Barbarian (2022)

Directed By: Zach Cregger

Starring: Georgina Campbell, Bill Skarsgård, and Justin Long

Genre: Horror / Thriller

Rated: R

In town for a job interview, Tess pulls up to the Airbnb she rented only to discover it has been double booked with a man named Keith. As it is late at night and storming outside he invites her in to investigate the problem further. With no luck reaching the rental agency and no hotels available in the area, Tess reluctantly accepts Keith’s offer to stay the night. Within the next twenty four hours, Tess will discover the true horrors lurking behind the walls of this seemingly innocuous house and it will take everything she has to survive.

Upon first seeing the trailer for this film, it appears to be a straight forward horror take on the typical “Oops, two people are double booked in the same cottage” romantic comedy trope. While this is definitely where the film starts, there is so much more going on and the viewer is never quite sure where the film is going to go next. There is a lot of subverting expectations – you know Tess is walking into a dangerous situation, you just don’t know what. Is Keith really a serial killer? Have they both been lured there for a purpose? Are they alone in the house? Every time you think you have the answer, the story diverts in a new direction.

One major area where these expectations are subverted is with the casting of the movie’s two main male characters, Keith and AJ. Bill Skarsgård, who has the tendency to play darker characters, plays Keith – the character you expect to have nefarious intentions. Justin Long typically acts in goofy comedies or as well-intentioned characters that land in bad situations when it comes to horror. Here he portrays AJ, an entitled douche bag actor under investigation for the sexual assault of his costar. Did he do it? Will his role in the terrible events that unfold prove him to be a good person or is there truly a dark side to him?

The small cast does well in carrying the storyline along. Tess, Keith and AJ are the central characters in a bizarre labyrinth of a plot. Tess is an interesting lead with ambition who tries to make the best decisions given her odd circumstances. She has a caring nature that sometimes acts before her intellect though, and that can lead her into some scary situations. Despite the occasional poor decision, her character is still one worth rooting for and she is pivotal in holding the story together. Georgina Campbell’s performance makes Tess a likable and compelling character – you genuinely want her to have a good life, get the job she’s excited about and find a healthy relationship with someone.

The chemistry between Campbell and Skarsgård make it seem like the latter might be a possibility, assuming Keith’s not secretly a murderer and/or they both make it out of the house alive. Despite the awkwardness of the situation, the two stay up late into the night talking and over tea and wine. 

That Chemistry Though

There is even a cute scene where they are making the bed together and he shows her his trick for putting on a duvet cover. 

(My husband (teasingly): “You find that cute?” 

Me: “Yeah, so?” 

Husband: “Pfft, I was won over by him making tea.” 

Me: “And that’s how you end up drugged and chained up in some serial killer’s basement.”)

Skarsgård’s Keith is both charismatic and suspect. He seems like a nice enough guy on the surface, offering tea and wine, being completely understanding at Tess’s apprehension of taking a beverage offered by a strange man, making her comfortable enough to relax and talk with him, and giving her the bedroom because it has a locking door. Still, he seems like he has a darker undercurrent to him – it’s something the viewer can’t quite put their finger on, but it’s there just enough to keep the audience from trusting him completely.

Justin Long seems to be having a blast with the extreme douche that is AJ. At times the character is over-the-top and comical with how ignorant his selfishness renders him. He’s whiney and unable to take accountability for anything, blaming everyone else when things go wrong while using others to meet his own needs. As mentioned above, the horrific events he experiences provide a possible path to being a better person should he choose to learn from them, but will he? Are these simply characteristics of a spoiled man-child or something worse?

The two male leads are only one tool of subverting expectations. Another is the contrast between Tess’s initial reaction to the neighborhood homeless man (fear, suspicion of mental illness) trying to help her versus her trust in the local police who turn out to be worse than useless. The house itself is so much more than a cute little one bedroom in a rough neighborhood, though that in and of itself is unexpected given the surroundings. Also the flashback scenes that provide the history of the property’s previous owner who showed the world one persona while harboring another.

