"Dune" stars Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Josh Brolin, Stellan Skarsgård, Dave Bautista, Zendaya, David Dastmalchian, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Charlotte Rampling, Jason Momoa, and Javier Bardem. Released on October 22, 2021, the film is about an heir who is thrust into a war for the desert planet.
The film is directed by Denis Villeneuve, who also directed films such as "Prisoners", "Enemy", "Sicario", "Arrival", and "Blade Runner 2049". It is based on the 1965 novel of the same name by Frank Herbert. If you still don't think October is the new month of action blockbusters, maybe this film will help you change your mind. Acclaimed director Denis Villeneuve has returned to bring another science fiction film from our childhoods back to life on the big screen. Unlike "Blade Runner", this one was in dire need of a redo. Published in 1965, "Dune" has impressed every reader with its multilayered themes and futuristic setting. While the novel is considered one of the best science fiction books of all time, its film adaptation was a different story. The 1984 adaptation by David Lynch was seen as a box-office flop and was met with generally negative reviews, though it did develop a cult following over time. Due to its horrible reception, it seemed unlikely that Hollywood would ever attempt to give the complicated novel another shot at the big screen. That is until Villeneuve rose to the challenge. Ever since I saw "Prisoners" back in 2013, I've been showing some strong support for Denis Villeneuve. While his direction for the pacing can be a challenge to sit through at times, his bleak yet immersive scope and intriguing storytelling usually compensate for this minor flaw every time. So when I saw that he's helming another film adaptation of "Dune", I was curious to see if his vision can balance well with its complicated sci-fi concept. If he can make "Blade Runner 2049" work, then he can surely do the same for this film. With that in mind, let's see if that's the case for this highly-anticipated adaptation.
The story centers on the royal Atreides family in the far future of humanity. The family consists of Duke Leto Atreides (Isaac), his concubine Lady Jessica (Ferguson), and their young son and heir, Paul Atreides (Chalamet). Leto has accepted the stewardship of the treacherous planet Arrakis. Arrakis is the home of the most valuable substance in the universe known as "melange", which can extend human life, provide extreme levels of thought, and make faster-than-light travel possible. After a sudden betrayal by one of their own, Paul and Jessica fled the mining operation and encountered the planet's natives. Identified as the Fremen, the inhabitants are preparing for war against the enemy invaders, the House Harkonnen, and Paul happens to be caught in the middle of it. The film represents the first half of the 1965 novel, which depicts Paul's transformation into the Fremen messiah. This approach had me convinced that the source material has too much juicy stuff to cover in just one film, even with its two-and-a-half-hour runtime. While this idea works in introducing its massive world-building and characters, it also runs the risk of being a tragic waste due to its abrupt ending. If the film's potential sequels are put in the can because of its low box office income, then its conclusion will wind up being a pointless tease of something that'll never see the light of day. This is something that I hope would never happen because I'm highly interested in seeing what would happen next. Even though I haven't read the novel or watched the 1984 film, I thought "Dune" was not only fascinating in its storytelling, but it was also incredibly stunning in its scope and visual effects. It's like a combination of "Star Wars" and "Blade Runner" regarding its futuristic tech, abilities, and gorgeous locations, with little to no hints of droids, of course. Despite a couple of emotional moments that got overshadowed by its overwhelming grandness, the story in "Dune" significantly introduces its world and characters while providing a familiar yet riveting tale of a man chosen by destiny. Its ending did leave me feeling upset at first, but then I got over it once I realized that it's only "part one" of this sci-fi epic. The film's A-list actors were very engaging, notably Rebecca Ferguson and Jason Momoa as Lady Jessica and Duncan Idaho, respectively. Timothée Chalamet continued to showcase his marvelous talent onscreen as Paul, even though his highly famous co-stars occasionally outpace him. Zendaya was also solid in her role as Chani despite her short screen time. My only minor issue with the cast was that they could be a bit hard to hear what they're saying when they're whispering their dialogue. It only happens a few times throughout the film, so I can't be too angry at that. Like Villeneuve's other works, primarily "Blade Runner 2049", "Dune" shines the brightest when its technical qualities are on display. From its immersive cinematography to the imaginative essence of its locations, the film delivered a breathtaking and dreary take on humanity's future as only Villeneuve can do. It further showcased the director's superb ability to transform a sci-fi blockbuster into cinematic art. This approach might not impress everyone who wanted a more traditional blockbuster. However, it will undoubtedly do wonders for those who want more out of its formula. I also enjoyed Hans Zimmer's score, which offered a futuristic and religious vibe to the film's nature. I wouldn't say that it's Zimmer's best work, but he did inject plenty of energy into its vocals to give the movie the proper soul it needed.
