"Heretic" stars Hugh Grant, Sophie Thatcher, Chloe East, Topher Grace, and Elle Young. Released on November 8, 2024, the film has two Mormon missionaries encountering a shocking secret from an Englishman. The film is written and directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, who also directed "Impulse", "Nightlight", "Haunt", and "65". They also wrote "A Quiet Place" and 2023's "The Boogeyman". Many of us have our share of religious beliefs, with some more dedicated to them than others. However, there are some occasions when we are forced to question those beliefs and even our way of life. One of those occasions is going through a house of horrors that not even God can help us escape from. While October is over and done with, that doesn't mean we can't have some terrifying fun anymore, with this latest horror thriller proving this theory further. This film seeks to give audiences one final fright before we focus our attention on the real terror of the year: the holidays…and listening to Mariah Carey's "All I Want For Christmas" countless times. Was the film able to capture the genuine terror of religious belief to convert its horror fans? Let's find out. The story centers on Sister Barnes (Thatcher) and Sister Paxton (East). They're Mormon missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints tasked with going door-to-door and converting people to Christianity. Their latest stop is a house in the woods, where a reclusive Englishman named Mr. Reed (Grant) resides. However, despite Reed's generosity and eagerness, Barnes and Paxton eventually discover that there's more to him than they thought he was. His true self resulted in the Mormons being trapped inside the house, and the only way to leave was to partake in a challenge set by Reed to test their beliefs. Barnes and Paxton are now caught in a cat-and-mouse game as they attempt to prove their faith and learn more about Reed's true intentions. While I haven't watched as much religion-based content as everyone else, I often watch movies that combine holiness with unexplainable terror. "Heretic" is unsurprisingly no different, as its trailer was enough to invoke my curiosity toward its mysterious and unsettling concept. There's also the matter of the return of the filmmaking duo Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, who are looking to bounce back from their disastrously bland dinosaur thriller, "65". Of course, that didn't overshadow the other frightening movies they're involved in, especially "A Quiet Place", my personal favorite from the duo, even though they only wrote the screenplay. From the looks of its reviews, it sounded like their recent entry in the horror genre has already made audiences forgive them for fumbling a cool concept like Adam Driver fighting dinosaurs. But, as usual, what matters is what I thought of this piece of holy horror. Well, I would say it suitably stands alongside the other great horror movies of 2024 that are effective in both storytelling and horrifying chills. "Heretic" is a brain-teasing and engrossingly unsettling roller coaster whose frights don't just come from the cast themselves but also its themes. The film deals with the ideologies and beliefs of a person's religious path, mainly Barnes and Paxton, who are on the path of Christianity. However, they find their faith tested when Mr. Reed claims to have discovered the "true" religion. Instead of going for cheap jump scares or a shocking big finale like most conventional horror films have, Scott Beck and Bryan Woods went for a more subtle and philosophical approach to the topic and its horror elements, including the claustrophobic atmosphere. This direction might not work for everyone, especially when the first act takes a bit to get to the heart of the plot. However, in my eyes, this is another sublime example of using dialogue and discomforting aura to evoke terror and doubt. Outside of a couple of solid scares, "Heretic" knew exactly how to get inside my skin without resorting to supernatural or violent shortcuts. This is the second film I have watched that was directed by Beck and Woods, following "65", and I have to tell you. After the first few minutes, I immediately knew their vision worked much better here than in "65". Yes, the first act can be a bit draggy before the real mind games begin, but it wasn't to the point of being boring despite being an hour and 50 minutes long. Within its tightly-sewn plot, the dialogue-driven scenes between Reed and the Mormons resemble a social gathering regarding the build-up. It may seem harmless at first, but then you start to reconsider attending because of the discomforting and darkly humorous topics it brings up as it progresses. But, I didn't leave right away because of how engaged I was in the conversations. That's pretty much my way of describing the plot in "Heretic": a seemingly innocent gathering slowly becoming an unsettling religious nightmare. Regarding their direction and screenplay, Beck and Woods delivered a subdued yet consistently tense reflection of the horrors behind religious ideology whose craft matches the duo's storytelling. Despite liking their script for "A Quiet Place" more, I think Beck and Woods should be blessed with what they came up with for "Heretic". Regarding the technical aspects, the clear winner has to be the cinematography, which worked wonders in capturing the immersion and dismay of its claustrophobic and darkly lit backgrounds. The cinematographer behind these impressive wide-angle and panning shots was Chung Chung-hoon, a name you might be familiar with from other movies I reviewed like "It", "Last Night in Soho", and even "Wonka". Regardless of the product's quality, I would still credit the guy for delivering this kind of immersion in his cinematography. This was backed up by Justin Li's editing, which suitably resembles the film's brain-teasing sequences, and Chris Bacon's musical score. Of course, it wasn't just the story's subdued frights that kept me engaged and even slightly uncomfortable. It was also Hugh Grant, who is still a sublime actor worth remembering by audiences and critics, especially since he's well-known for his charming and romantic roles. However, his against-type roles also play a huge part in his successful career, including those that are action-packed, dramatic, and family-friendly. "Heretic" sees Grant take on a villainous and demented role in the horror genre as a man seeking to prove his findings through disturbing methods. Undoubtedly, Hugh Grant's performance was the highlight of the movie, combining the actor's usual charismatic energy with Mr. Reed's unsettling persona to craft another brilliant against-type showcase for the actor that earns God's blessing. He was fantastic in the role. The film was Sophie Thatcher's latest collaboration with Scott Beck and Bryan Woods following "The Boogeyman" last year. She was also terrific as Sister Barnes. I was also really impressed with Chloe East, known for playing Monica Sherwood in "The Fabelmans", regarding