Grotesquely Groovy

 Movies: Last Night in Soho

I'll just get right to it: Edgar Wright's Last Night in Soho is a disappointment. I went into this film with high hopes because from the trailer it looked bomb as hell: a modern-day fashion student, Eloise (Thomasin McKenzie), falls asleep and dreams that she's in swingin' 60s in London. She sees a beautiful young woman, Sandie (Anya Taylor-Joy), trying to make it as a singer in the clubs, only for it to all go horribly wrong. The student (maybe?) sees the woman's murder. But what can she do about it? Visions from the past aren't admissible evidence. But the more the student sees in her dreams, the more she becomes obsessed with the mysterious woman in her waking life.

Last Night in Soho borrows heavily, both in plot and in style, from a number of classic films--I saw bits of Repulsion, Vertigo, and Suspiria in there--but still manages to have a unique premise. I loved the concept of a young woman who has supernatural abilities (it's established early on that Eloise has visions and can see the spirit of her dead mother) and also just doesn't fit in with the modern world, follow the journey of a woman from the past in her dreams. 

Ellie's dreams of Sandie start out sexy, fun, and exciting: Sandie shows up at the popular Cafe de Paris and tells the manager, Jack (Matt Smith, excellent as a slick but dangerous man) that she wants to become a singer. Jack sees that she has natural talent and the two begin a relationship, only for Jack to start pimping her out to other men. At first, Sandie protests, but when Jack tells her that this is just how show business works and also threatens her if she tries to run away, Sandie acquiesces to Jack's demand, becoming a cynical shadow of her former bubbly self. 

At first, Ellie is inspired by Sandie and begins to design a dress she saw Sandie wear in a dream. She also changes her hair and clothing style to match that of Sandie's. It seems that the shy young woman is coming into her own. However, as the dreams turn sour, they also begin to haunt Ellie in her waking life. She goes on a quest to learn all she can about Sandie and what happened to her.

Between the solid acting, the bangin' soundtrack, and the visual flair, Last Night in Soho should have been a home run for Edgar Wright. And yet something about it just didn't work. It reminded me A LOT of Baby Driver, a movie which was designed to be cool but ended up being forgettable. Basically, the whole of both movies turn out to be less than the sum of their parts, if that makes any sense.

Ellie has a love interest, John (Michael Ajao), that really was not necessary to the plot (similar to the character of Debora in Baby Driver). There are also mean girl tormentors at Ellie's school that, again, serve no purpose to the story. 

The end of the film was a bit of a convoluted mess. The "twist" was decent (even though it was pretty obvious to me early on), but the final third of the movie felt rushed, chaotic, and confusing. I think Wright had a lot of ideas and wanted to cram them all in, and what he should have done was let the movie breathe a little bit and show rather than tell.

This is not to say that Last Night in Soho is bad, just that it didn't live up to my expectations. Other moviegoers may absolutely love it. I definitely loved parts of it, I just left the theatre deflated. Part of that is because Wright's Cornetto trilogy (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, The World's End) is SO fucking good that it's a bummer when his follow ups are merely ok. Here's hoping he finds his way back.

Grade: B-

Stuff I watched in...October 2021, part 2

Y: The Last Man

This show, based on the comic series by Brian K. Vaughn and Pia Guerra, was canceled after one measly season, much to my disappointment. While the show, which chronicles life after a virus kills off every mammal with a Y chromosome (save for two--a man, Yorick, and his pet monkey, Ampersand), was imperfect, I actually really, really enjoyed it.

I just think dystopias where the majority of people still around are ciswomen is an intriguing concept. Not because I am dumb enough to believe that a world without cisgender men would be a peaceful utopia (LOL), but because of all the little things you don't really think about when you think about a deadly event on this level. For example, the gender-segregation of jobs means that if all cisgender men died, there would be 80% fewer truck drivers, severely restricting supply lines of food and medicine. There would also be approximately 95% fewer pilots, meaning national and international travel would become quite limited. And that's just a taste. Never mind the fact that, oh, humanity would die off in a generation. I guess we do need da boyz after all! 

While one could make the case that a show where nearly all cisgender men die but we still follow the adventures of one (highly mediocre) man is ironic, we spend plenty of time with many interesting women (and one transman): new president Jennifer Brown (Diane Lane, just a fucking ass competent boss bitch), Jennifer's daughter Hero (Olivia Thirlby) and her friend/maybe more than a friend Sam (trans actor Elliot Fletcher), Agent 355 (Ashley Romans, another competent boss bitch), a secret service member tasked with getting Yorick--who is President Brown's son--to a genius geneticist, Dr. Alison Mann (Diana Bang), for testing to see how on earth he survived. And there are even more plot lines, including Hero and Sam's involvement with a group of women who call themselves Daughters of the Amazons, and a struggle for the presidency when it turns out that a right-wing nutcase in the style of Marjorie Taylor-Greene who was next in line for the presidency and was thought dead is actually alive. So, the show is about a lot more than just the titular "last man" (played by the goofy, yet charming Ben Schnetzer).

Sadly we never find out how Yorick survived because FX canceled the series! Maybe it will get picked up by another channel or streaming service. Maybe I'll just read the damn comic. But I definitely recommend this one. Despite its imperfections and the fact that it ends on an incomplete note, I enjoyed tuning in every week. The characters, good and bad, were fascinating and immensely enjoyable to watch as they navigated the brave, new, limited-dick world. 

Grade: A-

***

Lamb

Lamb is a beautifully filmed, dull as dishwater movie. The trailer for this Icelandic film, starring Noomi Rapace, gives away the plot twist, so I'm going to give it away here. So stop reading if you want to go in blind.

Married couple Maria (Rapace) and Ingvar (Hilmir Snaer Guonason) own a farm. When one of their sheep gives birth to a sheep/human hybrid baby, the couple take it and decide to raise it as their own child. Although never discussed, it is clear that the two lost a child and feel a deep need to raise one, even if it has, you know, a fucking sheep head.

All is going well until Ingvar's ne'er do well brother, Petur, shows up. Petur doesn't think raising a human/sheep kid (heh, get it...kid??) is not natural and begins to act slightly aggressively towards both the child and Maria.

I can't really say anything else, except the movie is slow and it does indeed answer the question of who fucked this sheep so that it got pregnant with a human/sheep hybrid?? The answer may surprise you! I would say the movie is worth watching if you like artsy-fartsy A24 movies, but I would not recommend paying the big bucks to see it in the theatre. 

Grade: B-

***

Dune

As someone whose genre most certainly isn't science-fiction, I really fucking enjoyed Dune! It helped to go in with a basic knowledge of the plot, and I will probably watch it again at home with the subtitles on since I missed some of the dialogue. But I'm really glad I saw it in the theatre since part of the fun of Dune is the majesty of the cinematography.