Overall, Denis Villeneuve's take on "Dune" is unsurprisingly astounding in its technical qualities, with its intriguing story being able to follow suit. Its minor narrative hiccups kept it from being a perfect science-fiction epic. Still, it's another strong example of an awe-inspiring experience that's only made for the biggest screen possible. Its talented cast, well-crafted story, and striking visuals make this film a captivating first half of the famous sci-fi novel. If you're planning on watching "Dune", I highly recommend seeing it in the theater to get the best experience. I should know because that's how I watched it.
“The Last Duel” stars Matt Damon, Adam Driver, Jodie Comer, and Ben Affleck. Released on October 15, 2021, the film has two best friends engaging in a duel with one another.
The film was directed by Ridley Scott, who also directed films such as “Alien”, “Blade Runner”, “Gladiator”, and “The Martian”. It is based on the book of the same name by Eric Jager. Nowadays, we use communication to settle our differences, but back then, they had a much violent way to solve their problems. Ridley Scott is returning to the Oscar race this year with not one but two fact-based films to get audiences invested in historical events. This weekend, I’ll be taking a look at one that’s set years before technology was invented. So far, Scott has delivered some hits and misses recently, but there’s still no denying his ability to bring captivating tales to life with his direction and set designs. This latest drama appears to be no exception as it offered an all-star cast and a grim yet immersive perspective on medieval times. But are they enough to make the filmmaker a strong awards contender? Let’s find out.
The story is set in 1380s France, and it centers on a squire named Jean de Carrouges (Damon) and his beloved wife Marguerite de Carrouges (Comer). When Marguerite claims that she’s been raped by her husband’s friend Jacques Le Gris (Driver), Jean challenges Jacques to trial by combat, which would determine the fate of Marguerite and her husband. The film is based on real-life events that took place around 700 years ago, where France held the last legally sanctioned duel in the country’s history. It also explored the three main characters’ roles in the events leading up to the accusation and the trial. This piece of history was quite interesting in my eyes. It is not just because of the country’s final duel, but also because it reflects on today’s culture. The film showed that the whole “Me Too” movement happened way before it was even a thing. The essential part to remember is that it takes place during a time where women were often treated as objects to give men pleasure. While the film itself came close to being as impactful as its disturbing subject matter, “The Last Duel” is nonetheless another worthy piece of historical cinema gold by Ridley Scott. The film shines in being intriguingly dramatic, brutally violent, and thoughtfully challenging regarding the cast, direction, and production values. It only had a few scenes that either dragged or felt underwhelming, especially when taking its two-and-a-half-hour runtime into account. I also would’ve liked to see more of how Marguerite’s accusations impact women’s roles in the 1300s. That would have made the social commentary more exciting and emotional. Despite those flaws, the film is, without a doubt, Ridley Scott at his finest. The most interesting part of “The Last Duel” was its narrative, which was divided into three chapters. It explored the events leading up to the duel through the eyes of Jean, Jacques, and Marguerite. This narrative choice may sound repetitive at first, but you might be surprised to see that it wasn’t. It retold the same story three times through different perspectives. However, those perspectives happened to represent the story more differently than others, primarily the rape scene from the viewpoint of Jacques and Marguerite. It gives off that “he said, she said” vibe that challenges how we see these characters and their actions. If that’s the case, then I thought Ridley Scott and screenwriters Nicole Holofcener, Ben Affleck, and Matt Damon did a superb job handling this approach with care and intellect. The main cast did absolute wonders in gracing the screen with ease. Damon and Driver were both excellent in their roles as Jean and Jacques, respectively, while Jodie Comer delivered a performance that’s subtly riveting as Marguerite. In my opinion, Ben Affleck’s performance as Count Pierre d’Alencon was quite unusual compared to his recent dramatic roles. He can be a bit giddy at times, but thankfully, it wasn’t enough to negatively alter the film’s dramatic tone. Another element that worked in the movie was the production values. Like Scott’s other historical films like “Gladiator” and “Kingdom of Heaven”, “The Last Duel” envisions its historical period with its bleak yet gorgeous cinematography and a sense of authenticity. From the set designs to the costumes, the film continues the filmmaker’s strength in bringing natural history to life on screen. I also want to point out that the film can be disturbing for some viewers, but not to the point where it becomes unwatchable. The rape scene (which they showed twice) was quite uncomfortable, and the violence was undoubtedly brutal, especially the duel sequence at the end of the film. By the way, that sequence was highly engaging and well worth the wait regarding Scott’s direction and the brutality.