her haunting performance as Sister Paxton. Overall, "Heretic" preaches to the holy horror gods with a brilliant and genuinely unnerving display of religious terror and superb talent. Its subdued approach to the concept from Beck and Woods may not convert those looking for something wild and shockingly violent in its storytelling, especially when the first act takes a while to get to the cat-and-mouse game of belief. However, I'm one of the people who admired it for its ability to evoke something mindful in its themes instead of using narrative shortcuts for shock value. Hugh Grant delivered another rewarding against-type performance that balances humor with discomfort, and the two young actresses were terrific with their own acting talents. There's also Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, whose direction and screenplay effectively examine its reverent topics in an uncomfortable and philosophical light. Those elements, along with the craftsmanship, make "Heretic" another praise-worthy addition to my favorite horror movies of 2024. I will certainly recommend this film to those who want a last-minute dose of terror before the holiday season arrives to scare them. A-
0 Comments
"Conclave" stars Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, Sergio Castellitto, and Isabella Rossellini. Released on October 25, 2024, the film has a Cardinal-Dean investigating secrets and scandals about the candidates during a papal conclave. The film was directed by Edward Berger, who also directed "Jack", "All My Loving", and 2022's "All Quiet on the Western Front". It is based on the 2016 novel by Robert Harris. Finding someone worthy enough to become a pope is challenging, as they must have the proper sense of leadership, belief, and responsibility. However, that isn't the only reason for this difficult decision. The real issue is that the candidates chosen may not be as faithful as they say they are. If you thought our own politics were just as complicated, then you haven't seen what the Catholic Church in Rome has to deal with when choosing the next pope. This is the topic of the latest mystery thriller that's been receiving plenty of awards buzz for its seemingly uneventful storyline. What makes it more fitting is that it was released close to Election Day, which could've been another reason it's attracting so much attention from general audiences. People couldn't get enough of the political drama, I guess. But is this film really as invigorating as our own political conversations? Let's find out. The story follows the College of Cardinals from the Catholic Church. Under the leadership of Cardinal-Dean Thomas Lawrence (Fiennes), the group gathers in seclusion for a papal conclave to vote for a new pope after the previous one died of a heart attack. The four Cardinal candidates, along with Lawrence, consist of Aldo Bellini (Tucci), Joshua Adeyemi (Lucian Msamati), Joseph Tremblay (Lithgow), and Goffredo Tedesco (Castellitto). However, each of them has their own secrets to hide, including their beliefs and scandals that could affect the Cardinals' way of life. As Lawrence struggles with his own beliefs, he further investigates the candidates, leading him to make discoveries that could turn the tide of the papal conclave. I was initially hesitant about seeing "Conclave". On the one hand, it's got a decent cast and a director who gained attention from his take on "All Quiet on the Western Front". In fact, that adaptation was my first exposure to Edward Berger, which I thought was an impressively well-crafted anti-war drama. On the other hand, dialogue-driven thrillers can be hit-and-miss for me, depending on the concept. I don't mind thrillers that rely more on characters explaining stuff instead of confronting each other with violence, as there were some that I personally enjoyed. But if they don't offer something enticing to elevate those dialogue-driven moments, I'd be better off watching the Jason Bourne movies. There's also the fact that the film is rated PG, which was quite surprising considering its mature religious themes. I can already imagine a parent seeing this and choosing it as the next family outing because PG-rated movies and dialogue-driven thrillers are always appropriate for children to endure. Regardless, I finally decided to check it out to see if the hype was warranted. So, if you're wondering why it took me this long to see it, it's mainly my hesitation and finding the appropriate day to avoid the big crowds. Was it worth it? Yeah, it was. "Conclave" may seem like a dull reflection of the pope-choosing ceremony for most people, but what goes on behind the scenes makes it more enthralling than we believed. It is an enticing eye-opener representing a decision that will determine a Church's future and people's approach to faith. But, I would be honest that it's far from a perfect thriller. The reason is, of course, the pacing. While it managed to improve following the first act, the movie's slow burn combined with the vast amount of dialogue-driven sequences could make specific viewers want to skip out on the church's traditions. It's far from a complete snooze-fest in my eyes since it is a vastly crafted and stunning attention-grabber. But, considering its PG rating and layered religious commentary, I wouldn't recommend "Conclave" for their next family outing, especially if they have children with short attention spans. Now, most people may also argue that its "ludicrous" and "thin" plot was the reason for its imperfection, which seemed silly in itself regarding the tone it's going for. While Peter Straughan's screenplay has some moments that may seem absurd, they didn't distract me from its thoughtfully layered and even surprising depiction of its religious themes. One of those topics the film examined is how faith and doubt go hand-in-hand, as explained by Lawrence. Without a doubt, there's no mystery. Therefore, we don't have faith in others and even ourselves. So, in a way, the movie displays the imperfections of its characters who abided by the Church's traditions and beliefs, especially Tedesco's traditionalist persona. The other was its twist ending, which can leave some people scratching their heads in disbelief. However, in my eyes, it served a purpose in depicting faith and loyalty, mainly for Lawrence questioning his own throughout the movie's two-hour runtime. Some may not agree with how I see it, but let's be clear. I'm not as big of a religious person as everyone else. However, I will agree with everyone that "Conclave" was undoubtedly a riveting talent showcase for the main cast and even Edward Berger himself. Berger is another filmmaker who uses their craftsmanship and vision to turn the seemingly slow-burn sequences into attention-grabbing and dramatic pieces of artistry. This was elevated profoundly by Stéphane Fontaine's cinematography, which beautifully captured the backgrounds and humane character moments with wide-angle shots, and Volker Bertelmann's striking score. As mentioned, I don't mind