The film also tries its hand at social commentary and is moderately successful. There is the question of “who is the real Barbarian?” that seems to be silently raised multiple times throughout the movie. There is blatant acknowledgement of violence against women being a major problem – this is a discussion between Keith and Tess where she tells him if their roles were reversed in their current scenario, she would not have let him in; Keith’s understanding of Tess being wary of any open beverage he offers her; AJ being accused of sexual assault and subsequent consequences he faces in reference to the “Me Too” movement. There are also allusions to racism, exemplified in the flashback scenes where middle aged white dudes grumble to each other about “the neighborhood falling apart” with black people and other people of color moving in. It is also shown, to a lesser extent, in the way Tess, a black woman, is treated by the police when she attempts to get their help – though this could be based on a accumulation of factors including gender, race, classism (she was running out of a rundown and impoverished neighborhood) and possible ableism (the likely assumption that she is mentally ill).

As for the horror elements themselves, there is plenty of tension throughout as the viewer never knows what to expect. There are a few decent jump scares and the atmosphere, especially in the hidden tunnels beneath the house, is fairly claustrophobic and creepy. The deaths are few as are the supporting characters, however that does not detract from their brutality. The special effects as far as gore and prosthetics/make up are well done.

The only aspects of the film that negatively impacted it for me were the dropped plot threads, foolish decisions from otherwise smart characters, and some jumpy editing. There were things I would have liked more follow up on such as Keith’s night terrors, the reason Tess took a picture of Keith’s drivers license (I assumed for a possible background check but nothing comes of it) and her potential new employer’s confusion/concern over Tess’s current lodging arrangements (Again, not pursued).

Tess makes some decisions and does things that she seems too smart to be doing, like these actions are contrived to push the plot forward rather than a natural move for the character. For instance, she allows Keith to talk her into staying in the house while he investigates the basement after she informs him of the freaky stuff she found down there. No way in hell would I stay there after stumbling upon what looks like a potential snuff film set.

The Room in Question.

I concur, Tess.

Sorry Keith, you’re probably a great guy stuck in the same weird circumstances as me, but I can’t take the risk that the obvious prison room belongs to you. I’ve seen enough horror movies and true crime documentaries to know that a room like that leads to a bad end for me. Peace!

The last drawback to the movie was the jarring jump cut toward the middle of the film. It cuts from a dark scene with Tess in the tunnels she and Keith discover in the basement to AJ happily singing in his car on a bright sunny day. It’s a complete shift in tone and the introduction of his character which is a little confusing when the viewer has been so invested in Tess’s plotline. I get that this is once again playing with audience expectations but it takes you out of the film for a second until you adjust to AJ’s story and it converges with hers.

This is still one of my favorite horror films to come out this year. It has an unpredictable story with interesting characters, social commentary, great acting, creepy atmosphere and fun deaths. It may be slightly flawed, but is still a strong film and recommended for at least one viewing.

7.5/10

Don’t Worry Darling (2022)

 

Directed By: Olivia Wilde

Starring: Florence Pugh, Harry Styles, Chris Pine, Nick Kroll and Olivia Wilde

Genre: Drama, Thriller

Rated: R

In the idyllic 1950s desert community of Victory, housewife Alice begins to suspect all is not what it seems. The town is an experimental utopia centered around a mysterious company with a vague mission that employs all the husbands. While the men work their wives are left home to tend to the house and children, attend exercise classes and do the shopping. After her friend Margaret starts acting strangely and Alice has some experiences she can’t explain, she can’t help but ask questions. Is there something sinister about the town of Victory or is it all in Alice’s mind?

This film has received a lot of hate and I’m not quite certain as to why. It’s not a perfect movie by any means but it is far from bad. I know there are rumors of serious drama behind the scenes and an animosity toward Olivia Wilde herself, but none of this affects the movie on the whole.

The acting from Florence Pugh is truly what carries the film. Her emotions are tangible – her happiness, her confusion, her fear, her desperation. She makes Alice believable; a character to care about and root for despite the fact the audience is unsure if Alice is a reliable narrator. We want to believe her; we want to solve the mystery; we want her to be okay. I have yet to see a performance from her that I don’t love.

I was surprised by Harry Styles’s performance as I honestly didn’t know he did acting, having only known him as a member of the boy band One Direction, a solo artist and Taylor Swift’s ex. He and Florence Pugh have decent chemistry which is another element that held the story together as they, as a couple, are kind of the lynchpin to making it work. At first his character, Jack, is the loving, devoted husband that simply enjoys his life with her, but this façade begins to wear away the more Alice pushes to uncover the truth. He pulls off the charming, sweet and seductive husband as well as the more selfish, angry and whiney manchild and the devolution in between.