Overall, Ridley Scott has crafted another absorbing and thoughtful fact-based drama in the form of “The Last Duel”. It came very close to squeezing into my top ten list of 2021 films. Nonetheless, it’s a well-acted and beautifully grim depiction of misogyny that refuses to be silent. The actors were great in their roles, the storytelling was handled well by Scott, and the production values were incredibly authentic. It’s a successful start for the director this year, and I hope he can repeat that success with next month’s “House of Gucci”.
"Halloween Kills" stars Jamie Lee Curtis, Judy Greer, Andi Matichak, Will Patton, Thomas Mann, Anthony Michael Hall, Kyle Richards, Charles Cyphers, Nancy Stephens, Nick Castle, and James Jude Courtney. Released on October 15, 2021, the film has Laurie Strode and her family facing the unexpected return of Michael Myers.
The film is directed by David Gordon Green, who also directed films such as "Undertow", "Pineapple Express", "The Sitter", and "Stronger". It is the twelfth installment in the Halloween franchise. It is also a sequel to the 2018 direct continuation of "Halloween", which David Gordon Green also directed. This son of a gun doesn't know when to stay dead, does he? It's not Halloween without Michael Myers, and this latest installment in the long-running slasher franchise is finally here to prove that theory. After a disappointing amount of sequels and reboots, the classic slasher film series made a miraculous return with the 2018 installment, which wiped the previous follow-ups out of existence. That film served as a welcoming return to the formula that made the 1978 film a terrifying experience. Now, the franchise is once again returning from the dead to continue its killing spree, for better or worse. The only installments I've watched from the "Halloween" series were the 1978 original and the 2018 film, both of which were solid slasher films for different reasons. So you can quickly tell that my interest in the horror franchise wasn't as high as many others. However, that didn't stop me from checking out its latest horror sequel, especially since it's leading up to next year's conclusion. With that in mind, let's see if it has enough kills and frights to continue the franchise.
The film takes place immediately after 2018's "Halloween". Laurie Strode (Curtis), her daughter Karen Nelson (Greer), and her granddaughter Allyson Nelson (Matichak) have defeated Michael Myers (Courtney and Castle) and left him to die in a burning house…or so they thought. When Michael survives the fire and escapes, he continues his bloody rampage in Haddonfield. After hearing about Michael's killing spree, the residents, including the survivors from Laurie's past, band together to end his reign of terror for good. The potential "Halloween" trilogy resembles a horror novel, with "Halloween Kills" being the middle section of the gory story arc. Seeing that it's set after the ending of its previous installment, viewers would need to watch the 2018 film to understand the continuing story of Myers' recent return completely. If you've seen the earlier films in the slasher series, then you'll immediately know what you're getting yourself into regarding the concept. It's about people surviving against or getting murdered by a psychotic and silent serial killer with a mask, which is every slasher film in a nutshell. If you enjoy those installments because of that formula, especially 2018's "Halloween", there's plenty to endure in "Halloween Kills". It offered what audiences wanted out of a "Halloween" film, but it did come with the cost of being conventional. "Halloween Kills" didn't do much to add anything refreshing to the long-running franchise as it resorted to some genre tropes that we've experienced several times before. It also had this "middle chapter" vibe that made the film feel incomplete, which is understandable because it leads up to the upcoming final chapter. Luckily, David Gordon Green maintained the elements that worked in its predecessor to expand its tiring formula's immortality. One of those elements was its themes. "Halloween Kills" continues the representation of fear and trauma and how they affect the characters mentally. Even though the film focused on Michael Myers murdering innocent lives, it