dialogue-driven thrillers as long as their conversations outside the action have something worth getting attached to regarding the stories and character depth. Fortunately, Edward Berger understood this assignment, as he made almost every subtle conversation between the characters as gripping as a knife fight without overstraining its absurdity and pace. Regarding its main cast, Ralph Fiennes continues to be a phenomenal actor by providing an authentically layered performance as Lawrence, especially in scenes where he mentally doubts his candidacy as the next pope. Stanley Tucci was also terrific as Bellini, and Sergio Castellitto brought his A-game as Tedesco. I would also credit Carlos Diehz for his impressive portrayal of archbishop Vincent Benitez, especially in the film's climax, making him one of the bright spots of the supporting cast. Overall, "Conclave" provides a hefty amount of faith in its craft and cast to deliver an innovative and riveting source of religious entertainment. Regarding its slow-burn appeal, the film's pacing could be a turn-off for those preferring action-packed thrills instead of dialogue-driven ones. It's also not without some moments that were deemed "campy". However, the movie is still a remarkable and well-crafted thriller that boasts enough talent and thematic essence to be worthy of our cinematic beliefs. The cast delivered fantastic performances, including Fiennes, whose humane and subtle spark in his acting could earn him a spot at the Oscars. As for Edward Berger, the filmmaker has undoubtedly impressed me with his ability to inject life and tension into the film's understated drama. But, I believe it would be mostly recognized for its cinematography regarding the technical aspects, which is sublime for its wide-angle shots and majestic presentation. If you're into dialogue-driven thrillers, this movie is certainly worth putting your faith in. A-"Here" stars Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, Paul Bettany, Kelly Reilly, and Michelle Dockery. Released on November 1, 2024, the film chronicles the events occurring in a single spot. The film is directed by Robert Zemeckis, who also directed films such as "Back to the Future", "Forrest Gump", "Cast Away", "The Walk", and "Welcome to Marwen". It is based on the graphic novel by Richard McGuire. Life can be full of many possibilities if you know where to look. We may not even notice, but there are different parts on our planet where each one has its own history to tell, not just ours. While they don't seem that exciting at first glance, these spots actually share special memories and history that shape people into who they are, whether they're happy or sad. This particular spot is one of them, as the team behind "Forrest Gump", including Robert Zemeckis, takes audiences on an experimental journey through this merry-go-round we call life inside a single house. Does it provide enough memories from that spot and the film's format to make it a unique experience, or are we better off moving to a different location? Let's find out. Now, this is usually the part of my review where I discuss the movie's story. Well, "Here" is one of those occasions where there's not much story to explain since it only occurs on a single spot of land. We only see different eras of history happening before our eyes from one location, ranging from prehistoric times to the present. This includes the creation of a house that was resided by multiple people, including a man named Richard Young (Hanks) and his wife Margaret (Wright). From the perspective of the house's single corner, the story chronicles Richard and his family as they endure the joys and hardships of their everyday lives. Undoubtedly, I've been a supporter of Robert Zemeckis for as long as I can remember. He was one of the pinnacles of the film industry that defined my childhood, ranging from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" to "The Polar Express". However, it's also hard to ignore that the once-acclaimed director has been on a troubling streak with his recent directorial efforts. Starting with 2016's "Allied", Zemeckis has released a few movies that struggle to capture the cinematic heydays of his classics and visual achievements. They're either seen as disappointments or unpleasant experiences that lack the humane touch of his vision. Even his recent take on the Disney version of "Pinocchio" failed to win over doubters who are still skeptical of Disney's live-action remakes. The last movie he did that was downright fantastic was "The Walk" in 2015, but after that, he just…fizzled out. Regardless, I still respect Zemeckis for his imagination and wonder in his storytelling, even if some of his works weren't as memorable as others. That's why I was interested in his take on Richard McGuire's groundbreaking experimental six-page comic strip, which initially seemed impossible to adapt. As mentioned earlier, the entire narrative in "Here" occurs in a single spot across multiple eras. There are no moments that cut away from that location to focus on a specific character, including Richard, except the ending. Everything that occurs in life is seen from that one spot only. So, in a way, it's equivalent to watching a theatre production, but without unintentionally ruining the actors' concentration with our coughing or cell phone usage. Those who have been watching theatre will certainly get that reference, but does this narrative tool also deliver another attention-grabbing depiction of life? Sort of, but not in the same vein as the filmmaker's other works. "Here" is an impressive feat in its experimental, stagey presentation, offering an intriguing experience that puts audiences front and center into the center of the characters and their actions. Sadly, that novelty wore off faster than anticipated when taking the execution of its screenplay and emotion into consideration. Zemeckis and Eric Roth have previously written the screenplay for "Forrest Gump", and considering how great that movie was, it showed some promise that they'd cook up something enthralling for "Here". Unfortunately, because of its unique format, they'd have to work around that challenging obstacle to properly display its thematic material involving life, hope, loss, and love. To give them credit, though, they offered a few moments in their script that could've made the movie a genuine tear-jerker, especially Richard's complex struggle to keep the family together. However, due to the limitations of its presentation, the film couldn't make those moments feel earned since we barely followed everyone outside of that spot. There were actually some heartfelt scenes that made me crack a smile, but everything else regarding the emotional core and character depth was pretty subpar. The movie also had times when it switches between different eras via a non-linear narrative, focusing on different sets of characters and their dilemmas. The plot's primary focus is Richard and his family, serving as the heart of its themes, but most times, it