So basically, there's this planet, Arrakis. Arrakis is a desert planet with giant sandworms that eat people, so it's really hard to live there. However, a drug known as "spice" is harvested there, so Arrakis is a hot commodity. The imperial ruler of ...what, the universe? I don't know how all the politics work. Basically, the head honcho wants to start some shit, so he takes ownership of Arrakis away from House Harkonnen and gives it to House Atreides. Basically, whoever this "emperor" is sets up the patriarch of House Atreides, Leto (Oscar Isaacs) to fail since he knows that the Baron of House Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgard) is a petty, jealous bitch and is going to send his war machine to kill everyone in House Atreides and take back the planet. Oh, also there are PEOPLE indigenous to Arrakis who are understandably resentful towards all these colonizer assholes. 

Talk about assholes! 

BUT House Atreides has a card up its sleeve: young Paul Atreides (Timothee Chalamet) has inherited the gift of witchcraft from his mother, a Bene Gesserrit (matriarchal line of witches who can command people to do shit by using "The Voice"). Paul also...might be...maybe...the Messiah?? At least, the Arrakis believe he might be. So, some of them are inclined to like House Atreides since their son might be Jesus or something. 

Basically, the movie is Paul, his mother, Jessica, and many other people trying not to die on Planet Arrakis. They are attacked by assassins, nearly eaten by sandworms, betrayed, challenged to duels, the whole nine yards. And this is just part one! 

Dune is just a fucking great time at the movies. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It's worth seeing in the theatres and, hell, it's worth seeing in IMAX. 

Grade: A

***

Only Lovers Left Alive

Jim Jarmusch's tale of hipster vampires is a very calming, very slow, weirdly funny movie. It takes some patience, as most Jarmusch movies do, but the payoff is worth it. Tom Hiddleston plays Adam and Tilda Swinton plays Eve. They have been married for centuries, but Eve currently lives in Tangier and Adam lives in...Detroit. Adam is depressed. If you're a fan of all things vampires, you should know that being immortal is actually a fucking drag because it takes the meaning and joy out of life.

Eve can tell Adam is bummed, so she comes for a visit. The two drink blood and listen to music. But then Eve's messy bitch of a sister, Ava (Mia Wasikowska), shows up to ruin the party. Ava is the vampiric equivalent of an alcoholic: she drinks WAY too much blood, including "the good stuff" Adam hides from her. Hell, she even drinks Adam's familiar, Ian (Anton Yelchin, RIP). 

I. Want. That. Couch.

After kicking Ava out, Eve convinces her beloved to come back with her to Tangier, where he shows signs of giving a fuck again, after watching a woman sing in a bar. 

That's basically it. The film is short on plot and long on poetry. Hiddleston and Swinton give lived-in performances as people who after hundreds of years have so much wisdom and appreciation for art, books, and music...but still have to find reasons to get up in the...evening. I guess it just goes to show that eternal life is a little easier with your person by your side.

Excellent movie, highly recommended.

Grade: A-

***

Inside

This French extremism film is so over-the-top and batshit crazy that I was actually laughing at parts of it. 

MASSIVE TRIGGER WARNINGS: It's about a damn woman that wants to cut a damn baby out of another damn woman's goddamn womb! So, that eliminates about 99% of viewers right there. 

Inside is violent as everloving fuck. There are knitting-needle stabbings, brain-blasting shootings, and aerosol-fire face-burnings. If you are squeamish about violence, don't see this fucking movie! Also, there is fetus-endangerment and infant-stealing, so if you're a new mom, and an old mom, or a childfree person who is upset at the idea of someone stealing someone's baby, don't see this fucking movie!

But for the rest of you ghouls and filthy freaks...is the movie worth seeing? Well...I mean, it was ok. It's your typical home invader type movie, including such horror tropes as "victim doesn't just leave the house at the first sign of danger" and "victim is nearly rescued about 12 times, but the bad guy (in this case, a woman wearing a long skirt and corset [???]) kills absolutely everyone who tries to save the victim". So, despite the twist involving infant-stealing, it's still kind of a cliched horror film.

Seriously, the victim in this movie, 9 months pregnant and recently widowed Sarah (Alysson Paradis) makes the mother (HA) of all stupid errors when a mysterious woman (Beatrice Dalle) shows up at her door asking to be let in, and then nearly breaks through a window. Sarah, you dum-dum, GO TO YOUR MOM'S HOUSE!! But nooooo...Sarah calls the cops, who LEAVE THE DOOR STANDING WIDE OPEN as they talk to her (and yes, the woman who wants to steal Sarah's baby creeps in through the open door without anyone noticing), and when they don't find anyone outside, they leave and Sarah stays in the house. The fuck?! If I were 9 months pregnant and a woman tried to break my window, I'd go to my parents' house or a friends house or a hotel like a normal person!

But then we wouldn't have a movie, would we? Sarah awakens to the woman (not given a name) sticking a pair of giant scissors in her bellybutton (NOPE) and she fights off the woman and locks herself in the bathroom. The next hour is a fight for her life that ends with...her dying while the woman performs a C-section and steals her baby. So it's not even a happy ending. Oh, also, there's a scene where Sarah burns the woman's face really badly--to the point where her face is black. And the woman survives this?? What!?? 

So, Inside is just...it's a lot. It certainly lives up to the genre of "new French extremity" because it's pretty extreme. But the extremeness just took me right out of it. By the time the burned-face woman, who looked like a werewolf, was fighting off a cop that she had blinded, who looked like a zombie, I was laughing my ass off. 

I have no plans to watch this movie again. Not because I was offended or disgusted, but because it wasn't an intriguing horror film. I'll watch "torture porn", as evidenced by my willingness to watch all the Saw movies in one week, but they rarely make my rewatch list because so many of them are one-trick ponies. 

Grade: C+

Why Horror?

I used to think of myself as someone who once hated horror movies, but grew to love them. However, if I really take a close look at my life--including my childhood--I've always had a deep love of all things dark, disturbing, and creepy.

When I was a kid, I read scary stories voraciously. Yes, the classic Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz with those unforgettable illustrations by Stephen Gammell (important note: Gammell also illustrated other children's books of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, such as The Relatives Came by Cynthia Rylant and Song and Dance Man by Karen Ackerman. Elder millennials know his art well), but also In a Dark, Dark Room, also by Alvin Schwartz, the nonfiction books of Daniel Cohen, most notably his book about horror movies from the silent era until the 70's, and The Very Scary Almanac by Eric Elfman. Not to mention the insanely popular Goosebumps series. By 7th grade, I was reading Stephen King's very much not-for-children fare. 

I developed a fascination with Vlad the Impaler and Elizabeth Bathory when I was pretty young. Reading about historical torture devices interested me to a degree that probably freaked my parents out (did they even know?). In short, I was a morbid little turd. And I can assure you that none of these deviant interests turned me into a serial killer or someone with violent tendencies. Because being into scary, disturbing things doesn't make you violent, it makes you curious. And, if there is something I want more than anything in this life, it's to KNOW. 