The only other stand-out performance is Chris Pine as Frank – the charismatic founder of The Victory Project that everyone in town seems to worship. He’s arrogant and gives frequent speeches consisting of propaganda and empty words that no one else seems to see through except Alice (and Margaret before her). I did have a bit of a hard time seeing how everyone could be falling all over themselves for this man, sucking up to him, hanging on every word he says, changing their attire to match his style. Sure he’s handsome and somewhat charismatic, but he’s also a conceited douche that talks and talks but has nothing to really say. It seems that Alice, Margaret and the audience are the only ones that can see this while everyone else absorbs the bullshit he spews and it does feel intentional. It’s obvious, at least through Alice’s perspective, that this man is not on the up-and-up. He’s also a creep who watches people have sex and tells women they’re “good girls” for cooking dinner.

The rest of the performances aren’t particularly memorable but neither are the characters. Considering the film’s major plot reveal, I believe this is also intentional. Going into the discussion any further would risk major spoilers.

The story is definitely derivative of The Stepford Wives with a more modern twist. Sadly, this concept is still terrifyingly relevant; this era of the 1940s – 1960s is romanticized by many who weren’t alive for it or led privileged lives during it. Aside from the risk of being drafted into war, this era was really only good for white, heterosexual, cis-gender men. Many modern women / femme presenting people /people assigned female at birth find the idea of being forced into that kind of life horrifying. This film reflects that fear and comments on the rise of inceldom and “alpha male” podcasts. It also feels like a commentary on how empty and boring the lives of women seemed to be in that era.

Having a woman as the director, the film is clearly shot with the female gaze. No objectification of anyone, male or female – the sex scenes sensual and hot without nudity. The sex scenes are also based solely on the woman’s pleasure which I’ve never seen in a film before between a heterosexual couple. In the two we are given, Jack uses his mouth and fingers on Alice, but she never does anything to reciprocate and they never engage in intercourse. I found that interesting and wondered if there was a point being made there, but that particular question is never answered.

My only theory is this focus on female pleasure early in the film is a tool to show the devolution of their relationship as the story develops. When Alice is being the perfect little housewife, keeping the house clean, making extravagant meals, happily greeting him at the door impeccably dressed, coifed and made up, and being the supportive submissive arm candy at parties, she’s rewarded. (Although, I have to say I would be quite pissed if the delicious meal I spent hours cooking was knocked off the table because my horny husband wants to ravish me. I don’t care how good it’s going to feel, I spent all day on that! What the hell man?) It could also be an aspect of control, as when Jack goes for a quickie at his boss’s house during a party he doesn’t stop when she protests. It’s still about her pleasure, but he decides when and where he wants to give it to her. Jack also does this annoying thing where he thumbs her bottom lip – watching it irritates me so much I want to bite him. Alice seems rather indifferent to the gesture but it is so cringey to me.

The cinematography and soundtrack also boost the film. The imagery is beautiful, including, and maybe especially, the weird flashy hallucinations/dreams Alice seems to have. The music aids and influences the mood. The setting feels very retro and of-the-time despite being shot through a modern lens, which, again, knowing the twist, feels like an intentional contrast.

For me, the film’s biggest issue is the numerous unanswered questions. Once we learn what is really happening, the story kind of rushes to a close without explaining much. I get that the runtime was already slightly over two hours, but I’d rather watch a longer film in order to have my questions answered. To list them would be to spoil the entire reveal, but there are numerous aspects of the plot I was left wondering about.

To me this was worth the watch. I found it suspenseful and fun with a strong heroine to root for and follow. I was never bored, the strange occurrences and mysterious projects kept me guessing along with Alice as to what was going on. If it didn’t leave so many things unexplained I would have rated it a bit higher. Still it is not as bad as people say – strong performances, especially from Florence Pugh, engrossing storyline, great soundtrack and nice cinematography make it a decent film, but it could have been better.

