through the cramped kitchen of a bar, a plastic filled garage under repairs, a dangling from a chandelier, or the aforementioned coffee shop stand-off aren't bad either. You can tell Williamson studied Carpenter's "Halloween," as he emulates the trick of the villain's distinctive white mask slowly appearing in the shadows over someone's shoulders. From a gore hound's perspective, there's one or two amusing butcherings. A beer tap is used creatively. 

All of this implies that "Scream 7" might have been able to generate some suspense or more than a fleeting sense of same-old-same-old entertainment, if these sequences were attached to something other than a contractually obligated continuation. Instead, these scenes occur within a film with zero fresh or interesting ideas of how to stretch this story out for a seventh entry, anchored by a cast with little personality or desire to be there. The film made plenty of money, meaning an eighth installment is all but guaranteed. Such box office results suggest that the team behind "Scream" has no reason to give this series the drastic reinvention it obviously needs. I imagine Barrera will probably get invited back in time, that her storyline will continue in some form or fashion. However, if "Scream 7's" quality is anything to go by, I can't imagine a Sidney or Carpenter sisters-led future for "Scream" that has any actual guts or hot blood pumping through it. [5/10]

 

Lokis: A Manuscript of Professor Wittembach (1970)
Lokis. Rekopis profesora Wittembacha

The idea of a short story that goes on a bit too much to be called "short" or a novel that maybe lacks a few hundred words feel like concepts as old as literary classifications are. However, the term "novella" actually was invented in 1829. By a Frenchman, of course, sticklers for detail that they are. Prosper Mérimée coined the term and this guy's Wikipedia article is wild, man. Best known today for the story that inspired the opera "Carmen," Mérimée was a real Renaissance man in his day. An influential figure in the Romanticism movement, he was also an archivist, an archeologist, the Inspector-General of Historical Monuments, a folklorist, a translator, a prisoner, a senator, the official advisor to the Empress of Napoleon III, and a catty bitch who loved to start beef with his fellow authors and bureaucrats. He also wrote horror stories sometimes, among which was "Lokis. A Manuscript of Professor Wittembach." Set in Lithuania and inspired by its local legends, the novella was adapted to film in Poland in 1970, by director Janusz Majewski. Since its inclusion in the big folk horror box set a few years back, the film has gained a lot more attention. 

The titular Professor Wittembach is a pastor and writer. He travels to Lithuania to study local folk customs and translate the Bible into Samogitian, an obscure dialect of the region. He is invited to the estate of Count Szemiot, whose library includes many useful old texts. The Count is eccentric, with a history of madness in his family. The family physician, Dr. Froeber, informs Wittembach that the Count's mother went insane following a bear attack, believing her son to be the offspring of the same animal. The professor officiates the Count's marriage to a beautiful young maiden but bad omens persist over the castle. Might Szemiot actually be a were-bear or is he merely a victim of his own beliefs?

Most of the Polish horror and fantasy films I've seen so far have been on the artsier side of the spectrum, usually with a heavy political bent. This remains true with "Lokis." (The title, by the way, is a misspelling of the Lithuanian word for bear.) The film seems especially concerned with the separation between man and beast, which the pastor clarifies as a distinction between our higher, spiritual calling and our more bestial nature. Usually, when were-beast movies delve into this, it's about savagery and sex. "Lokis" touches on that a little bit. The count's backstory seems to link the bear with unleashed sexual frenzy and the story comes to its climax on his wedding night. However, Majewski and his team approach the subject from a sociopolitical angle. "Lokis" frequently contrasts the nobility, and its interest in academics, with the peasantry, who are a more superstitious lot. One of the first scenes is Wittembach and some elegant ladies watching, from a train, a street performance with a bear. This sets up a distance between the haves and have-nots. While the film ostensibly adopts the more "high-minded," scientific perspective of the upper crust, this is a world fairly unambiguously at the mercy of otherworldly forces. For all its pomp and circumstances, the ruling class is as governed as much by animal desires and the whims of the hidden world as those they preside over.

“Lokis” was made three years before “The Wicker Man” but bares some resemblance to that watershed moment in folk horror history. Both films concern a Christian authority figure, quite secure in his monotheistic viewpoint of the world, being continuously challenged by pagan beliefs and rituals. Matching the more intellectual tone of the film, “Lokis” has Wittembach's understanding of a world governed by a logical God at odds with the otherworldly events he witnesses. A carriage driver warns him of the devils that haunt the forest. Only to have a wheel pulled right off their vehicle, the supernatural forces seemingly proving their own presence. Later, the pastor and the count encounter a self-styled witch in the woods. She comes across as merely an eccentric old woman at first before walking across the moss covered surface of a river as if it's a solid object. “Lokis” slots in nicely with the political and spiritual upheaval of the early seventies, when traditional structures were falling apart and a different, more daemon-haunted world was presenting itself. 