transitions from the past to the future throughout the film's runtime. While some sequences serve a purpose in the primary story, mainly ones involving Richard's parents, Al (Bettany) and Rose (Reilly), the rest were random fillers that didn't offer much compared to the Young family. If the graphic novel is like this as well, then I shouldn't complain too much since the movie honored that structure. But, for those who haven't heard of the graphic novel, including myself, the structure can leave some scratching their heads about why the other characters deserve our attention regarding their arcs. It also doesn't help that a few transitions were a bit inconsistent with the tonal shift, with one going from sadness to happy-go-lucky in an instant. However, amid those troubling issues I had with the story, I would still consider "Here" ambitious for its presentation. It's hard to ignore that Robert Zemeckis hasn't regained his storytelling groove yet regarding his screenplay. Still, he often compensates with his creative vision regarding the sense of humanity and awe in its frequently showy visual spectacle. He's been an innovator in visual effects for a reason. Even though his direction for its storytelling didn't reach similar heights as his earlier films, I would credit Zemeckis for faithfully adapting the structure of McGuire's source material. The cinematography by Don Burgess was sublime in capturing the film's stage-like background, and Jesse Goldsmith's editing was seamless for the transitions, especially the panel boxes reflecting a different era in the same location. As for the visual effects, there were a few instances where the CGI looked a tad distracting, but everything else, including the aging and de-aging effects, looked all right for a movie that costs $50 million. I would also credit Alan Silvestri, who previously worked with Zemeckis on "Forrest Gump", for delivering a harmonious and gentle score that matches the movie's humane side. The cast themselves were one of the reasons I tolerated the movie's flawed narrative, as the actors delivered as much humanity and heart as they could through their performances. Tom Hanks is another actor whose endearing performance can carry a film's emotional weight, whether the end result is good or not. I'm unsure if I could recall one bad performance Hanks had because I only see him as one hell of a talented actor. Unsurprisingly, Hanks's performance as Richard in "Here" is no different, as he delivered another heartwarming portrayal that's engaging enough to excuse the film's iffy pacing and narrative. Robin Wright was also outstanding as Margaret, a loving wife who strives to convince Richard to sell the house they grew up in. I would also credit Paul Bettany and Kelly Reilly for their suitable performances as Richard's parents. Overall, "Here" is an ambitious single-location journey through life's treasures whose intrigue and emotion are bogged down by its subpar, half-baked narrative. The thing about these types of movies is that I always enjoy seeing filmmakers try something experimental in their presentation and technical aspects. However, the impact it leaves always depends on the effectiveness of the storytelling and themes it represents with that cinematic ambition. For example, I loved "Piece by Piece" because it brought a refreshing approach to the documentary/biopic format through the art of Lego while delivering a thought-provoking and entertaining story of acceptance and staying true to one's own creativity. "Here" is nowhere near comparable to "Piece by Piece". But I will give the film this. Zemeckis's unique approach to the presentation was commendable in faithfully representing the graphic novel's appearance regarding the cinematography and editing. It's that the execution of its narrative couldn't find the proper amount of depth and development in its poignant themes and characters to coincide with that approach, resulting in a history that's not worth remembering. It's far from boring since the cast, technical aspects, and Alan Silvestri's musical score were engaging. However, regarding everything else, it seems Robert Zemeckis still hasn't regained his cinematic groove yet. If you like the actors involved and Zemeckis's other works, especially "Forrest Gump", this isn't an immediate must-see at the theater, but it is worth a watch for the presentation and cast alone. C-Hello, everyone. Welcome to another episode of moviemanMDG's "Movie Talk", where I talk about everything film-related. If you're like me, you usually want to watch movies related to a specific holiday every year. Sure, there are other options to choose from, but there's always something about watching these movies that gets us into the holiday spirit. Halloween is no exception, with a plethora of horror films and television shows being released around that time to satisfy our spine-chilling needs. Whether they're recent, old-school, or even ones that reside in the far reaches of our streaming services, horror movies are the pinnacle of All Hallow's traditions besides trick-or-treating and stuffing our mouths with cavity-inducing candy. Whenever October rolls around, I watch a horror film almost every night to get into the Halloween spirit. Sometimes, it's out of good fun, challenging myself not to be haunted by constant nightmares after watching them. But, at other times, I use the opportunity to check out specific films I haven't viewed before, including those that recently became talks of the town. This year is that time regarding the latter, as I'm about to embark on a new horrific journey this Halloween season. That's right, folks. For the first time in my life, I'm about to confront the deadliest clown in cinematic history! No, I'm not talking about the Joker. I already tackled that clown a few weeks ago. I'm talking about the new killer clown who shows no mercy in torturing people: The infamous Art the Clown! First introduced in the anthology horror film, "All Hallows' Eve", in 2013, Art the Clown is highly notorious for his demonic and merciless personality and extremely gruesome kills. Seriously, his kills are sadistic enough to make the "Saw" movies look teen-rated by comparison. At least, that's what I assumed based on the audience's reactions. Despite that, the psychotic serial killer's first appearance was popular enough to launch a spin-off franchise featuring the character called "Terrifier" in 2016. Helmed by Damien Leone, who directed "All Hallows' Eve", the first "Terrifier" movie entered the cinematic competition through his Indiegogo campaign, with David Howard Thornton taking over the role of Art instead of Mike Giannelli from "All Hallows' Eve", who retired before production began. Let's just say it had been getting a lot of talk for reasons we didn't expect. While "Terrifier" was received positively for its practical effects, its underdeveloped plot and characters amid the bloodshed didn't take the world by storm. Despite its mixed reception, "Terrifier" would later become a cult