6.5/10

Jack-O (1995)

 

(AKA Jacko Lantern)

Directed by: Steve Latshaw

Starring: Linnea Quigley, Maddisen K. Krown (as Rebecca Quicks), Gary Doles, Ryan Latshaw, Catherine Walsh, Rachel Carter, Cameron Mitchell and John Carradine

Genre: Horror / Slasher / Horror-Comedy

Rated: R

During the early years of the twentieth century, sorcerer Walter Machen was lynched by the men of the Kelly family for his crimes of magic use and murder. At the time of his execution, Machen cursed the Kelly family, swearing a demon would rise up and take his revenge. Not long after, many of the Kellys are brutally murdered by said demon, but not before one of them is able to put an end to the creature’s rampage. Decades later, a group of partying teens unwittingly release this entity, now dubbed The Pumpkin Man, from its consecrated grave and it returns to its mission of vengeance upon the town. It is up to the descendants of both the Kelly and Machen clans to stop it once and for all.

I saw this as part of a cheesy horror triple feature at the Drive-In on Saturday night, and good Lord, it was terrible. This is bad in the “actually awful” sense, not the guilty pleasure or “so bad it’s good” way. My husband and I were able to riff on it enough to make it somewhat bearable, and there are some fun moments, but for the most part you’re not missing anything if you skip this one.

First and foremost, the acting is atrocious from almost everyone involved, the exceptions being Quigley and Carter as the Miller sisters. The child actors seem to be trying their best, but they are obviously very inexperienced and lacking proper direction. The casting of Ryan Latshaw as the young protagonist, Sean, feels like a bit of nepotism on the part of the director (they are father and son). Ryan is adorable but his performance is rather flat and lacks the energy and personality it takes to carry a film. The rest of the cast sound like they are simply running lines in the initial read through rather than performing actual takes while filming. Many lack any sort of inflection in their tone while reciting dialogue – like they are simply regurgitating statements robotically. Even veteran actor John Carradine appears to be phoning it in, although, to be fair, his scenes are stock footage from 1985, shot three years prior to his death in 1988, so he probably wasn’t at his best and likely thought the scenes would never be released. The actors playing the caricatures of the conservative couple and Rush Gingbaw (parody of Rush Limbaugh) seem to be having fun, at least.

The opening is weird, depicting Sean sitting by a campfire in the woods with a strange knife-wielding man insistent upon telling him a ghost story. 

 “Please, Mister, if I listen to your creepy story will you let me go home?” - My husband 

While it is never clarified, I believe the opening scene is one of many nonsensical dream sequences the film subjects the audience to throughout its short run-time. The man in this scene shows up again later as a very weird neighbor that cannot contain his obnoxious, maniacal laughter. Both this character and the first scene could have been cut entirely as they don’t add anything to the storyline. The movie probably could have opened with the original attack in the 1900s and done a time skip to present day, dropping the unnecessary beginning and character altogether.

The special effects are pretty laughable, but at least the film seems aware of this and appears to poke fun at itself in this department. From cartoonish lightning bolts and electric currents to an over-the-top burnt corpse one IMDb user described as a “flame broiled Muppet” and an obviously fake severed head that is gritting its teeth in a grimace,

This HAS to be a Knowing Wink, Right?

all effects seem to be a knowing wink to the audience that the filmmakers understand how cheesy they look. 

The deaths were also relatively silly, but at least entertaining. The Final Destination style death by toaster is hilarious, as well as an actor very obviously spitting fake blood out of his mouth when his character is supposed to be dead. That had to be intentional, right? If not, the editor is either really lazy or trolling the audience.

Toaster Death Complete with Terrible SFX

With deaths like those described above and the lackluster special effects, I suspected this had to be intended as a horror-comedy rather than a straight slasher flick. I had to dig and read other reviews to confirm this theory however, as both IMDb and the film’s Wikipedia page only list the genre as horror. Maybe the other reviewers and I are simply giving this film too much credit, but I will give the flick the benefit of the doubt and infer the comedy was intentional until I learn otherwise from a credible source.

Of course, as this is a low-budget B-Movie starring Linnea Quigley, she gives the expected nudity the target audience is looking for. She has a gratuitous shower scene that lingers heavily on her breasts and butt as she slowly washes herself. The scene has no point to the story and could easily have been cut, but obviously we need something to drag in an audience. There’s also a bonus topless scene from Rachel Carter, so there is plenty of nudity to appease the audience members attracted to women. It still doesn’t make the film worth watching. You can probably find screen caps, gifs and/or videos of these scenes via Google if you’re that desperate to see them.