All of that probably sounds pretty interesting. And it kind of is, if you're into European folklore. Unfortunately, Majewski's film is almost unbearably slow. “Lokis” is a motion picture composed almost entirely of men standing around in stately rooms and talking to each other. When the back story of the Count's mother possibly having been assaulted by an ursine is delivered, it plays out as a conversation over some paintings and books. The climatic moment of the film occurs entirely off-screen. All of this is delivered with a stilted, mannered approach. The movie can summon a certain dreamy energy in its best moments, such as the sequence with the witch. The score ramps up a few times, to get the heart pumping. However, nothing much actually seems to happen. “Lokis” is a horror movie in theory but everything sinister is implied, not shown. Don't go in expecting any were-bear chaos occurring on-screen, is what I'm saying. 

That glacial pacing does seem to divide viewers of “Lokis.” I've seen some enthusiastic reviews of it, from people fully sucked into its folkloric dreaminess and not too bothered by the slowness. However, others have been seriously let down by how the movie focuses on ideas and ambiance over anything else at all. It's a nice looking film, with strong cinematography and eye-catching visuals. The settings, of a forest with sheltering branches and the strange looking castle, do make for a suitably surreal location. Ultimately though, I found myself fighting sleep before the relatively short runtime wound up. Maybe you'll find it a bit more compelling but, despite some interesting sights and more interesting ideas, “Lokis” was sabotaged for me by a plodding pace. The film did intrigued me enough to add the original novel to my reading list, though that might also be because Propser Mérimée's life story caught my eye too. [5/10]

 

Wednesday: You Reap What You Woe

Netflix didn't cast recognizable actors like Catherine Zeta-Jones and Luis Guzman as Morticia and Gomez only to use them for a bit in the first episode. And so Wednesday's mom and dad come into focus in "You Reap What You Woe." The episode reveals that, while attending Nevermore as teens themselves, Gomez seemingly ran through a romantic rival for Morticia with a sword and dropped him off a ledge. While investigating the recent suicide of the seemingly happy town mortician, Sheriff Galpin uncovers evidence that Gomez did commit murder all those years ago. (How he escaped this conviction originally doesn't come up.) While Wednesday's parents are visiting the school, her father is arrested for the decades old crime. Now their daughter must pause her investigation of the current strangeness plaguing the school to clear her pop's name. Meanwhile, the other students at the academy have their own mama drama to attend to. 

The early flashback reveals that Gomez and Morticia attended Nevermore in the year 1991. Which would put them both in their forties in this show, assuming it's set in the modern day. While the original series did assign specific ages to the Addams, the thought of these two being Gen-Xers doesn't sit well with me. The idea of Gomez growing up during the Reagan administration feels wrong. However, I will say that Guzman and Zeta-Jones are well cast in the part. Guzman even looks a lot like Charles Addams' original illustration. He's certainly capable of bringing the weird gremlin energy of John Astin or the unapologetic eccentricity of Raul Julia to the part. The episode doesn't give him a chance to do that but at least the "Wednesday" show-runners felt no need to subvert the undying devotion and passion the parents have for each other. Zeta-Jones certainly has the demure sensuality and fey glint of the eyes necessary for Morticia. The show continues to play some tension between Wednesday and her mom, which still feels contrived to me. "You Reap What You Woe," in general, heaps on the sentimentality between parent and child. A scene where Gomez and Wednesday talk it out while he's behind glass comes awfully close to being too precious. She has a heart-to-heart with Pugsley too, once again showing how "Wednesday" seems incapable of balancing both the loyalty that defines the family and the sadomasochistic bond between these siblings. 

Despite the program's insistence on sticking intentionally atypical characters into a standard dramatic arc, the guest stars do enliven "Wednesday" a lot. Once again, I like this show the most when it resembles the old sitcom. Gags like Pugsley munching on potpourri with his dad or fishing with hand grenades, or mother and daughter swapping tips on disinterring a corpse, genuinely made me snicker. Almost like this gang was invented to deliver simple visual jokes and not be involved in an elaborate mystery! Speaking of which... "You Reap What You Woe" pushes the ongoing narrative aside for a bit. Eugene was left in a coma by the monster attack, a very annoying reeling back of the previous episode's cliffhanger. The details of what happened back in 1991, that Wednesday uncovers piece by piece, are very stupid. If the solution to your mystery involves mind control potions, you've written a bad mystery. Still, at least the fate of characters we actually care about are at stake here. If the Addams Family must be at the center of some grand intrigue, Gomez having possibly murdered another man for Morticia's affection feels a lot more in-character than whatever bullshit the season is building towards. It also helps a lot that this particular story line is resolved in one hour, instead of being dragged out intermittently for an entire season. 