classic among horror fanatics for its intent to push the boundaries of the slasher-splatter elements, especially the gore. This resulted in the birth of a new horror franchise, with 2022's "Terrifier 2" defining Art as the new face of slasher cinema. Its recent installment, "Terrifier 3", has already been making waves at the box office, with a fourth film currently in development to close off the narrative arc introduced in the second film. If that's not terrifying enough, Art even made an appearance in the Peacock series "Bupkis" with Pete Davidson and a couple of "Call of Duty" games for good measure. So, with the release of the third movie, I finally decided to muster up the courage to check out the "Terrifier" movies to see if they're really as controversial and gleefully violent as people claim they are. In this special Halloween-themed episode of "Movie Talk", I'll be reviewing each installment of the "Terrifier" franchise, and yes, that includes the recently-released third installment. So, get your barf bags ready because it's about to get terrifying. Terrifier (2016)Let's get this gory party started with the movie that started the recent horror craze: The first "Terrifier" installment that premiered at the 2016 Telluride Horror Show Film Festival. Two years later, it was released in limited theaters by Dread Central and Epic Pictures Group, and the rest was history. The film, which was written and directed by Damien Leone, tells the horrifying tale of Tara Heyes (Jenna Kanell), a young woman who left a Halloween party with her friend, Dawn Emerson (Catherine Corcoran). The friends are confronted by an enigmatic killer with clown makeup known only as "Art the Clown" (David Howard Thornton), who relentlessly follows them. Along with Tara's sister, Victoria (Samantha Scaffidi), Tara and Dawn are caught in a deadly game with the killer mime, who seeks to have some gruesome fun with his targets. With all the talks going on about how violent and messed up "Terrifier" is, I can say that I was well prepared for what I was about to witness. Plenty of years of watching slasher films, ranging from "Scream" to "Halloween", has led me to this brutally insane experience, and guess what? It's just what I expected out of the genre. Regarding the genre elements, "Terrifier" was another enjoyable yet sadistic addition to the horror slasher lineup. However, when it comes to its storytelling, it's easy to see that this is the first film in the franchise. The plot is pretty straightforward: You have a group of characters stuck in an apartment building with a crazed clown-mime psychopath who kills them in gruesomely deranged ways until the final girl enters the battlefield. If you're expecting anything else from the storyline besides that, there's a good chance you'll be disappointed with the final result. With the film focusing more on the frights and gore than the character depth, I was left not giving a crap about the victims of Art's unhinged personality. They're basically one-dimensional characters who just wind up at the wrong place and time. However, if you don't actually mind about how the story turned out, you might find plenty of merits amid Art's killing spree. One of which is Damien Leone's direction. While his screenplay followed the traditional rules of the subgenre, I can't deny his attempt at recapturing the B-movie aesthetics of the slasher narrative. From the cinematography to the cheesiness of its dark comedy, Leone certainly understood the basics of the horror B-movie genre made popular in the 1980s, especially when he embraced and even improved most of those elements. Once that happens, it becomes a goofily entertaining thrill ride elevated by its tension and gory, conventional kills, primarily due to its impeccable practical effects. They didn't make me gag like everyone else who witnessed this bloody mayhem, but boy, are they disgusting to look at. I would also credit David Howard Thornton for his remarkable portrayal of Art, which effectively combines terror with dark comedy, especially when he's disguising his sadism with innocence. Jenna Kanell and Samantha Scaffidi also did pretty well as Tara and her sister, Victoria, with the latter playing a crucial role in future installments. Overall, "Terrifier" is an enjoyably brutal throwback to the 80s B-movie genre that's all gore and little substance. With this being the first film in the franchise, it's understandable that it's left with the slasher basics to form a narrative surrounding this ultra-violent concept. But, to the film's credit, it embraces the mindlessness and gratuitous mayhem that we usually see in other slasher films from past generations. As a result, it became a tolerable yet traditional experience that's best watched without eating a full-course meal. The addition of its terrific practical effects and splatter B-movie vibes also helped elevate the film's enjoyability, although I wouldn't recommend it to those who couldn't stomach gore and violence. Therefore, I would give this film a C+. Terrifier 2 (2022)All right! Now that I know what I'm up against with "Terrifier", it's time to take it a step further with the follow-up that fully exposed me to the franchise. Despite the six-year wait and the COVID-19 pandemic, "Terrifier 2" made its way to the big screen and shocked almost everyone. As the first installment to be distributed by Cinedigm (now known as Cineverse) and Bloody Disgusting, it was a massive improvement over its predecessor by a long shot. More impressively, it also made ten times as much money worldwide, with a budget of the same amount as an 80-inch television. This is primarily due to it being bigger and gorier than the first film, which resulted in numerous reports of audiences fainting or vomiting during screenings. Either they shouldn't have eaten beforehand, or their stomachs were actually that sensitive. Either way, it sounded like a challenge I didn't accept until recently. The story in "Terrifier 2" occurs a year after the events of its predecessor. Its main focus is Sienna Shaw (Lauren LaVera), a teenager who's left to care for her younger brother Jonathan (Elliott Fullam) and their mother Barbara (Sarah Voigt) following the death of their father. Unfortunately, the resurrection of Art the Clown (Thornton) and the appearance of an entity, The Little Pale Girl (Amelie McLain), puts a damper on their Halloween plans, as he now seeks to bring upon his bloody wrath on the other unsuspecting victims. However, Sienna learns she is destined to kill Art with a magic sword that can defeat him for good. In short, this film has a lot more crazy shit compared to its predecessor, especially ones that were supernatural. As I mentioned before, "Terrifier 2" was the first time I caught wind of the horror franchise entirely. Unfortunately, I neglected to watch it in the theater because I've heard horror stories about its content and surprisingly beefy runtime. Seriously, two hours and twenty minutes of gory chaos and splatter mayhem are what I would call