never lost sight of the people who were impacted by his actions, including the ones that Laurie babysat 40 years ago, Tommy Doyle (Hall) and Lindsey Wallace (Richards). Its storytelling couldn't capture lightning in the bottle for the second time, possibly due to its tropes. Still, I respect it for providing enough interest in the characters amid the killer's murderous rampage. There were also a couple of moments in the screenplay that may not work for everyone, including Laurie's role and the ending, which I would not spoil if you haven't watched it yet. Fortunately, those moments weren't massive enough to overshadow its entertainment values in the kills and the film's gloomy and realistic nature. Speaking of which, Michael Myers' kills weren't anything too special, but they still contain a healthy amount of realism and fright in the grisly imagery without going too over-the-top with the visuals. What made them even more creepy was Green's handling of the film's tension and its respectable set of jump scares, which freaked me out a couple of times, by the way. The entire cast worked very well together in their respective roles, especially Curtis, who continues to shine as Laurie despite her small role. Judy Greer and Andi Matichak were also solid in their roles as Karen and Allyson, respectively. The main highlight of the cast was Anthony Michael Hall as Tommy Doyle, a character who was previously portrayed by Brian Andrews in the 1978 original. The spotlight focuses a bit more on Tommy rather than Laurie, and Hall made sure that every second in that spotlight counts. Hall nearly perfected the internal pain and anger Tommy has after his encounter with Michael 40 years ago, and it was quite a treat to behold. As for both Courtney and Nick Castle as Michael Myers, all I can say about them is that they still manage to creep me out every single time.
Overall, "Halloween Kills" delivered enough blood and chills to continue the franchise's killing spree. This is another entertaining installment in the iconic horror series despite its lack of fresh ideas, genre tropes, and average screenplay. With its solid cast, Green's direction, and good execution towards the kills and tension, the film is a suitable setup for next year's haunting conclusion. In my eyes, it's a small step down from 2018's "Halloween", but it should satisfy plenty of slasher genre fans regardless.
"No Time to Die" stars Daniel Craig, Rami Malek, Léa Seydoux, Lashana Lynch, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Jeffrey Wright, Christoph Waltz, and Ralph Fiennes. Releasing on October 8, 2021, the film has James Bond searching for a missing scientist and facing off against a new threat.
The film is directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, who also directed "Sin Nombre", "Jane Eyre", and "Beasts of No Nation". It is the 25th installment in the James Bond film series. It has been one heck of a journey for Daniel Craig when it comes to 007. It has its share of highs and its share of lows, but in the end, it helped put Craig on the Hollywood map, similar to what the franchise has done for the other actors like Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery. But like all of the other journeys, all things must come to an end. The Daniel Craig era of James Bond has brought a side that no one has expected to see from the famous character. Not only that, but it also formed an interconnected story arc that explores Bond's early days as an MI6 agent. This year, that arc is finally reaching its conclusion with the latest installment that could prove to be Bond's biggest mission yet. I hadn't gotten into the long-running franchise until I watched "Skyfall" almost a decade ago. That film is still one of the best installments in the Daniel Craig era, in my opinion. Since then, I have been following the recent installments in James Bond's cinematic series of adventures. If you're wondering why I haven't watched the older ones, that's the story for another time. Right now, let's enjoy the fact that Daniel Craig's swan song is finally here after so many delays due to the pandemic. Was the film able to cap off the story arc that started with 2006's "Casino Royale", or was it a bloated mess that tarnishes the famous spy's reputation? Let's find out.