Actually centering an episode of an Addams Family series on the Addams Family feels like an obvious conclusion. However, it's something "Wednesday" clearly is struggling with, if the subplots of this installment are anything to go by. Enid has a guilting, heavy-handed mother. She eventually gives her daughter pamphlets for "werewolf conversion" camps that will supposedly help Enid embrace her lycanthropic nature. Using a classic monster condition as a metaphor for being gay is an age-old practice. However, I think the allegory falls apart very quickly here. Enid is being told to embrace her inner nature, not deny it. Unlike queer teenagers sent off to abusive "prayer the gay away" camps by bigoted parents, she actually is a werewolf. She also likes boys, in a very traditionally girlish manner, making any attempted parallels seem wrong-headed. Enid's mom is worried about her daughter because she's a late bloomer, not because her lifestyle disagrees with them. It's a weird choice but at least Emma Myers is charming. An additional subplot about the siren girl's mother being in a cult or something is absolutely impossible to care about. More bullshit grist to occupy the runtime with on the way to the A-plot's conclusion, that I'm sure future episodes belabor unnecessarily upon. Who on the writer staff for this show had unresolved mama drama and why did they feel the need to insert it into multiple subplots? [5/10]

 

 

 

Thriller: A Wig for Miss Devore
 

Through no intentional move on my behalf, there's the second classic horror anthology episode I've watched this month to feature John Fiedler. In “A Wig for Miss Devore,” he plays the agent for the eponymous Sheila Devore. A once promising actress, Miss Devore is already washed-up and her looks faded by the age of 31. She is plotting a comeback though and finds a perfect vehicle in the story of Meg Peyton, a 18th century woman hanged at the gallows for witchcraft. Legend has it that Peyton wear a wig woven from the hairs of her victims, which granted her eternal youth and fame as long as she kept it on. Studio head Max Quinke has been keeping the residuals to Sheila's past hits to himself, information Herbert uses to blackmail him into funding the actress' comeback vehicle. Devore secures Meg Peyton's actual wig for the production, wearing it and being as strikingly beautiful again as she once was. Filming goes off without a hitch and the movie is a hit. The director marries Sheila. Yet the men around her seem to keep dying mysteriously. First Max and then her new husband, both of them found with horrible scratches over their faces. Now, what could possibly be the link there, I wonder? 

“A Wig for Miss Devore” is about the fourth episode of “Thriller” I've seen that resolves around a cursed object. Several of those were written by Robert Bloch, while this one is based on a story from fellow Weird Tales graduate August Derlith. I suppose this speaks to the way the pulp writers of the forties and fifties placed classical gothic horror tropes in modern contexts. “A Wig for Miss Devore” has quite a contemporary context, taking place in the world of Hollywood. The story of an aging and somewhat delusional actress recalls both “Sunset Boulevard” and “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?” The script doesn't seem to have much insight into the wages of fame or how the shallow film industry treats women though. The episode plays Sheila as both somewhat victimized by the men around her, like the scheming Max and the manipulative husband, while also having her be a femme fatale. (While also implying that she's not that talented, seemingly only known for her looks.) I suppose the idea is that revenge hardens the heart of everyone, even those with justifiable grievances. Or perhaps the story is simply speaking to the cut throat, ruthless nature of the motion picture business. A woman has to resort to witchcraft and murder if she hopes to claw her way back to the top, in an industry that discards any actress for the crime of simply getting a little older.

Trying to dig up too much deeper meaning here is difficult though. Instead, it's a pretty simple fable, of someone with an insatiable vanity that eventually proves to be their own undoing. Patricia Barry does give a fine performance in the titular role, striking the viewer at first as an airhead type before revealing her more calculating, vicious side. The men around her prove to be properly spineless or deceiving. I wish so much of the story's ironic pay-off wasn't shoved into its last minute. I've not read Derluth's story but this feels like an encapsulation of a longer tale. In my experience, what “Thriller” really excelled at was fantastic final shocks and a willingness to be surprisingly grim for the time. “A Wig for Miss Devore” does have a gory final image and, by the standards of 1962, it was probably fairly shocking. It's also not as good as the shock endings we got in “The Cheaters” or “The Hungry Glass.” However, there is a memorable image here. Whenever Miss Devore removes her wig, until the final minutes, all we see are aged, ghastly hands groping through the shadowy air. That's pretty cool. I do wish more episodes of this series had Boris Karloff doing both an intro and an outra, Hitchcock and Sterling style, cause I do enjoy his baroque monologues. [7/10]

 

 

Halloween 2023: September 20th

Scream VI (2023)

The slasher subgenre seems to exist these days, mostly, within the realm of nostalgic throwbacks. I guess the bloody murder-fests will always be linked to the seventies and eighties. Clever reinventions of the style have been done – including one from the original “Scream’s” writer earlier this year – but have yet to break out with the public at large. Instead, it seems only the big, recognizable franchises are being revived. Maybe those are the only ones movies studios are willing to put in theaters. All of this is a roundabout way of saying that it does bring me some comfort to be watching a new slasher sequel a year after the last one. I didn’t love 2022’s “Scream” but a willingness to crank out a new one in twelve months, like in the good old days, is nice to see. 

“Scream VI” arrived in theaters this past March but it’s set around Halloween, making it fitting viewing for this season. A year after Samantha Carpenter, her sister Tara, and their friends Chad and Mindy survived a new set of Ghostface murders in Woodsboro, they’ve moved across the country to New York City. Sam has been the target of internet conspiracies, that accuse her of being the actual killer, and has become overly protective of Tara. Try as Sam might to outrun the legacy of her actual father Billy Loomis, a new Ghostface has caught up with her in Manhattan. This latest murderer has a personal grudge against the heroes, with familiar faces like part four’s Kirby and Gale Weathers quickly getting involved too.