The desire to know things...not just anything, but the stuff you're not supposed to know...goes hand in hand with my anxiety, which is as much a fixed facet of my personality as anything else. When I was a kid, I'd always ask my parents "what if" questions: "what if I wake up and there's a bug in my room?", "what if Sarah is mean to me again on the playground" (FUCKING Sarah), "what if you're not there?". I was so scared, so anxious--I just wanted answers. I just wanted to know what the plan was. 

That desire to have answers followed me into adulthood. I want to know what happens in managers meetings at work. I want to what people say about me when I'm not in the room. Hell, I even want to know what bullshit Trump is spewing in his ever more insane press releases now that he's cut off from Twitter. But, as you can imagine, I--and everyone else--shouldn't really know everything. Not if we want some amount of peace of mind. 

So, what does all of this have to do with horror movies? Horror movies scratch so many of the itches I naturally possess: the need for catharsis, the curiosity about terrible things, the desire for media that so consumes me in the moment that my anxious brain can have a rest. Yes, horror can be soothing for anxious minds. Sounds crazy right? Here's an easy to read article about the phenomena and here's a more academic one. Obviously, this doesn't hold true for everyone. Among my own circle of friends, I know people who have chronic anxiety who either hate or are neutral on horror films. Just as medication doesn't work for everyone and yoga doesn't work for everyone, horror films (and other forms of horror-tainment) won't be an effective coping strategy for everyone suffering from anxiety disorders. 

But for those it does help, there is a certain logic to it. Horror movies allow you to experience fear and anxiety in an objectively safe situation. Yes, you might feel unsafe, but in reality, you're just fine. Now, why would you willingly choose to feel fear and anxiety? Well, for one thing it's a form of exposure therapy. We tend to avoid so-called "negative" emotions and feelings, but as anyone who has studied mindfulness and/or Buddhism knows, it's important to "make friends" with those negative emotions (check out Tara Brach's life-changing book Radical Compassion for more about accepting difficult feelings). Watching scary movies lets us approach those intimidating feelings and practice living through them. 

Another reason is catharsis. What is catharsis? It is "the process of releasing, and thereby providing release from, strong or repressed emotions". What are some emotions we like to repress? Sadness. Anger. Fear. What kind of media do we often reach for during a difficult time, like a breakup or the death of a loved one? Tearjerkers. Alanis Morrisette's Jagged Little Pill. Things that help us cry and scream. Likewise, if you have a lot of anxiety and fear, reaching for media that encourages bringing those feelings to the forefront can have the same effect as watching a movie like Beaches or The Notebook when you need to cry. 

Finally, horror movies are just fucking good. Horror used to be a maligned genre, but thanks to Ari Aster, Jordan Peele, and other horrenaissance directors, scary movies are getting more respect than ever. But you don't need to watch snooty, artsy horror movies to get that buzz. Many people prefer classic slashers to the intensity of films like The Babadook or Midsommar, which are about the horrors of grief and isolation. 

Me? I tend to like the artsy ones. But they also have to be good and well-paced. Slow burns are ok, as long as they, in fact, burn. Nothing's worse than wanting to be scared and watching a slooooooow horror movie where nothing happens. 

With that in mind, here is a pretty comprehensive list of my favorite horror movies with a short description and, instead of a rating, I'll rank them from least intense to most intense, so horror novices who want to get into the genre can start at the with the easier films and work their way to the scarier ones.

Happy screaming!

***

Rosemary's Baby

The scariest thing about this 1968 film based on the novel by Ira Levin is that it's directed by a guy who went on to rape a child. You might have heard of him--Roman Polanski? I definitely wouldn't fault anyone for avoiding this tale of a woman who is tricked into bearing Satan's child due to who directed it, but if you're looking for a classic horror movie that has no gore, no jump scares, but a deep sense of paranoia and tension, this might be the one for you.

Get Out

Jordan Peele's social-horror film about the treachery of white liberalism is really more of a thriller with horror elements. And it is one of the best films of the 21st century. Even if you're the biggest scaredy-cat on the planet, you probably should still see Get Out since it is now part of our shared cultural conversation around race. 

The Invisible Man (2020)

Another thriller-with-horror-elements, Leigh Whannell's modern take on the H.G. Wells novel is about a woman on the run from her abusive--and very rich--boyfriend. When she is told that said boyfriend is now dead, Cecilia can finally be at peace...or can she? There are a few jump scares in this movie, and some violence, but nothing overly gory. 

The Invitation

Directed by Karyn Kusama (who also directed Jennifer's Body), The Invitation is all about the slow build up of tension during a party thrown by a married couple who invite the wife's ex-husband and his new girlfriend. At first, most of the tension revolves around the relatable awkward dynamics of being at a party with your ex. But when the conversation pivots to the couple sharing about a group they joined called "The Invitation", we have to wonder if something more devious is going on at this party. This is truly one of the most tense movies I've seen and you never know what's *really* going on until the very end. There is some violence, but nothing over-the-top. 

The Shining 

Now we're moving from kinda-horror to straight-up horror, although Stanley Kubrick's The Shining is still fairly safe for horror novices. If you don't live under a rock, you're probably at least somewhat familiar with this movie. Hell, The Simpsons did an entire parody of it. A family moves into an empty hotel in the mountains of Colorado to basically "hotel-sit" for the winter season. However, the dad gets cabin fever and goes bananas, trying to kill his wife and kid. There are some truly unsettling images (see below!) and run-of-the-mill violence, but I watched this movie alone in my unfinished basement when I was 12, so I'm sure you adult readers out there can handle it!

The Silence of the Lambs

The Silence of the Lambs is notable for being one of the very, very few horror-thrillers to ever win Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Although it has aged poorly in its discussion of transgender people (although to be fair, the movie explicitly states that Buffalo Bill is NOT trans), the movie holds up as one of the most chilling films of all time. There's a scene at the end where Jodie Foster must hunt down a bad guy in total darkness that is probably one of the best movie scenes, period, in cinema history. 

The Conjuring

While all the films above are relatively safe for horror novices, we are now moving into genuinely scary and/or gory/intense territory. The Conjuring is a haunted house movie based on supposedly true events (I have no opinion of whether or not the Warrens were scam artists). You have jump scares, ghostly figures, screaming kids--the whole shebang--in this movie. But it's a damn good movie, period. There are now a fuckton of movies set "within The Conjuring universe" but the only really good one is this OG movie about a family tormented by the spirit of a dead woman in their new home. 

Candyman (1992)

The 2021 sequel is really good, but the original Candyman sets the stage for one of the most romantic and tragic horror villains of all time. In present day, a grad student is researching urban myths and runs across the story of Candyman--a killer with a hook for a hand--based out of the Cabrini-Green projects in Chicago. She awakens his spirit...and his heart, as she reminds him of his lost love. Candyman has violence (including a dead dog), child endangerment, jump scares, a fuckton of bees, and a white savior narrative...so watch at your own risk! 