The story is set after the events of 2015's "Spectre", where James Bond (Craig) left active service with MI6 and broke up with Madeleine Swann (Seydoux) following her betrayal. Now retired in Jamaica, Bond is approached by CIA agent Felix Leiter (Wright) to help him track down Valdo Obruchev (David Dencik), a scientist who is kidnapped from an MI6 laboratory. Obruchev is responsible for developing "Project Heracles", a bioweapon full of nanobots that can lethally affect a target's specific DNA. Knowing how deadly this bioweapon can be in the wrong hands, Bond springs back into action, reunites with his old MI6 allies, including Q (Whishaw) and M (Fiennes), and finds a new partner in the form of a new 007 agent, Nomi (Lynch). He'll have to use every gadget and skill he's got to save the world while also going toe-to-toe with Lyutsifer Safin (Malek), a terrorist leader from Madeleine's past. The most crucial thing to know about "No Time to Die" is that it contains plenty of elements that relate to the previous installments in the Daniel Craig era, mainly 2006's "Casino Royale" and "Spectre". If you choose this film as your first James Bond experience, there's a good chance that you'll be easily confused as to what's going on. So I would highly recommend you watch the other Daniel Craig/James Bond films before you dive into this one. As I mentioned before, the film is designed to be an "epic" conclusion to Bond's journey that began with "Casino Royale", so it makes sense that it raised the stakes not just for the main character but also for those around him, especially Madeleine. However, like many other final chapters, it needed a solid and emotional narrative to earn those stakes. Was it able to accomplish that mission? Yes, but not without a scratch or two. It couldn't quite reach the same heights as "Skyfall" regarding the story and emotional depth. Still, it did deliver an entertaining and well-crafted conclusion that understood what made the previous Bond films spectacular experiences. Cary Joji Fukunaga took over directing duties for the franchise after the departure of Sam Mendes, who helmed the last two installments. This was my first time seeing the director in action as I haven't seen his other works before "No Time to Die". After watching how well the film blends with his vision, it made me wish I had. Fukunaga provided plenty of majesty and thrills in its locations and action regarding the stellar cinematography and production design. More importantly, he made the slow and dramatic scenes as riveting as the shootouts themselves. "No Time to Die" proved to be the longest installment in the franchise with a whopping two hours and 43 minutes, which is just as long as any other action blockbuster to date. Here's hoping you don't drink too much while watching it as I did—worst mistake of my life. The runtime alone can bother those who've grown tired of action films that are as long as waiting at the DMV. However, its decent pacing and Fukunaga's direction managed to compensate for its excessive length. Daniel Craig once again brought life into the unique side of James Bond, both physically and mentally. We've seen Bond struggle with his trauma since "Casino Royale", and seeing him come full circle with his experience was both satisfying and thoughtful. All of that was due to Craig's magnetic performance. Rami Malek also did a swell job with his role as Lyutsifer Safin, proving himself yet again to be one of the most remarkable and talented actors working in Hollywood today. It's hard for me to say if he's better or worse than the other Bond villains since I haven't watched all of the films before "No Time to Die". However, I will say that I was impressed with how formidable he was in terms of his connections to Swann and his motivations. Lashana Lynch made a solid impression for herself as Nomi, and Christoph Waltz was deviously enjoyable as Blofeld. I also thought Ana de Armas was one of my favorite parts of the film. She plays Paloma, A CIA agent who assists Bond in Cuba. While she's not in the movie that much, she did provide some delightful moments in the action and humor. Aside from its runtime and some tiny narrative issues, the only flaw I had with "No Time to Die" was how it ended. Without spoiling anything, I thought the ending was quite fitting and bold considering that it's Craig's last hurrah as the iconic character. Unfortunately, the way it was handled onscreen wasn't as memorable as I thought it would be. It worked in generating some emotion in the characters and the scenario. It's just that I was hoping for it to go all out with this special occasion regarding the main character. It's not a horrible ending, but it is a surprisingly subtle way to conclude this story arc.
Overall, "No Time to Die" has enough gadgets in its pockets to deliver a well-shot and diverting conclusion to Daniel Craig's 007 journey. Its bloated runtime and flawed ending kept it from reaching the same level of quality as "Skyfall" or the other epic finales to specific franchises like "Lord of the Rings" and "Avengers: Endgame". Other than that, this is another suitable chapter in the long-running spy franchise thanks to its cast, Fukunaga's direction, cinematography, and engaging story. It may not be a perfect conclusion, but I can at least say that the six-year wait was worth it, especially for James Bond fans.
"The Addams Family 2" stars Oscar Isaac, Charlize Theron, Chloë Grace Moretz, Javon Walton, Nick Kroll, Snoop Dogg, Bette Midler, Bill Hader, and Wallace Shawn. Released on October 1, 2021, the film has the Addams going on a family road trip.
The film was directed by Conrad Vernon and Greg Tiernan, who also directed "Sausage Party", and it is a sequel to the 2019 film, "The Addams Family", which was also directed by Vernon and Tiernan. It is based on the characters of the same name created by Charles Addams. Summer vacation may be over, but that doesn't mean we can't squeeze in one more road trip before the fall weather kicks in. It's always delightful to get away from home and see the amazing sights with the family…unless your family happens to be kooky and loves things that are spooky. Last weekend brought us another sequel that's sure to scare and delight its audience. Unlike "Venom", however, this one appeals to the young kids who aren't ready to witness Carnage's wrath on the big screen. I mean, do you see how terrifying he looks? For those who don't know, my experience with "The Addams Family" came from just the 1990s live-action films. That alone was the main reason why I went to check out the 2019 animated version with my family. While it wasn't the best thing I've seen from the macabre family, I enjoyed it enough to give its follow-up a shot. It is the month of October, after all. So was the sequel goofily creepy enough to justify its existence, or was this vacation a disastrous piece of gloom, but not in a good way? Let's find out.