The opening scene of “Scream VI” gave me hope that this sequel might actually do something new. After the obligatory opening kill of a special guest star, the film seemingly dismisses with the whodunnit structure that has defined this series. That would’ve been a new angle for this sixth entry to explore. Instead, these copycat Ghostfaces are quickly assassinated by a different Ghostface, re-establishing the sequel’s commitment to “Scream” formula. As with Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillette’s previous entry, this “Scream” makes motions towards a bold, new direction while actually just continuing to eat its own tail. Mindy’s thesis-establishing monologue suggests this movie is about “franchises,” which are designed to keep the I.P going and always catch audiences off-guard. This idea is clearly inspired by Marvel and other cinematic universes, not so much anything in the horror genre. 

Moreover, “Scream VI” doesn’t actually seem interested in surprising or shocking the viewer. There’s exactly one twist that caught me off-guard in this sequel and it doesn’t come until the last act, during the (always tedious) trademark sequence where the killers laboriously reveal their identities and motivations. Otherwise, most of the narrative misdirects and false leads are easy to predict. In fact, I found myself taken out of the movie several times by gaps in real world logic. Sam and Tara casually break a law in order to save a friend and face no consequences for it. At no point, despite being high-profile people-of-interest in a murder investigation and known targets of a killer, are they ever offered police protection. The entire last act of the movie is set in a massive shrine to the Ghostface killings, full of artifacts from previous movies. Which is a neat idea that stops making any sense the minute you think about the logistics of assembling such a collection. Is this nitpicking? Maybe. But a properly immersive horror flick doesn’t have you thinking about this shit. 

That murder museum, set inside an admittedly cool old movie theater, represents the worst tendencies of “Scream VI” and maybe all the “Scream” sequels. Despite what the characters say, “Scream VI” isn’t really about anything other than the “Scream” franchise. It’s full of nostalgic nods to past movies. Kirby’s reappearance and Gale Weathers getting socked in the jaw are just the most prominent examples. Disappointingly, the dumbest plot point from the last movie – Sam having ghost-like visions of Billy Loomis – is revisited here. Much talk was made of Neve Campbell ducking out of this one but the lack of Sidney Prescott might’ve forced “Scream” to actually evolve. Instead, the killer’s motivation are directly rooted in the last film’s events. The half-assed nods towards social commentary – the QAnon-like dis-info campaign swirling around Sam and one of the killers seemingly being an incel – are minor variations of part five’s limp invoking of toxic fandom and other Trump-adjacent malcontents. There’s no bite to any of it. “Scream VI” is happy to tickle nostalgia for the older movies and nothing much else. 

Despite the trailer’s insistence that this Ghostface isn’t anything like the others, “Scream VI” feels strangely low on stakes. It pretends to have an “anyone can die” structure but it’s always obvious which characters will survive and which are knife-fodder. The film, in general, seems oddly inconsistent about how invested we should be in these characters. Sam and Tara’s conflict plays like melodrama, as does the somewhat random decision for Chad and Tara to develop a will-they/won’t-they dynamic. The interaction between the likable core cast is still probably the best thing about “Scream VI” and a few moments even made me chuckle. Yet the group banter is too flippant. (Okay, the line about Letterboxd did make me laugh.) Everyone behaves a little too much like hyper-confident action movie bad-asses, especially in the last act. These people saw friends and loved ones brutally murdered right in front of them, many of them literally have scars from it. Shouldn’t they all be a bit more traumatized, instead of trading Marvel superhero style quibs? Compare this to David Gordon Green’s “Halloween” and “Halloween Ends,” which devoted extensive time to the effect such events would have on people. “Scream VI” seems half-assed in comparison. 

Clearly, I have a lot of criticisms for the Bettinelli-Olpin/Gillette “Scream” sequels. The directors’ past as music video experts are also obvious during a few obtrusive needle drops. Yet I will say this about these guys: They know how to engineer intense and gory stalk-and-slash scenes. The opening call from Ghostface puts a clever spin on the set-up, effectively spotlights the New York setting, and ends in a brutal stabbing. Knife blades are thrusts into eyes, faces, and bellies repeated throughout the film to intense effect. Yet maybe the best sequence build suspense from the setting. Sam and Tara hiding out in a bodega from a shotgun-wielding Ghostface is clever. As are the moments where the heroes cross from one apartment to the next on a ladder spread between two open windows or Ghostface disguises himself in a subway full of Halloween partiers. Whether these guys can create compelling characters or drama remain to be seen but they are gangbusters at brutal executions and suspenseful chase scenes. 