Insidious

Though merely PG-13, Insidious scared the fuck out of me, so I can only assume it will scare the fuck out of others. A married couple have two sons. When one son falls and hits his head, he falls into a coma--and weird things start happening around the couple's house. They are convinced the house it haunted, so they move...only for weird shit to start happening in the new house. It turns out that their son (still in a coma, although being kept on life support at home) is haunted. More specifically, he is somewhere on the astral plane, which allows creepy shit to come from another dimension into this dimension. Yeah, it's a weird premise...but there is some spooky shit in this movie that you will not be able to unsee, including one of the most intense jump scares of all time. Also, the idea that PEOPLE can be haunted freaks me out personally. 

Midsommar 

The infamous Midsommar is not super scary in the traditional sense--it's more disturbing and upsetting than anything else. A young woman loses her entire family in a horrible tragedy and her piece of shit boyfriend is no help. So when she takes a trip to Sweden with that boyfriend and his grad student friends, she is excited to potentially leave some of that grief behind. Too bad the commune they're visiting is a DEATH CULT! Midsommar has one (long) scene of horrifically gruesome violence and a LOT of heavy emotions. It's also really funny, beautifully shot, well-acted, and just an all-around excellent film. Some people even say it has a happy ending. I guess you'll have to watch it to see how you feel about the final shot of the film.

It Follows

The unique premise of this film is what makes it so scary: an entity, we don't know exactly what, can take the form of any human being. If you have sex with someone the entity is haunting, it will then begin following you at a slow, yet steady pace. You can run from it, but it will never stop following you until it kills you. The only way to get rid of it is to have sex with someone else--BUT, if they die, it reverts back to you. It Follows is not particularly gory, but it is unsettling to the max. The fact that the entity takes the form of a person who just walks at you means the viewer will be scanning the screen the whole time, wondering where the entity will be next. This is a great movie for people who like to be scared, but don't like a lot of violence.

The Ring 

Another PG-13 film that almost gave me a heart attack, The Ring is legitimately terrifying on every level. It has unsettling images, jump scares, creepy children, people walking/crawling funny, etc. I once watched this movie with my extended family and my uncle, usually a alpha male type, exclaimed at one point "this really is a nightmare!!". The Ring is one of the few movies that caused me to lose sleep for a while after I saw it the first time AND I make a point not to think about it too much to this day because it will keep me up at night. Even though probably many of us saw the film in middle or high school, I would only recommend it to people who WANT to be scared.

Hereditary

Take the emotional torture porn of Midsommar and combine it with the unsettling images of The Ring and you have Hereditary. Ari Aster's breakout film was marketed so shrewdly to hide a HUGE twist that is both emotionally horrifying and nausea-inducing. A family faces one of the worst things that could happen, which leads mom Annie to start attempting to communicate with the dead. Creepy shit goes down. *Put on Stefon voice* This movie has it all: the occult, ghosts, gruesome images, jump scares, creepy shit happening in the background, parents screaming at children...you name it! While not as polished (or as good, in my opinion) as Midsommar, Hereditary is freaky, hands down. You will be scared and you will be unsettled.

The Descent 

The Descent is probably the scariest movie I've seen because of one word: claustrophobia. A group of female spelunkers explores a cave, only for the entry to collapse, trapping them inside. It turns out that the leader of the group knew the cave was unmapped but thought it was a good idea to explore it anyway. As the group works to find a way out, they realize that they are not alone--some cave-dwelling humanoids are down in the dank depths with them. And they're hungry. The Descent works on two levels: one, being trapped in a cave is terrifying. Two, humanoid creatures are terrifying. But humanoid creatures stalking you while you're trapped in a cave is mind-blowingly scary. While not as violent as some of the movies on this list, The Descent is the stuff of nightmares.

Honorable mentions:

A list of scary movies that are also good, but didn't make it onto my list for various reasons:

Green Room

You're Next

The Poughkeepsie Tapes

Lake Mungo

Us

The VVitch

A Dark Song

Suspiria

The Cabin in the Woods

The Love Witch

The Lighthouse

Ready or Not

The Babadook

Bram Stoker's Dracula

...and so many more!

Stuff I watched in...October 2021, part 1

Midnight Mass

Mike Flanagan is quickly becoming a household name. The director of quality horror films, such as Hush and Gerald's Game, and the creator of the incredibly scary The Haunting of Hill House and The Haunting of Bly Manor, he is well-respected in the horror genre as someone who can fit both heavy emotions and legitimately pants-wetting terror into his work.

Midnight Mass is the latest of his "limited series" shows and, in some ways, is his most ambitious work yet. The show is a meditation on intense topics such as the after life, blind faith, redemption, and forgiveness. However, it suffers from one of Flanagan's signature quirks: LONG-ASS SPEECHES. In every episode of this show, multiple characters talk AT LENGTH about what happens after we die, the nature of God, etc etc. It really handicaps an otherwise very solid TV series.

Riley Flynn (Zach Gilford) is the prodigal son of Crockett Island, a small fishing town somewhere in the Northeast (although, puzzlingly, no one has a Mainer or similar accent). Riley spent four years in prison for killing a woman after driving drunk. His loving mother invites him back into his childhood bedroom so that he can get his feet under him. But his gruff father has a harder time forgiving him.

Meanwhile, the community eagerly awaits the return of Monsignor Pruitt--an elderly priest who has led their local church for decades--from a trip to Israel. Crockett Island is very Catholic, with the exception of Sheriff Hassan, a practicing Muslim, Sarah Gunning, the local doctor and a closeted lesbian, Joe Collie, the town drunk, and Riley, who looked for God in prison and never found him. These four people find themselves not treated cruelly (except for maybe Joe, who is a scapegoat), but constantly pressured to conform and come to church. 

Well, Pruitt doesn't return. A younger priest, Paul Hill (Hamish Linklater, in an electric role), comes to town and explains that Monsignor Pruitt is recovering on the mainland since he fell ill during the trip. Under Father Hill's care, the town begins to see literal miracles happening: poor eyesight is regained, bad backs no longer hurt, and most miraculously of all, a young woman confined to a wheelchair after a terrible accident gets up and walks. All the faithful of Crockett Island are rapturous and become more and more zealous, with their faith rising to a fever pitch on Easter. 

Meanwhile, Riley and the nonbelievers feel that something unexplainable, yet terrible and wrong, is happening. But how can they convince the believers to listen to them when the evidence of "miracles" is all around them? 

Midnight Mass is about the horrors of blind faith. It is critical--though not damning--of Christianity. I have the sense that Flanagan is a man of faith (religion and faith show up in many of his other works) and this is his passion project in criticizing other people of faith who take it too far. But the film still comes down on the side of "it is better to believe in something rather than nothing". At least that's the sense I was left with. Others may disagree. 

If you're wanting to be scared shitless, check out The Haunting of Hill House, which sets the gold standard for haunted house stories, in my opinion. But if you want a little horror mixed in with long conversations about what might happen after we die, whether AA (with its "higher power" talk) is really the best option for those in recovery, and how a parent can forgive a child who disappointed them, etc...Midnight Mass with probably be your bag. I thought it was good, but I think Flanagan needs an editor to help him refine and cut down his florid writing before he can achieve true greatness.