The film follows the Addams family as they are still adapting to life in the modern world. One day, Gomez (Isaac) and Morticia (Theron) noticed that their family was drifting apart, especially their daughter Wednesday (Moretz). They then decided to reclaim their bond by going on one last family vacation with the entire crew in tow. Their vacation quickly turns into an adventure as they see (and disrupt) the sights and are pursued by Cyrus Strange (Hader), a scientist who has his eyes set on Wednesday. If you grew up with "The Addams Family", you would already know what to expect from the animated sequel. There's a family who adores all things grim and plenty of dark humor to fill your gruesome soul with joy. Those elements alone should be enough to captivate and frighten the younger fans of the 2019 adaptation. Sadly, it may not do any favors for those who didn't like its predecessor. While the first film was a pleasing and welcoming cartoon that depicts the importance of acceptance, "The Addams Family 2" is a heavily cliched and bland road trip comedy that only served as a cash grab and nothing else. Thankfully, it's not the worse animated film I've seen this year since it contained the stuff I enjoyed from its predecessor. Plus, I happened to like how it placed its focus on Wednesday's journey of self-discovery amid the family's road trip antics. Unfortunately, the direction it took for those ideas was so uninspired and painfully formulaic that the viewers would wish that they should've stayed home instead. Remember the direct-to-video animated sequels that provided below-average quality in their storytelling compared to their counterparts? That's how I describe "The Addams Family 2". A mediocre direct-to-video-like sequel that couldn't quite match the macabre charm of its predecessor and the live-action films. It's no wonder why the studio decided to release it both in theaters and at home. The comedy was also one of the weakest parts of the film. It did provide the spooky and weird humor we've come to expect from an "Addams Family" film. Sadly, they were quickly overshadowed by the overabundance of eye-rolling puns and pop culture references. This is another film that throws a lot of kid-friendly jokes at the wall to see what sticks. Spoiler alert: Almost all of them didn't stick. Once again, the live-action "Addams Family" films knew precisely how to do dark comedy justice. The way the comedy was handled here was more like any other average animated film in existence, but with the Addams slapped in there. The only two things that got me through this road trip were the voice cast and the animation. The main cast from its predecessor returned to reprise their roles as the Addams Family, except Finn Wolfhard, who was replaced by "Euphoria" star Javon Walton for Pugsley. Once again, they did a marvelous job bringing the kookiness into the Addams, with Oscar Isaac and Chloë Grace Moretz being the highlights as Gomez and Wednesday, respectively. Javon Walton was a suitable replacement for Pugsley since he sounded much younger here than in the 2019 film. It's too bad that the writers couldn't do anything else with Pugsley besides being a comedic target for Wednesday's torturous ideas. Bill Hader and Wallace Shawn were also acceptable as Cyrus Strange and Mr. Mustela (a lawyer who chases the Addams), respectively. Although, those new characters were about as one-dimensional as a villain from a corny spy film. As for the animation, it's pretty decent in capturing the accurate designs of the original cartoons they're based on and the slapstick, but not enough to provide anything too spectacular outside of that. It's another ordinary CGI cartoon that's more on the silliness and less on the frights. It's similar to the 2019 film but much more irredeemable.
Overall, "The Addams Family 2" is a narratively bland road trip that's about as fun as putting your head inside the Addams' pet lion. The voice cast and animation still succeed in portraying the Addams and their macabre characteristics. However, everything else was massively inferior to not just the 2019 film but also the 1990 live-action adaptations. With its overly formulaic story, mediocre characters, tedious humor, and poor direction, the animated sequel lacks the "ooky" in "spooky". It's okay for young kids who enjoyed its predecessor, but this is by far the worst thing to ever happen to the franchise and directors Greg Tiernan and Conrad Vernon. Maybe they should rethink the idea of making it more animated and light-hearted than the live-action films?