Ultimately, "Scream VI" left me feeling much the same way the last one did. When it's good, it's pretty good. (And I liked the horror references, which range from the expected "Jason Takes Manhattan" homage to "4 Flies on Grey Velvet," as well as numerous nods to more moderns films.) Yet the sequel stubbornly refuses to learn from the past films' mistakes, instead replicating the same structure for the sixth time in a row with only cosmetic changes. That isn't a big deal in a Jason or Freddy film, where you have a charismatic killer and comfy junk-horror vibes to grab the audience. In a whodunnit film where we are expected to be invested in the actual characters, it presents more of a challenge. I have no doubt much of the same cast and crew will return for a seventh killing spree, even if the directors aren't. I guess I'm on the hook to watch that one too but my opinion remains that someone desperately needs to blow up the "Scream" series with some genuinely fresh ideas. [5/10]

The Man With Nine Lives (1940)

Over the previous two Halloweens, I reviewed two of the three mad scientist movies Boris Karloff made for Columbia with director Nick Grinde. Last time, I promised to cover “The Man with Nine Lives” next September and wrap up the trilogy. Well, the time has come. Each of these three films have similar stories, with Karloff playing scientist dabbling in ostensibly plausible new medical treatments. In “The Man They Could Not Hang,” it was an artificial heart. In “Before I Hang,” it was an anti-aging serum. And in “The Man with Nine Lives,” it's cryonics. In fact, the movie even begins with a little title card informing the audiences of 1940 that freezing bodies to delay illness is not science fiction but fact and may one day be a common place occurrence. I think writers at the time might've overestimated the efficiency of freezing technology. 

Dr. Tim Mason has pioneered a revolutionary new medical treatment that involves packing patients in ice, essentially putting their bodies into hibernation while procedures are performed on them. Mason declares his work to be a potential cure for cancer, a statement which gets his funding cut. Alongside his nurse/wife Judith, he decides to seek out Dr. Kravaal. A decade earlier, Kravaal was researching the same methods when he mysteriously vanished. Tim and Judith explore Kravaal's abandoned mansion. After she falls through the floorboards, they discovered a hidden room downstairs packed in ice. Inside is Kravaal. They defrost him and he wakes back up from this state of apparent death. There's also five other men frozen inside the vault. While Mason is eager to help Kravaal continue his research at first, it soon becomes clear that the doctor is more than a little unhinged.

Of the three films Karloff made with Grinde, “The Man with Nine Lives” is definitely the driest. “The Man They Could Not Hang” concluded in an elaborate game of revenge inside a booby trapped home. “Before I Hang” bent towards a Jekyll and Hyde-like story, of Karloff reverting to a murderous personality. “The Man with Nine Lives,” on the other hand, contains nothing that elaborate. A lot of the film revolves around Kravaal and Mason debating the ethics of what they are doing here. The most exciting scene has the mad doctor slipping some sleeping pills into a soup Judith makes. There's a few moments of smoke billowing out of vials but, otherwise, the mad science here is fairly subdued. This one is devoted to terse conversations between guys in suits in a dark room. 

Almost all of Karloff's mad scientist characters were sympathetic, to one degree or another. Boris couldn't help but make his doctors somewhat reasonable, their initial quest into unnatural science usually motivated by a good cause. This is definitely the case in “The Man with Nine Lives.” Dr. Kravaal only wants to heal people. He's only motivated towards extreme acts by short-sided, greedy businessmen. When the recipe for his solution is burned, that's when Karloff leaps up with a gun. Yet even after committing murder, Kravaal seems pretty reasonable. Maybe it's Karloff's pleading eyes or the fact that he rarely raises his voice. By the end of the film, you get the impression that its villain is far more misunderstood than he is calculating. Karloff, of course, was excellent at playing exactly this kind of character. Most of what works about “The Man with Nine Lives” can be credited to him.  

Another problem facing the film is that it's rather limited in scope. “The Man They Could Not Hang” and “Before I Hang” both featured some shadowy, expressionistic visuals to help further sell their standard classic horror narratives. “The Man with Nine Lives,” meanwhile, is set almost entirely within two or three rooms. There's the big frozen vault Kravaal and his victims are found inside of and the adjoining few chambers. This seriously limits the opportunities for spooky ambiance and cool cinematography. A lot of the film feels like a stage-play, devoted to folks talking stuff out across from tables and in cramped locations. Grinde and his team certainly did the best they could. The movie still looks good and these underground scenes are admittedly a decent set. But there's just not much to look at here as in his other films.