Grade: B 

***

Seance

Directed by Simon Barrett, a longtime collaborator of Adam Wingard, Seance is a mediocre, paint-by-numbers horror film set in a modern day boarding school. 

After a late-night prank leads to the death of student Kerrie, a spot opens up at the Edelvine Academy for Girls. Camille Meadows (Suki Waterhouse) is accepted into the school and immediately makes an enemy of a clique of popular girls. However, spooky happenings lead Camille and the popular girls to work together to try to contact the "Edelvine Ghost". 

One by one, the girls either go missing or are found dead under peculiar circumstances. Is there a vengeful ghost--or ghosts--haunting the school? Or something else? 

Honestly, there are so many lazy and dumb things about this movie. First of all, they don't even conduct a seance--the girls use a makeshift planchette using a phone case and a lipstick tube to talk to the ghost. So the title isn't even accurate! The film is also rife with boarding school cliches including:

• Actresses who look way older than the characters they're playing
• All the students are incredibly gorgeous
• A budding lesbian relationship
• A headmistress who is not only severe and strict, but has an English accent despite this school being located in the United States.
• No one ever goes to class and when they do, the classes are ballet and theatre tech (i.e not boring classes like math). Also, all the main characters are all in the same classes

Despite the pretty cinematography and beautiful musical score, Seance is a snoozer of a horror movie. Feel free to pass this one up. 

Grade: C

***

Ouija: Origin of Evil

This movie, directed by the famous Mike Flanagan (see Midnight Mass, above), is know for being a rare sequel (in this case, a prequel) to a movie that turns out to be better than the original film. While 2014's Ouija is currently sitting at a 6% on Rotten Tomatoes, Ouija: Origin of Evil is sitting at a plump 82%. 

Starring Elizabeth Reaser as Alice Zander, a young widow raising two daughters, Lina and Doris, in 1967, Ouija: Origin of Evil has an interesting premise: what if scam artists suddenly discovered their scams were real? Because Alice no longer has a husband, she has to find a way to make ends meet. She performs seances to give grieving loved ones peace of mind that their family members are comfortable in the afterlife. Alice recruits her daughters to help her with the "showmanship"--shaking tables, candles that seem to blow themselves out, and ghostly apparitions. 

But when Alice buys a ouija board to spice up her little shows, all hell literally breaks loose. It seems that youngest daughter Doris is able to communicate with the dead using the board. She is able to talk directly to her dead father. Alice sees this as a miracle where older sister Lina is skeptical...especially when the normally sweet Doris begins to act cruel and distant. 

Though the final third swings for the fences a little TOO hard, Ouija: Origin of Evil has an interesting plot, some genuinely good scares, and decent acting. This is not Flanagan's best work, but given that the man is a genuine talent, his direction takes what could have been a shitty sequel to a shitty movie and elevates it to a decent flick.

Grade: B

***

The Guilty (2021)

Do you like to see pretty men cry? Then this is the movie for you! A nearly word-for-word remake of the 2018 Danish film of the same name (which I reviewed in my "Movies I watched in September" entry), The Guilty stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Joe Baylor, a cop in the LAPD who is benched while awaiting trial for killing a 19 year old man. He is assigned to answer emergency calls, and when a woman named Emily (Riley Keogh) calls one night, Joe becomes increasingly invested in her situation. Emily is in a car with a man she is afraid of. She pretends she is talking to her child while Joe asks her "yes" and "no" questions to determine where the car is headed so that he can send help.

The film hinges on an absolutely devastating twist that, of course, had less impact given that I've seen the original. Still, seeing an actor I love go through a roller coaster of emotions was enjoyable, even though I knew where the film was headed. Because the Danish and American versions of this film are nearly identical, and also because I don't want to give away too much of the plot, there's not a whole lot I can say about this film. If you like thrillers that focus mostly on one actor and take place in one location (think Colin Farrell in Phone Booth, Tom Hardy in Locke, and Ryan Reynolds in Buried), you'll probably enjoy The Guilty. I suppose I slightly enjoyed the American remake a bit more than the Danish original because it stars one of my favorite actors (who can hit it out of the park with a sobbing/whimpering scene, for sure). But since the two films are so, so similar, I'm going to give them the same grade.

Grade: B

***

Dolls

Dolls is a horror film from 1987 about, well, dolls. I saw parts of it as a child and it scared the fuck out of me, so I recently rewatched it for funsies to see if it still holds up. The answer: um, actually yes. It's still pretty fucking creepy. However, the humor in the movie is horrendously dated (not in an offensive way, just in a cheesy way) and the acting is atrocious. So, if you're looking for a scary movie to make fun of, but that might still creep you out--Dolls might fill that need.

The film takes place in rural England. An American family--Dad David, Stepmom Rosemary, and daughter Judy--is on vacation in the English countryside when their car breaks down during a thunderstorm. They spy an big, old house nearby and seek shelter with an elderly couple, Gabriel and Hilary, who live there. Gabriel is a doll maker, and so the entire house is filled with the creepy little poppets. But young Judy isn't afraid of the dolls--including a "Punch" doll that Gabriel gives her to hang on to. 

Three other strangers arrive: nice guy Ralph (basically a poor man's John Candy), and two English tarts, Enid and Isabel, who are obnoxious and loud. The movie really makes clear who the good guys and bad guys are from the get-go. 

Throughout the night, the dolls come alive and...well, they don't murder the bad guys per se. It's a little different than that. You'll have to see the movie to get what I'm talking about. But they definitely commit acts of violence on everyone except Judy and Ralph. Even though the movie is super corny overall, the dolls are actually pretty scary. A child watching this would likely have nightmares for weeks. And adult might just shudder at the uncanny valley-ness of it all. 

So do I recommend Dolls? Meh. It's not great. But if you like cheesy 80s horror, or wish there were even more movies in the "Chucky" series, it might provide a night of entertainment. 

Grade: C+

***

Movies I watched in...September 2021

Malignant

The best way to watch James Wan's latest horror film, Malignant, is without knowing anything about it. You may spend the first half of the film thinking it's fairly mediocre, but just wait. So if you're interested in seeing it, stop reading right now and go watch it. Then come back and finish reading the review.

...

...

...

...

HAHAHAHAHAHA HOLY FUCK, WASN'T THAT SHIT INSANE??

So, Malignant rests on a bat-shit crazy twist that is hinted at, but only fully revealed in the final third of the movie. The first part of the film follows Madison Mitchell (Annabelle Wallis, a regular in James Wan's films), a pregnant woman married to an abusive man. When hubby goes too far and pushes Maddy into a wall one day, a mysterious black figure shows up later than night and makes quick work of hubs, breaking his neck. The cops have their eye on Maddy as a potential suspect, even though she seems timid and harmless. Things get even more complicated when Maddy begins to have visions of murders. Basically, she's in her own home, but she can see the murder take place in real time. 