insane, considering the reports I read about it, especially the infamous "Bedroom Scene". For those who watched it and survived, you know the one I'm talking about. So, I just left it alone until recently when I saw that the first two "Terrifier" movies became available on Prime Video for free. I survived its predecessor easily, so surely I would be able to stomach two-plus hours of Art mutilating people, right? Well, yeah. After watching "Terrifier 2", I can see why this sequel trounces the original. With the first movie being more of a simplistic approach to the slasher formula, "Terrifier 2" is an expansion of this bloody concept that goes all out on the elements that worked in the first film while improving upon its issues. The result is a fun and gloriously messy follow-up that offers more of what splatter horror audiences crave, for better or worse. However, I also find it a bit better than its predecessor for one reason: the narrative. "Terrifier" was a straightforward slasher movie that's more on showcasing torture porn for an hour and a half than providing a narrative worth caring about. Fortunately, Damien Leone used the sequel to correct that mistake by delivering a character-driven narrative involving Sienna Shaw amid Art's carnage. We see not only her and her family struggling over the loss of their father but also Sienna's discovery as the "chosen one" capable of ending Art's reign. Of course, we all know how that turned out based on the release of "Terrifier 3". While it's far from emotional and unique regarding its slasher elements and underdeveloped plot, "Terrifier 2" is the type of horror movie that actually gives me someone to root for. With its focus on making the characters tolerable, the film managed to provide the stakes and suspense that were quite convincing and surprisingly more thrilling. The first "Terrifier" film also had its share of suspense, but that can only take it so far when its characters are one-dimensional playthings for the creepy mime clown to kill. While I wouldn't say that the characters in "Terrifier 2" are lovable to a degree, they didn't make me want to cheer for their demise, especially Sienna, whose humane personality filled with terror and tenacity makes her another certified "final girl", but with a revealing yet badass valkyrie suit. Damien Leone fought long and hard to bring Sienna to life in "Terrifier 2" following its predecessor, and it shows. Additionally, she was brought to life by Lauren LaVera, whose performance skillfully embodied Sienna's traits with commendable sublime amid the film's grindhouse appearance. However, despite having a tolerably entertaining story, "Terrifier 2" showed that too much of a good thing is as unhealthy as consuming too much candy. One apparent reason was its runtime, clocking in at almost two hours and twenty minutes compared to the first film's 85 minutes. That's a massive difference between the two, although not in a good way. While I wasn't bored due to its serviceable pacing and characters, I can understand that it overstayed its welcome, especially with how much brutal carnage it delivered. Fortunately, it compensated with Damien Leone's direction and its impressive special effects. Like what he did with the predecessor, Damien Leone effectively utilized the film's splatter grindhouse appeal to provide old-school thrills and puke-inducing shivers, but not in a way that's overly cheap and ignorant. It's more of a tribute to the traditional slasher films of the 70s and 80s, especially their sequels that went for the supernatural route for their titular killers. They're dumb, but for horror sequels like "Terrifier 2", they're dumb in a fun way. Leone also did very well in maintaining the balance of horror and dark comedy, accompanied by another star-making performance by David Howard Thornton, whose portrayal of Art offered the proper amount of corniness and terror to the clown's sadistic nature. As for the practical effects, let's say they're definitely on another level of terror. Most horror sequels tend to get away with using CGI to up the ante for their violence and gore. Some of them worked, while others turned audiences off because of their lack of realism. Fortunately, "Terrifier 2" didn't resort to this shortcut. Instead, it continued to rely on practical effects to capture the raw and gruesome fatalities that would make "Mortal Kombat" look like "Street Fighter" in comparison. Yes, that includes the controversial "Bedroom Scene" involving Art murdering Sienna's friend Allie (Casey Hartnett) for three minutes. Geez, if that's how long it takes for someone to get murdered, I can't imagine the length of the next murder in the threequel. Did the kills make me puke? Nope. Not at all, although I did find myself squirming from time to time. But, I am glad they continue to use the practical effects to capture the splatter aesthetics of the 70s and 80s, especially for the brutalities and prosthetic makeup. Overall, I was surprised at how entertaining "Terrifier 2" was compared to its predecessor. Regarding its plot, characters, and entertainment value, there is undoubtedly a noticeable jump in quality between the two movies, even though it's far from the "Godfather" of slasher sequels. Additionally, it retains the usual elements that people loved about "Terrifier", including the sublime yet gross practical effects, Art's gruesome rampage, and the grindhouse aesthetics envisioned by Damien Leone. While I wouldn't recommend it to those who couldn't stand gore or are not fans of the first film, I would say that it's worth watching for horror enthusiasts. Heck, I would even recommend it to those who want to challenge themselves to watch it without puking, with or without food in their stomachs. My best advice is to eat light before watching it. Therefore, this sequel gets a B. Terrifier 3 (2024)With two "Terrifier" films over and done with, I'm officially caught up with Leone's slasher franchise. You know what that means? That's right. I was all set to tackle the recent installment that delivers anything but yuletide cheer: "Terrifier 3". Like the previous installments, I was hesitant to watch it at first, mainly because of the content, and I hadn't watched the first two films. But, now that I had seen them, I gained enough confidence to finally check the movie out in the theater before I waited another few months to watch it on demand. After all, it is part of my Halloween tradition of trying out different horror movies, especially those that occur during Christmas. Those are what I call "the best of both worlds" regarding celebrating both holidays at once. If "Silent Night, Deadly Night" and "Black Christmas" can deliver that tradition for both holidays, why can't this movie? The film, once again written and directed by Damien Leone, occurs five years after the events of "Terrifier 2". Sienna Shaw (LaVera) is recently released from the mental health center following her bloody encounter with Art the Clown (Thornton). Now struggling with survivor's guilt, Sienna