By the way, the title is essentially a non-sequitur. Kravaal can only really be said to have two lives, as he's awaken from his death-like slumber in the beginning. As for the men also kept in the vault, there's five of them. Counted once, they comes up one short of nine. Counted twice, that puts the tally of lives at twelve. I guess “The Man with Twelve Lives” doesn't have the same ring to it... While Karloff always manages to make a movie worth watching, and the film certainly scratches my itch for a creaky old horror movie, I can see why this one is not as discussed as much as the other films old Boris made with Nick Grinde. By the way, Karloff made another mad scientist movie with Columbia around this time, with a different director, so I guess I know what's on the list for next year's marathon. [6/10]

Cabinet of Curiosities: Lot 36

Years ago, I referred to “Masters of Horror” as having one of my favorite premises for a TV show ever, even if the episodes didn't always live up to that promise. While Mick Garris has had no luck reviving that concept in the last eighteen years, Guillermo del Toro – who gave the original Masters of Horror their name, after all – would try something similar last year. As part of his fruitful development deal with Netflix, the beloved filmmaker would conceive the series “Guillermo del Toro's Cabinet of Curiosities.” It would be eight hour-long episodes, each directed by an established filmmaker handpicked by del Toro and many of them based on stories by well-known authors. While many of the chosen directors could be better described as up-and-comers than “masters” exactly, I still felt the same spirit emanating from this project. Just to make the idea even more fun, del Toro hosts each episode, plucking objects from the titular cabinet and clearly channeling “Night Gallery”-era Rod Serling.

Based on a short story by del Toro himself and directed by his regular cinematographer Guillermo Navarro, “Lot 36” follows embittered Vietnam vet Nick. At the start of Desert Storm, he's taken to buying abandoned storage units and selling the contents for easy cash. Badly in need of money, he purchases the mysterious Lot 36. Inside, he discovers a photo album of Nazi memorabilia, a candelabra made from the melted down gold teeth of Holocaust victims, and a table adorned with a pentagram. After getting the table appraised, he learns it contains three volumes of a four-volume arcane text. That the table was used in seances by a notorious family of German war manufacturers, said to have summoned demons. Retaining to the storage unit to find the fourth book, which will make him rich, Nick discovers something much more frightening. 

E.C. Comics casts a long shadow over any horror anthology series and that seems to be the case with “Cabinet of Curiosities” as well. “Lot 36” is primarily the story of a nasty son-of-a-bitch getting his just desserts. Nick is introduced listening to a right-wing talk radio show, enthusiastically agreeing with the host's racist patter. He offers no sympathy to a Spanish-speaking woman whose defaulted-on storage unit he bought, showing her clear enmity. Though he's on friendly terms with the storage facility's black owner, a heated conversation about Vietnam has Nick's white resentment immediately bubbling to the surface. Having this belligerent asshole's antics play out against the first Bush administration's bombing of Iraq – with Nazi war crimes always in the back of the story – makes it clear that Nick's everyday type of bigotry is a stand-in for all types of prejudice the world over. And, of course, his selfish, racist attitudes come back to bite him in the ass in the end. 

I have no idea if this is true but it's easy to imagine that del Toro wrote the original “Lot 36” story around the same time he was working on the first “Hellboy.” Both narratives deal heavily with Nazi occultism meeting up with Lovecraftian horror. In fact, I wonder if del Toro hadn't tried writing this story as a feature film at one point. “Lot 36” lays on the back story a little too thick at times. The elderly original owner of Lot 36 is introduced chopping up rabbits and later bunny hops around, the exact meaning of which is only hinted at. We gets lots of information about the degenerate acts of the Nazi family, which also involve incest and body swapping. Specific rules are laid down for the summoning ritual to work. It's a lot to absorb in all of 45 minutes, none of it exactly adding to the simple narrative either.

Nick is obviously an unlikable protagonist. However, he's also played by Tim Blake Nelson, a character actor who exudes a certain likable sleaziness even when playing the biggest asshole in the world. It helps that Nelson is given some colorfully profane dialogue to spew. With Navarro being an Oscar-winning cinematographer, the episode obviously looks good too. The shadows and grungy interiors of the storage facility definitely strike the right kind of ambiance. The finale gets nicely grisly, with some clever special effects and creepy creature designs. There's too much about “Lot 36” that appeals to me for me not to like it, even if it feels a bit underserved by the short run time and simplistic characters. [7/10]

Chucky: Halloween II

I enjoyed the first season of the “Chucky” TV series, even if I had the same problems with it that I do with most serialized television. The season two premiere picks up right where we left off, with Andy Barclay driving a truck full of Chucky dolls (and a gun-wielding Tiffany) off a cliff. We leap ahead six months. Jake has moved in with a new foster family, living in Salem, New Jersey, and bonding with his new little brother. The distance has put stress on his relationship with Devon. On Halloween night, both get a threatening phone call. That same night they are shown a video live-stream of someone very short walking into Lexy's home. It's not long before the trio reunite, all of them convinced a certain homicidal plaything is about to come back into their lives.

If nothing else, I am impressed with how much story Don Manchini squeezes into “Halloween II.” It wraps up season one's cliffhanger, breaks the gang up before getting them back together again, and introduces the idea of Lexy abusing drugs to cope. Just when you think the episode is settling into the classic “Child's Play” formula of a creepy doll manipulating a little kid... The titular “My Buddy” knock-off comes crashing back into the story. This proceeds an unexpectedly grisly pay-off, before the episode points in the actual direction season two will be going in. The misdirect totally worked on me. Chucky's abrupt re-entrance cuts through all the bullshit, the violence genuinely surprised me, while the final reveal promises something much more interesting than a rehash of the first season's story. 