It's important to note that Maddy was adopted at age 8. Before the adoption, she can't remember much of what her life was like. However, she would speak to someone named "Gabriel" who would tell her to do bad things. Her adoptive parents always assumed Gabriel was Maddy's invisible friend, and once Maddy's sister, Sydney, was born, Maddy stopped mentioning Gabriel.

Well, the twist is that Gabriel is/was Maddy's parasitic twin. You know how some people are born the like a lump on their neck and when it's removed, there are teeth in the lump? That's basically Gabriel, except WAY more developed, and also happens to have supernatural powers which he uses for evil. Maddy's mother gave her up to a hospital that observed Gabriel and Maddy, and eventually excised Gabriel from Maddy's body. However, since the two shared a brain, they could only "suppress" Gabriel...and when Maddy's husband banged her head against the wall, it awoke the dormant Gabriel. So all those murders were Gabriel's will, using Maddy's body. Gabriel put Maddy into a sleep-like state while murdering people, which is why Maddy could sort of see the murders, but thought she was at home.

Does any of this make any sense, medical or otherwise? Fuck no! Unlike The Human Centipede, this film is NOT medically accurate. But it is fun as hell, especially the final third. If Gabriel had been like, a ghost or demon or something, this movie would be getting a C/C+...but the twist is so bonkers, so hilariously wild, that it bumps it up a whole letter grade. Don't misunderstand: Malignant is not a "good" movie. But it's really, really fun. It recalls cheesy, gruesome movies of the 80s, like Basket Case and Dead Alive. Some critics have also said it's reminiscent of giallo films, but I'm not quite seeing the connection there. It definitely has a vintage feel, for sure. And the poster is great! 

Well, if you have read this far, you either already saw it, or I blew the twist. But here's the thing: I knew the twist going in and it was still fun as fuck! So if you're a horror fan at all, please watch this movie. 

Grade: B+

***

 The Card Counter

Directed by Paul Schrader (writer of Taxi Driver and director/writer of First Reformed), The Card Counter is a bleak meditation on whether or not one can be redeemed after one commits heinous crimes. Specifically, torture.

Oscar Isaacs, in a career-best performance, plays William, a man who spent 10 years in prison where he learned to count cards. He now spends his days pulling in modest winnings at casinos around the country. William is careful to never win so big that he draws attention to himself, and he is always on the move. He stays in cheap motels and he covers all the furniture in sheets. Why does he do this? Is he running from someone or something? 

The reason William was in the clink is because he was convicted of war crimes. He was an interrogator at Abu Ghraib (or a similar facility). We see flashbacks as William tries to sleep at night. These scenes, shot in a distorted fish-eye lens, are the most powerful scenes in the film, and indeed are among the most visceral scenes I have watched in a long time--and they're not even that explicit. Schrader is careful to capture the environment, filled with noise, naked men in stress positions, barking dogs, and feces covering the floors and walls without using violence as entertainment. This film's take on torture, specifically the torture administered by American soldiers on Muslim men in the post-9/11 world, is unflinching and unsparing in its condemnation. William tells a young man, Cirk (Tye Sheridan), whose father was also an interrogator, that even though he is bitter that his superiors were never punished he is not justifying what was done. The camera pushes in on Isaacs deep-set, tired eyes as he says, "Nothing will ever justify what we did." 

William is a man with very little reason to live or to forgive himself. He makes a connection with a woman named La Linda (Tiffany Haddish), who runs a "stable" of gamblers who have outside financial backing. Around the same time, William meets Cirk--a young, troubled man who blames Major John Gordo (Willem Dafoe) for his father's suicide. Gordo is essentially a stand-in for the real life John Bolton--basically one of the bigwigs in charge of "advanced interrogation techniques" for the US military. Cirk's father never forgave himself for what he did during the war and became and alcoholic who abused his wife and young Cirk before taking his own life. Cirk's plan is to capture Gordon, torture him, and kill him. 

William believes that if he can win enough money--using La Linda's backers--to help Cirk pay off his debts, that he can convince Cirk not to go through with this plan. If he can only give Cirk the hope that he himself never had, maybe he can save Cirk from his own hatred and anger. But is William being played for a fool?

I have a few criticisms of this film. Namely, a good amount of the dialogue is clunky and unnatural. I hate to say it, but Tiffany Haddish and Tye Sheridan don't seem to be strong dramatic actors (Haddish is, of course, a gifted comedian). The way they delivered their lines felt like they had simply memorized them and then said them back, with no cadence or anything to help make their delivery feel lifelike. And when compared to Isaacs, who is an incredibly gifted dramatic actor...well, it felt awkward.

However, the overall messages of the film, which are 1) that America sold its soul during the Iraq war and cannot be forgiven, and 2) some individuals who seek redemption may never find it, are so powerful that I can overlook some of the clunkiness. And, again, the scenes in the Abu Ghraib prison are perfection at capturing the literal hell that both the prisoners and their tormentors found themselves in. I recently watched all the Saw movies and as I watched these prison scenes I thought "America basically created its own Saw in these prisons, only worse because at least in Saw you could hope to win the game." 

Bleak, unrelenting, and deeply emotional, I recommend The Card Counter.

Grade: B

***

The Guilty

I watched this 2018 Danish film in preparation for the 2021 remake starring Jake Gyllenhaal. Jakob Cedergren stars in a nearly one-man movie as Asger Holm, a police officer awaiting trial for killing a 19-year-old. He is taken off his usual beat and assigned to work an emergency hotline. One evening, he receives a call from a woman named Iben (voiced by Jessica Dinnage) who at first talks to Asger as if she's talking to her child. Asger figures out that Iben is in a car with a man she does not feel safe with, and the two devise a code so Iben can give Asger clues as to where the car is going. 

To say much more would spoil the plot, which slowly reveals additional details (I'll give you one detail: the man she's in the car with is her ex-husband) and the tension ramps up and up, as Asger becomes fully invested in the woman's situation. 

It will be interesting to see how the American remake takes on the issue of police brutality. One could possibly see this film (and maybe it's remake? I haven't watched it yet) as "copaganda" since a supposedly bad cop does a good thing for the woman on the phone...but the film ends on such an ambiguous note that I don't really think it's trying to be like the movie Crash (where the bad guys are good and the good guys are bad and moral lessons are spoon-fed to us!). 

Overall, it's pretty good. Not great, but good, Jakob Cedergren "gives good face" in this movie, which is important since 90% of the movie is just...his face. In one INCREDIBLY tense scene, his eyes well up just a tiny bit, and damn if that's not some good acting. Check it out!

Grade: B

Singin' in the Pain

Movies: Annette

So, I was going to include Leos Carax's rock opera, Annette, in with my "Movies I watched in September" blog post, but I realized that this film deserves its own entry.