is residing with her aunt Jess (Margaret Anne Florence), her uncle Greg (Bryce Johnson), and their daughter Gabbie (Antonella Rose), who idolizes Sienna, as they prepare for the Christmas season. However, their preparations are interrupted by the return of Art, who is now in cahoots with Victoria Heyes (Scaffidi), who's possessed by the Little Pale Girl from the second film. This forces Sienna to confront her haunted past by continuing her destined role in ending Art's reign of terror. "Terrifier" and "Terrifier 2" have a common element of paying tribute to the traditional slasher films of the 70s and 80s, especially sequels that take a supernatural route. Of course, I'm talking about franchises like "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th". "Terrifier 3" continues this tradition by reflecting on the holiday slasher narrative made famous by films like "Black Christmas". Tis the season to provide bloody mayhem, as they always say. While the first two films weren't spectacular, they're effective in delivering the essence of the particular era of the slasher subgenre while also being bloody good fun. So, it's no surprise that "Terrifier 3" was able to continue this streak. But the question is whether it's as good or better than the previous films. Well, it's undoubtedly another improvement over the first film, but better than the second? Not really, but it's still a satisfyingly gruesome experience altogether. Damien Leone remained on top of his game by correcting his mistakes from the first film and giving horror fans what they desired. That includes blood, gore, and many messed-up sequences that'll make you crack up. More importantly, he isn't afraid to have a little fun with the film's bizarre humor and concept, even if some are too far-fetched for their own good. However, the real icing on the Christmas cake was its character-driven narrative. "Terrifier 3" is a continuation of Sienna's arc that started with "Terrifier 2", in which she's traumatized by her confrontation with Art while learning more about her childhood past involving her father (Jason Patric). This direction gave Sienna some additional depth into her personality and "chosen destiny", further displaying her tolerability and the impressive talents of Lauren LaVera, who once again did a remarkable job with her performance. However, despite a decent storyline, its screenplay left the movie with plenty of more unanswered questions and some half-baked thematic material, especially its reflection on survivor's guilt and the ending. Fortunately, Leone continued to show his passion for splatter-slasher aesthetics through his direction. The horror elements were well-handled without its overuse of cheap jump scares, and the dark comedy that resides with the violence and gore was disgustingly delightful. But Leone deserves more credit for his approach to the movie's cinematography. For "Terrifier 3", Leone chose to shoot the film with Panavision anamorphic lenses to make it look like a vintage movie from John Carpenter. It continued the franchise's tradition of making the installments resemble a specific era of the slasher genre, but it also delivered an authentic grindhouse-like presentation that emphasized its unnerving and icky practical effects. In films of this nature, the technical aspects are essential in eliciting a profound sense of discomfort and terror. Leone also managed to fix the runtime, but not by much. The movie clocks in at two hours and five minutes compared to the second film's eye-popping two hours and 18 minutes. But even with its shorter length, it still overstayed its welcome based on its gruesome content despite the serviceable pacing. This installment also gave Victoria Heyes more screen time than its predecessors, but now she assumes the role as the franchise's secondary villain. This is an intriguing twist of the first film's final girl element that paid off pretty damn well. Part of that is due to Samantha Scaffidi, who returned for the third time as Victoria. Despite her minor appearances in the previous two films, Scaffidi was commendable for what she's given regarding Victoria's "final girl" personality. "Terrifier 3" had Scaffidi go full-on psycho in her expanded role as the possessed Victoria, and the result was a lot more entertaining than I expected. With her display of terror and unnerving creepiness, Scaffidi delivered a performance that quickly overshadowed her protagonist roles in the predecessors. Of course, I can't forget about David Howard Thornton, who still reigned supreme in capturing Art's unhinged and kooky personality. Regarding the film's kills, they benefited profoundly from its practical effects, emphasizing the gore and gross-out prosthetics that'll likely make people lose their Christmas dinner. However, in terms of how memorable they are, only two of them stood out for me. One is the opening sequence and the other? Well, let's say you might not look at a mall Santa the same way again after watching it. The rest of Art's kills may not pack the same controversial punch as the second film, but they retain the grossness and stomach-churning gore that people come to expect from the "Terrifier" movies. Overall, "Terrifier 3" decks the halls with plenty of dark humor and vintage violence to satisfy the franchise's fans and horror enthusiasts. While it doesn't reach similar heights as the second film, it's still an enjoyable yet grotesque experience that continues to correct the mistakes of the 2016 cult classic. The runtime can be a bit much for people with weak stomachs, and the screenplay didn't hit all of the proper notes in its formula and themes. However, regarding Leone's direction, compelling main lead, and fantastic practical effects, "Terrifier 3" was a decent time that got me in the mood for the holiday season. Therefore, I would give the film a B-. So, what are my overall thoughts on this terrifyingly gory slasher franchise? Well, I can say this: it has been one heck of a journey for me. I have spent my adult years watching multiple slasher films with similar concepts containing grotesque gore and over-the-top kills, but I neglected to watch "Terrifier" based on my research. Thankfully, I finally found the courage to join this terrifying club and watch the first three films back-to-back-to-back. Did I feel nauseous? Not as much as everybody else. Was it worth the experience? Yeah, it was. They're definitely not horror masterpieces in either shape or form, but I can understand why most horror fans enjoyed it more than I thought they would. The "Terrifier" movies didn't just recapture the glory days of B-movie horror from the 70s and 80s but also challenged some of the established genre boundaries through their kills and dark humor, mainly from the merciless Art the Clown. Yes, that includes the children in the third film because Art never thinks of the children. As a result, the silent supernatural mime resides with the likes of Jason and Freddy Kruger as one of the slasher genre's most memorable antagonists.