I don't know how invested I am in “Chucky's” young cast. I can't say I've thought about them any since finishing season one. However, Alyvia Alyn Lind is clearly the MVP here. Pill-snorting, pot-smoking, foul-mouthed Lexy is already a lot more interesting than Jake and Devon navigating the perils of young love. (Though, as always, the show's embracing of queer elements is refreshing.) Obviously, Brad Dourif's swearing, murderous doll is the real star here. As always, he infects every scene he's in with some smart-ass humor. Alongside some homages to other horror classics – “The Strangers,” “Scream,” “Scooby-Doo” – and some decent Halloween atmosphere, the second season is off to a promising start. [7/10]

Halloween 2022: September 20th

Scream (2022)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before I Hang (1940)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creepshow: Mums / Queen Bee

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

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

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

Chucky: Death by Misadventure 

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

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

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

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

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

Bangers n' Mash Triple Feature

 I said you wouldn't hear from me for a while. I've been so busy getting ready for October that I've kind of been forgetting to upload the most recent batch of Bangers n' Mash episodes here. No, I haven't been slackin' off. Amazingly, we've actually been keeping up our schedule. Here's August's episodes and our most recent episode.



I'm lazy so, if I've done a director's report card, odds are good I'll be doing a podcast about it too. I blatantly, obviously recycle my notes. I had actually planned on posting this episode here after wrapping up my Wes Craven report card but, because that took so much longer then expected, I kind of forgot about it.



Once again: I recycle. Considering their importance to the genre's history, I think the Scream series deserved it's own episode.



This is our most recent offering and it strays from our usual nerd/superhero talks. I've been fairly open about my anime fandom before but, going into such detail about, especially childhood favorites like Digimon or Dragonball, made me a bit self-conscious. Oh, well. No one listening anyway.

Director Report Card: Wes Craven (2011)

23. Scream 4

The original “Scream” was an unexpected game-changer, a film few had any expectations for that went on to become a huge hit and have an immediate effect on the genre. “Scream” was motivated by a love of the genre and a desire to do something new and different. “Scream 4,” the fifteen years later reunion, was motivated purely by commerce. The Weinsteins, desperate for a hit for their struggling new studio, decided reviving a successful past franchise was the way to go. Considering Wes Craven, Kevin Williamson, and its central cast hadn’t had a decent hit since leaving the series, “Scream 4” was doubtlessly an attractive proposition for all involved.

Like all entries in the series, “Scream 4” features an opening that sets the tone. The first scene attempts to bring the series into the twenty-first century. Ghostface threatens the girls via text message, something that seems ridiculous on the surface but makes sense once you think about it. Following an extra-wet gut-stab and threat-slashing, the worm turns. The opening is revealed to be fiction within fiction, as special guest victims Kristen Bell and Anna Paquinn openly declare “self-aware, post-modern” horror to be played out. But wait, “Scream 4” goes triple-meta, featuring a movie within a movie within a movie! After all that screwing around, the movie finally gets down to business, having two new teenage girls bring any newcomers up to speed while going on about cell phones and apps. Finally, the carnage comes, some decent tension building as the killer pursues a victim through an unfinished basement, the wounded girl dragging herself down a flight of stairs. This is the whole film in close-up. “Scream 4” attempts to update its usual tricks for a new decade, serving as little besides set-dressings for some okay thrills and some above-average slasher gore.

“Scream 4” is only so interested in moving forward. It does, after all, focus mainly on the central returning trio, taking the story back to Woodsborough. Sydney is a best-selling author, Dewey has advanced to sheriff, and Gale is a little washed-up. At first, while talking about her life as a survivor, Neve Campbell seems a little more invested in the material. Once Syd has to go through the motions again of running from Ghostface and clothslining him, Neve returns to her boring old self. Courtney Cox is still probably the liveliest of the returning cast, having some fun when interacting with the new members, attempting to seduce the young movie nerds in a funny way or sniping at Marley Shelton. Cox seems much less interested when interacting with David Arquette. The acidic barbs between the characters sting a little too much, considering the couple would soon break up in real life. For his part, Arquette mostly goes about his business, neither impressing or boring.

What about the new characters that the new trilogy was presumably going to revolve around? Having acquired an aunt at some point, Sydney’s cousin Jill is ostensibly the main character. Neither Emma Roberts’ Jill nor her friend Olivia, played by Marielle Jaffe, make much of an impression. Roberts plays Jill mostly as a traumatized teen while Jaffe’s Olivia is an indistinguishable high school pretty girl. The only one of three friends that has any personality is Kirby, as played by Hayden Panettiere. I wasn’t a fan of Panettiere going into this but she won me over. The only genuine adaptation to the modern age the film makes is having a female horror buff, a once rare personality that is very common now. Panettiere gets several funny lines throughout and has solid chemistry with her co-stars, especially Rory Culkin.