I watched Annette two days ago and I can't stop thinking about it. I've gone back and rewatched a few scenes, as well as downloaded the soundtrack. It's a film that is mesmerizing and strange, at times cringey and at other times absolutely gut-wrenching.

The film, as well as the music, was written by Ron and Russell Mael, who are also known as the musical duo Sparks. Sparks is having a hell of a year--in addition to releasing Annette in 2021, they were also the subject of a documentary by filmmaker Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Baby Driver). Indeed, the soundtrack to Annette is one of its strongest features.

Another strong feature of the film is the acting. Adam Driver who just cannot stop being so fucking talented plays Henry McHenry, a comedian who falls in love with Ann Defransnoux (Marion Cotillard), an opera singer. Rounding out the cast is Simon Helberg (best know for his role as Howard Wolowitz in The Big Bang Theory) who plays a character named only "The Accompanist", who is a musical accompanist for Ann and is also in love with her. 

Ann and Henry's relationship is an opposite-attracts one, which they sing about in "We Love Each Other So Much", which is both my favorite song in the movie and also my favorite sequence in the film. For those of you who pay attention to movie news and/or are Adam Driver stans, like myself, this is the part of the movie where Driver sings while performing cunnilingus. Well, I mean, technically he lifts his head to sing a line...he doesn't actually sing into Marion Cotillard's pussy. 

The problem is...Henry isn't a nice guy. He is aggressive, volatile, an alcoholic, and physically dominating. There's a scene immediately after the infamous cunt-singing scene where Henry holds Ann down and aggressively tickles her. Even though the implication is that it's consensual, it's an interesting contrast to the previous scene because it shows how easily such fun and games could slip into non-consent given Henry's size and unstable personality. 

We don't see just how volatile Henry is until later, after the couple has a child, Annette (played by a marionette, which only adds to the dreamlike and bizarre quality of the film) and Ann gains international fame while Henry's career starts to fizzle out. He becomes resentful for having to "babysit" Annette (YOU'RE THE DAD, MY DUDE) while Ann travels the world, singing to an adoring audience. Henry hits the bottle more and more often, and eventually has a breakdown during one of his performances where he claims he killed his wife by "tickling her to death", and then pantomimes this event. It's a hell of scene for Driver and, I can't believe I'm saying this, but it's almost Shakespearean--just this intense, bizarre, funny-but-not-funny monologue that has the audience booing him off the stage by the end of it. I love it when an actor is willing to just be a combination of nuts and vulnerable. Sorry, I'm trying to not let my horniness for Driver effect this review, but uh, it's my blog and I'm going to be horny if I want to be.

Well, he doesn't actually kill Ann by tickling her to death....but, uh....spoilers spoilers spoilers...

...

...

...

SPOILER SECTION

The couple take a trip on their yacht to heal their relationship, but during a storm, Henry forces Ann to dance with him while he is blind drunk. She falls overboard and dies. After her death, Henry discovers that baby Annette can sing in Ann's voice. Knowing that his career is over, Henry immediately ropes the Accompanist into his scheme to exploit baby Annette's talent for commercial gain. The Accompanist makes a great contrast to Henry: he is short where Henry is tall, patient where Henry is impatient, and gentle where Henry is rough. I'm really happy to see Helberg getting interesting roles, post-TBBT because he is one hell of a talented dude, both in terms of acting and singing. His character, the Accompanist, was in love with Ann and also suspects that he might be the actual father of Annette, so even though he finds Henry loathsome, he is willing to become involved for Annette's sake.

Well, it's only a matter of time before Henry on-purpose drowns the Accompanist, an act which Annette reveals to the entire world during a performance. The final scene is Henry in prison and Annette--no longer played by a puppet, but a little girl--telling him that he can't love her, "not really". It's a devastating ending which nearly had me in tears. 

END SPOILERS

...

...

...

You might be wondering why the hell you'd want to watch a movie about a shitty, resentful dude who throws away all the gifts he was given in life and then refuses to take responsibility for his actions. But remember that this is a rock opera, and operas are meant to be over-the-top and, often, incredibly tragic. If Annette were an indie drama, it would indeed probably be a pretty annoying film. But the medium allows it to turn the emotions up to 11, embrace concepts like star-crossed lovers, and pile tragedy upon tragedy--it's an opera for God's sake! You want your operas to feel like TOO MUCH.

Annette is the kind of movie where you'll read about it and either think "yeah, no fucking way I'm watching that" or "hell yes, this is right up my alley". From reviews I've read, people either think it's the most ridiculous, embarrassing movie of the year or the best movie of the year. I'm not quite willing to label it "best of the year", but I will say that it really hit me hard and I think I will be thinking about it and listening to the music for quite a while. So if you're on the fence, I'd highly recommend checking it out--and be prepared to have some strong opinions about it!

Grade: A- 

At the very least, watch the opening sequence, which slaps:

Sweets to the Sweet

 Movies: Candyman (1992) and Candyman (2021)

I am the writing on the wall. The sweet smell of blood. Be my victim.

***

Ok, so I watched Bernard Rose's 1992 Candyman sometime in 2020 or 2019, but I can't for the life of me find a review of it on this blog. Which is odd because it made a huge impact on me. So I apologize if I did review it and it's buried somewhere.

In any case, I figured this would be a great opportunity to do a double-review with Nia DaCosta's 2021 Candyman, which is being referred to as a "spiritual sequel" even though it's...a straight up sequel. I had been waiting over a year to see DaCosta's Candyman and I was not disappointed! It is not a flawless film, and neither is Rose's. When I compare the two side by side, each one has unique strengths and weaknesses. But they are undoubtedly both excellent, powerful horror films with one hell of a villain.

Rose's 1992 film is based on a short story by Clive Barker titled "The Forbidden". But what's truly fascinating is how Rose uses Barker's story, but also some real-life shit that went down in the Cabrini-Green projects in Chicago in 1987, as inspiration. Specifically, an incident where a woman, Ruthie Mae McCoy, was murdered by a man who literally came through her bathroom mirror. Read the story here. Ruthie's story is explicitly referenced in the 1992 Candyman and one of the characters, Anne-Marie McCoy (played by Vanessa A. Williams, who also has a role in the 2021 film playing the same character) is named after the real-life murder victim. The fact that Candyman weaves this true story into the overarching fictional plot is brilliant, given that the film is about an urban legend, and urban legends are often a blend of fiction and facts. 

Virginia Madsen plays Helen Lyle, a graduate student working on her thesis with fellow student and friend Bernadette (Kasi Lemmons, who went on to direct films herself). The thesis is on urban legends and so, living in Chicago, Helen naturally learns of Candyman, a story originating from the Cabrini-Green projects. The story of Candyman is that he was the son of a former slave who was a well-educated and talented artist. He ended up falling in love with the daughter of a wealthy white man after being commissioned to paint her portrait. After discovering that his daughter was pregnant, the wealthy man had a mob brutalize Candyman (real name: Daniel Robitaille) by sawing his right hand off, sticking a hook into the stump, slathering him with honey, and letting thousands of bees sting him to death. This torture and murder took place the area that would become Cabrini-Green. 