It's undeniably common that low-budget horror films spawn overreaching franchises consisting of far-fetched ideas and declining quality. However, regarding what Damien Leone accomplished in the narrative arc, the legacy and violence it left on people, and the Biblical imagery it referenced, "Terrifier" is certainly one of the slasher underdog stories that's terrifying for the right reasons. Because of this experience, I'm now curious about the direction they'll go for "Terrifier 4" based on the ending of the third film, especially since it's intended to be the conclusion to the arcs introduced in "Terrifier 2". Will Sienna finally be able to achieve peace? Will Art the Clown finally be damned to Hell? Will Damien Leone go any lower than chopping a kid to pieces? Those questions will be answered sooner or later. Until then, I would recommend the "Terrifier" movies to those who grew up with the slasher/grindhouse era…unless they have a weak stomach for gore. If so, they're better off watching something like "The Nightmare Before Christmas" as their Halloween tradition. With that said, thank you for reading this episode of "Movie Talk", and have a safe and happy Halloween. "Your Monster" stars Melissa Barrera, Tommy Dewey, Edmund Donovan, Kayla Foster, and Meghann Fahy. Released on October 25, 2024, the film has a young actress discovering a monster living in her closet. The film was written and directed by Caroline Lindy in her feature debut. It is based on Lindy's 2019 short film. Love can be complicated at times. It can lead you to a happier future with your partner or take you to a place known as "Heartbreak Hotel." In this situation, it might even guide you to someone who is hiding in your own home. Most of the time, I've been watching horror films that are more focused on scaring the crap out of its audience. So, this weekend, I decided to watch a horror film that's a little bit more humorous and even romantic. Well, it's more along the lines of those two elements than straight-up horror, but it's got a monster in it, so I guess it counts. But is it worth falling in love with this Halloween season? Let's find out. The story follows Laura Franco (Barrera), a young actress who's been down on her luck recently. She has been diagnosed with cancer and got dumped by her boyfriend/theater director Jacob (Donovan), resulting in her moving back into her apartment home. As she struggles to rebuild her life, Laura eventually comes across a mysterious figure living inside her closet. The figure is revealed to be a human-sized monster (Dewey) who appears terrifying and ill-mannered on the outside but is also genuinely empathetic. This discovery sparks an unexpected friendship between Laura and Monster, eventually turning into something more. This was another movie I didn't expect to watch until its trailer said otherwise. While it's more like a typical rom-com, a genre I don't usually get into, its twist involving a modern-day "Beauty and the Beast" enticed me to check it out amid the sea of horror. Don't get me wrong. I'm always in the mood for something terrifying, but sometimes, I like to mix it up with some laughs and heart to accompany the horror vibes. Another reason for my interest is Melissa Barrera, who's currently on her own path of "scream queen" fame after being unfairly fired from the upcoming "Scream" sequel for speaking her feelings. She started that path very well earlier this year with the entertaining "Abigail", and based on the reviews for "Your Monster", it seems like she's got another horror hit on her hands. But did I feel the same way after watching it? Yeah, I did. As mentioned earlier, "Your Monster" is best described as a modern-day "Beauty and the Beast" but without a magical curse that transforms people into singing and dancing objects. However, it's not precisely a beat-by-beat rehash of that classic love story. Instead, it used that inspiration to depict self-love with a monstrous and anti-romantic twist. We see Laura struggling to cope with her breakup and diagnosis, which interferes with her dream of starring in Jacob's production. With the appearance of Monster and her discovery of her ex-boyfriend's true self, she gradually learns where her heart lies while fulfilling her dream as an actress and expressing her genuine emotions. It shows that sometimes, it's okay to be honest with your feelings and even let your anger out when someone treats you poorly. While it may seem like another rom-com about regaining self-love and opening up, "Your Monster" is another example of a genre mashup done right. On the one hand, the film is a humorous and endearingly charismatic love story that has enough humanity and charm to overshadow most of its genre tropes. On the other hand, its approach to storytelling and twists somehow lacked enough bite in its horror elements to embrace its bizarre appeal further. Despite having a monster that looks more like a caveman than a creature, "Your Monster" is a down-to-earth anti-romance story that emphasizes more of its character-driven arcs than its pointless comical shenanigans. If that's your thing, then you might find plenty of things to enjoy in "Your Monster", including Caroline Lindy's direction and screenplay. Lindy is another filmmaker whose feature debut is the expanded version of their short film, which can be hit or miss depending on the extra material given. As someone who hasn't seen the short film, I thought Lindy did a good job balancing charismatic romance with dialogue-driven comedy. She may not add something unique to the presentation, but with the material given, Lindy properly provided some teeth in its monstrous concept and cast to deliver a refreshing outlook on its romantic tropes. Much of the charisma comes from the film's main leads, who delivered lots of fun, heart, and occasionally fierceness in their performances and chemistry. Melissa Barrera continues to showcase her irresistible talent regarding her diverting portrayal of Laura. She proves she can carry a tune in drama and comedy alongside her "scream queen" vibes, especially in the one scene involving Laura and Jacob. Let's just say that Barrera ate that scene up like you wouldn't believe. Not only that, but Barrera also showed that she can really sing her heart out. Believe it or not, "Your Monster" has some musical moments amid the genre mashup that allowed her singing talents to shine. With "In the Heights" and "Your Monster", I'm convinced that Barrera should star in more movie musicals alongside her horror projects. Tommy Dewey was also very endearing as the titular Monster, thanks to his combination of discourteous mannerisms and heartwarming likability. I'm also impressed with the practical makeup design created for Monster, even if he does look like the caveman from the Geico commercial. Additionally, I realized that Dewey was also in "Saturday Night" as Michael O'Donoghue as I was writing this review. That's an impressive turnaround for the actor I wasn't familiar with until now. Edmund Donovan was also suitable as Jacob, Laura's ex-boyfriend, who gradually showed his true colors as the film progressed. However, his performance got slightly over-the-top in the third act, resembling something from a cartoon involving short-tempered directors. I would also credit Meghann Fahy for her decent moments as Jackie Dennon, an actress who stole Laura's main lead in the production. It would be interesting to see if the "White Lotus" breakout star can keep that streak going with her two upcoming films next year: "The Unbreakable Boy" and "Drop". As for Lindy's screenplay, it certainly has its cheeky sense of humor and romance in the dialogue, even if the narrative may not be satisfactory with its emotional themes. I would also point out that the film's ending got me puzzled at first regarding its storytelling, but after thinking it over, it started to make sense to me. It wasn't what I thought it would be, but when it comes to its horror-comedy essence, it was pretty bold for the film to take that approach. Overall, "Your Monster" is an endearingly monstrous treat in the rom-com genre with enough bite to sing its way through some of its narrative shortcomings. Its screenplay may not offer much else to invoke more wildness in its themes, horror-comedy, and concept. However, as a down-to-earth romantic comedy that focuses more on drama than scares, it was a surprisingly pleasant and refreshing love story that was elevated by its talented actors. Of course, the two actors that stood out the most were Melissa Barrera and Tommy Dewey, who delivered a consistently entertaining chemistry that'll make audiences roar with delight. Caroline Lindy's directorial effort is far from extraordinary, but her direction for the genre mixture and humor makes this another decent recommendation to the genre's fans. B- |
Home of the most friendly movie reviews on the planet.
Categories
All
Follow Me |