Erik Knudsen plays Robbie, who is our Randy 4.0. This character represents “Scream 4’s” most blatant attempt to appear modern. The character has a live-stream camera attached to his head and uploads everything he does to the internet. Never mind that no school in the country would allow a kid to wear that because, you know those wacky millennials, always tweeting and Facebooking and such. Knudsen honestly does okay in the part. Towards the end, when the character gets drunk and loosens up, he becomes a little more likable. One of the more interesting characters in the film isn’t one of the teens at all. Allison Brie plays Rebecca, Sydney’s agent. The character is a thin stereotype but Brie brings her innate likability to the part. She makes the over-the-top swearing seem natural and makes talking about teenage girls dying in a light-hearted fashion funny. Marley Shelton isn’t given much to do besides flirt with Arquette and provide a red herring but she’s charming enough.

Since “Scream” has always been on top of what’s hot and current in horror, you’d expect “Scream 4” to comment on the genre conventions that arose in the previous decade. Not really. Oh, the movie postures about it. Randy 4.0 naturally has a monologue discussing what he considers the New Rules for the New Decade. These conventions exist mostly inside the screenwriter’s head. If anything, they comment more on what “Scream 4” itself does. Torture porn and J-horror all get brief, curt dismissal, without discussing the effect those movements had on horror as a whole. While the subplot of modern teens uploading everything to the internet might present an opportunity to comment on the found footage genre, it’s not explore in any way. “Final Destination” and “Shaun of the Dead” both get blatantly name-dropped but, unlike the name-drops in the original series, it in no way reflects what this film is doing. “Scream 4” fancies itself a deconstruction of 21st century remakes and reboots but Williamson’s brain is still stuck in the nineties. “Scream 4” is mostly up its own ass, especially during a sequence where crowds of people are dressing up as characters from the “Stab” series or shouting dialogue at the screen.

About the only thing “Scream 4” gets right about naughts is that cell phones are everywhere. When news of the murdered girls hits the school, all the students whip out their phones. The teens know more about the crimes before the cops do. Information moves a lot faster these days. The only modern clichés that is featured is the much-deployed “no signal.” This is presented without irony or comment. Honestly, the most entertaining post-modern moment in the film has nothing to do with horror. A pair of cops sitting in their cruiser discussing the clichés of cop movies is refreshing and funny. The closing comment about Bruce Willis is terrible but, oh, I laughed anyway.

“Scream 4” works best when functioning as a straight-forward slasher flick. The first major murder scene builds up nicely. Even if Ghostface’s sudden appearance is expected, it works decently. As does the brutal stabbing that follows. The sequel doubles down on the giblets and blood. One of the best sequence is actually nearly bloodless, an extended stalk through a parking garage. Another notable difference is that Ghostface 4.0 is awfully verbose, carrying long conversation with his victims before striking. The horror trivia quiz OF DEATH, a somewhat overstated element of the original series, makes a strong comeback here. That scene is another genuinely suspenseful moment, even if the payoff is easily seen and expected. Not all the attempted suspense works. A chase across a roof top doesn’t generate any tension and the extended barn set-piece goes on much too long. The audience also figures out the killer’s identity by process of elimination around the hour-nineteen minute mark. At least I did.

By the second act’s end, “Scream 4” actually starts to get really interesting. Emma Roberts begins to show some amusing evil glee and the film reveals itself as a critique on reality television, of all things. Williamson sees the modern youth culture as entitled little shits, craving fame they haven’t earned. Easily the highlight of the film is seeing a crime recreated inside out. It’s darkly funny and highly energetic. If “Scream 4” had committed to this new direction, ending with the villain on a gurney, flashbulbs bursting in the air, it might have sent the series in an exciting new direction. The film had the opportunity to truly be ground-breaking. Instead, “Scream 4” continues on with an unnecessarily extended third act. The hospital set finale isn’t terrible but feels tagged on. The final gives us a taste of what “Scream 4” could had been had it followed its muse instead of retracing steps laid out long before it.

“Scream 4” wasn’t the huge hit the Weinsteins were expecting. No new trilogy is forthcoming. This was somewhat deserving. While the original “Scream” was fresh and exciting in 1996, “Scream 4” couldn’t help but feel old hat in 2011. Which isn’t to say it’s a bad film. My thoughts haven’t changed much from my original review. If you’re looking for gory slasher kills and some okay thrills, it delivers. At the very least, it’s an improvement over “Scream 3.” Still, I understand where any disappointed fans might be coming from. After all, the movie is the only in the series not feature “Red Right Hand.” Now that’s a major oversight! [Grade: B-]

The failure of "Scream 4" seems to have stuck Wes' career into remission again. Though IMDb links him with the proposed "Scream" TV series, there's been no serious movement with that. At his age, I don't know if he has another peak in him. It would be a bummer if he ends his career on a disappointing sequel but, then again, that seems to be the fate of most seventies horror masters.

Even though this didn't take as long as my John Carpenter Report Card, watching and reviewing all of Wes Craven's movies still took a lot longer then I wanted. I was hoping to squeeze another report card in this month, a non-horror related one, but that's not going to happen. Odds are good, aside from assorted Bangers n' Mash episodes, you're not going to see me again until the end of the month. Long time readers should know what that means... So, anyway, watch out for that.