Helen's search for the truth of Candyman shows how urban legends spread: she talks to a single mom who lives in the Cabrini-Green projects, Anne-Marie McCoy, who tells her about how Candyman came through her neighbor Ruthie Jean's bathroom mirror and sliced her to death. Later, a young boy, Jake, shows Helen a public restroom and says that he heard that Candyman lives there...and Helen has a run in with some gang members who tell her she "found Candyman" while they beat the crap out of her. Not to mention the fact that she actually, you know, summons Candyman for real. The mixture of rumor, ghost story, and the simple horrors of poverty and violence blend into a sad, beautiful, and violent story about race, class, and how people mentally process the unfairness and brutality of life.

My main issue with the 1992 Candyman is that it tells a story of Black pain through the eyes of a white woman. It's not so much that the film is racist, it's just that by focusing on Helen Lyle, the film relegates Black suffering to the background. There are many wonderful, interesting characters of color in this film: the vulnerable, protective Anne-Marie McCoy, the skeptical, level-headed Bernadette, and the man himself--Candyman, played by the elegant and very sexy Tony Todd--but they are all just supporting characters in Helen's story. 

However, if we're willing to accept that Candyman is what it is: a product of its times, and a product of a white-centered society, it is a truly unique, even beautiful story. I keep saying "beautiful" because the story of Candyman is a story of forbidden love which transforms into a story of brutality and revenge. There's something unique about Candyman himself. He is indeed a villain, and he murders without hesitation, but he's closer to a Hannibal Lecter than a Freddy or Jason: Candyman is elegant, intelligent, driven by a desire to reclaim the love he lost and take revenge on those who do not fear him enough to leave well enough along and avoid saying his name five times into a mirror. He's not a mindless psychopath, but a poet, an artist. He's also very clearly a Clive Barker creation in the way he mixes pain and pleasure, beckoning Helen to "be my victim" and promising her "the pain will be exquisite" There is indeed a touch of the ol' sadomasochism in the heart of this bee-ridden ghost. 

Bee my victim.

Now, Nia DaCosta's Candyman takes the legend and expands on it. In this story, there are Candymen, if you will: men who have suffered at the hands of white people over the decades. The film opens in Cabrini-Green in 1977. Young William is doing his laundry when an older gentleman, with a hook for a hand, steps through a hole in the wall and offers William a piece of candy. William screams, alerting police officers who beat the man to death. This man is Sherman Fields, a harmless old man who is disabled and mentally not all there, but is beaten to death all the same. 

Cut to present day. Anthony McCoy (Yahya Mateen-Abdul II) is a visual artist living in a gentrified area of Chicago. In his quest for artistic inspiration, he comes upon the story of Candyman. Not unlike Helen Lyle, Anthony learns about Candyman by wandering through Cabrini-Green taking photos. William Burke (Colman Domingo), the owner of a laundromat and, yes, the same William whose scream inadvertently led to Sherman Fields' death, tells Anthony what he knows of Candyman--and Anthony is inspired to create a piece of artwork that involves a mirror. The piece is titled "say his name" (which is a not so subtle, but still powerful, reference to the victims of police brutality) and Anthony's girlfriend, Brianna (Teyonah Parris), displays it in an art gallery she runs. Of course, later that night, the gallery owner and the piece of tail he happens to be fucking that evening summon Candyman in Anthony's mirror and are found brutally murdered in a puddle of blood the next morning. 

In DaCosta's Candyman, the murderous ghost is mostly played by Michael Hargrove (who also plays Sherman Fields), until the very end when we see a glimpse of Tony Todd behind a face-full of bees (the crowd in the theatre cheered at this). This is fitting, as William Burke explains to Anthony, "Candyman ain't a "he"; Candyman's the whole damn hive". DaCosta makes what was subtle in the 1992 film much more explicit in this film: the lore around Candyman isn't so much about one scary ghost...it's about how people process the unthinkable. Burke reveals to Anthony a whole history, starting with Daniel Robitaille in the 1890s, of white people brutalizing and murdering Black people on Black people's own turf (i.e. Cabrini-Green). From the mob that slathered Robitaille in honey to the cops who beat Fields to death, Candyman is not a singular entity, but a symbol of Black suffering transformed into Black vengeance.

Indeed, this Candyman (with one exception) only kills white people. The movie aficionado Facebook group I'm in had some questions about this; namely: does DaCosta stick to the lore created in the Rose version? Well...sort of! Candyman's MAIN motivation for killing is two-fold: to punish those who summon him for not "being content with the stories". Basically, if they believed strongly enough, they wouldn't summon him. In doing so, they prove their disbelief and must be punished. Secondly, Candyman kills so that his story lives on. Each kill means more rumors and more fear. And Candyman's greatest desire is to be remembered. His final line in the 2021 film is "Tell everyone." So, in the original, Helen Lyle summons him, but he doesn't kill her right away--instead, he wants her to sacrifice herself to him so they can be together in eternity (Helen apparently reminds Candyman of his lost love, the white woman he was murdered over). There is a touch of Bram Stoker's Dracula here with the whole "I have crossed oceans of time to find you" thing, which makes sense, given that Candyman is supposed to be a Black Dracula of sorts: he is debonair, handsome, and has the ability to hypnotize his victims, making them desire their own demise. 

Likewise, in the 2021 version, Anthony summons Candyman and isn't killed immediately, unlike the gallery owner and, hilariously, a bunch of white teen girls who summon him in a high school bathroom. Instead, Candyman begins inhabiting Anthony, leading to a scene of pretty intense grossness--stay away from this film if you suffer from trypophobia. While Candyman wanted Helen as an eternal lover, he wants to possess and embody Anthony,

Detail-oriented readers might also notice that Anthony's last name is McCoy. And in the 1992 version, single mom Anne-Marie McCoy nearly lost her baby boy when Candyman (or Helen, depending on your interpretation), stole him and put him in a bonfire to be burned to death, only to be saved by Helen, who dies in the process of saving the baby. 

So, anyone familiar with the first film will quickly figure out that grown man Anthony McCoy was that little baby. And Candyman's possession of him is a way for the ghost to reclaim what is his. In doing so, Anthony is added to the lineage of Black men who embody Candyman...and the legend continues. 

My biggest criticism with DaCosta's Candyman is that there are just too many ideas crammed into a 90 minute film. There is an entire subplot about Brianna's father, an artist who took his own life, that is brought up multiple times but goes nowhere. There is also a lot left unsaid about gentrification, art, police brutality, and more. I would be very interested to see a director's cut of this movie, if one exists. The film's insides are bigger than its outsides, if that makes sense.

The 1992 film and the 2021 film make great companion pieces, not unlike Magic Mike and Magic Mike XXL. They both have their strengths and weakness, and they both add to the lore of Candyman. I highly recommend both films.

Grades:

Candyman 1992: A

Candyman 2021: B+