I am surprised that the movie doesn’t fall victim to the “onscreen nudity and/or sex equals death” trope. Neither girl is “punished” for her sexuality, which is a nice change of pace in B-grade slashers. Sadly this doesn’t prevent them from being hit on by perverted middle-aged men, such as when Sean’s father tells him ‘You can look but you can’t touch’ while giving Carolyn an overt once-over – referring both to Sean’s interest in Jim’s motorcycle and his own interest in her. 

Gross! Like him being married is the only reason he can’t be with Carolyn and she would be interested at all. 

Bro, that’s Linnea-freaking-Quigley, you don’t stand a chance. Sorry, not sorry.

Carolyn's face says "I'm uncomfortably humoring you, Mr. Kelly."

Sean’s dad, David, certainly seems to consider himself quite the ladies man, which is a bit optimistic on his part, considering his average middle-aged appearance. He flirts with both Carolyn and Vivian, both of whom are far out of his league. He makes no attempt to hide this from his wife, and while she teases him about Carolyn as she’s aware he doesn’t stand a chance with her, his friendship with Vivian does make her suspicious. Vivian’s only interest in David is his heritage and the connection between their two families as she is a descendant of Walter Machen, and it will require them to work together in order to lay the killer demon to rest.

The characters themselves aren’t bad, but they are very one-dimensional. Sean seems like a sweet kid who always tries to do the right thing and both his parents seem like good people (with the exception of David’s wandering eye) who turn their garage into a haunted house each Halloween for charity. Carolyn is probably the most likable and well-rounded character, taking her job as Sean’s babysitter seriously and doing her best to protect him when they find themselves in the sights of The Pumpkin Man. The conservative couple neighboring the Kellys, Carolyn, and Vivian is nasty and annoying, though it is very obvious they are supposed to be, and it is pretty satisfying when we’re rid of them.

According to the Wikipedia page, per the audio commentary on the tenth anniversary DVD release, this film is supposed to be a statement on the “’political polarization and the culture war in 1990s America’ through its conservative suburbanite characters.” An attempt was definitely made, especially with what at the time would have seemed like over-the-top stereotypes of conservatives and the in-movie version of Rush Limbaugh they worship being contrasted with their charitable and loving neighbors. If this was released today, the right wing would definitely be decrying it as garbage created by the “woke left.” (We can agree that it is garbage, just not the reason why.) However, while the attempt at political/social commentary was made, it didn’t really succeed in actually saying anything. There are many great horror films that succeed in this area, but this is definitely not one of them.

This is a skippable attempt at a supernatural slasher horror comedy. The acting is bad even by B-movie standards, the effects subpar and the story bland. There are a few fun scenes and the typical nudity expected of a movie like this, but it’s nothing worth seeking out.

3/10

Fresh (2022)

               Directed by: Mimi Cave

Starring: Daisy Edgar-Jones, Sebastian Stan, Jojo T. Gibbs, Andrea Bang, Dayo Okeniyi and Charlotte Le Bon

Genre: Horror / Thriller / Dark Comedy / Horror Comedy

Rated: R

Noa is fed up with the dating scene. Online dating apps seem to only result in lack luster text conversations, unsolicited dick pics, or dates with losers. Just as she’s decided to step back from dating, she meets Steve in the produce section at the grocery store. Steve is charming, funny and attractive, and Noa ends up giving him her number. What follows is an adorable whirlwind romance, but things aren’t all that they seem, and Steve is harboring some dark secrets. When Noa learns the truth, she must fight to survive.

I didn’t know what to expect going into this movie last night. Initially I thought it might be interesting and put it on while folding my laundry, only to find myself enjoying the hell out of it. I was fully invested from beginning to end. It has everything I like in horror – dark humor, strong heroine, interesting villain, some disturbing themes, some gore, and social commentary done right. The fact that it was written and directed by women, a rarity in the genre, is a bonus.

The performances from the leads, Daisy Edgar-Jones (Noa) and Sebastian Stan (Steve), really sell this film. These two have amazing chemistry despite the sixteen year age difference between the actors. You don’t even question why these two would be together, they just seem to click. There’s an obvious attraction, but they also share the same sense of humor, appear to have similar backgrounds, and he seems to bring out her more adventurous side. This chemistry continues throughout, despite the dark turn in their relationship, and I think that is what truly carries the film. Without it, I don’t believe the final quarter of the film would have held up, as the ending depended on it.

Just look at these two!

These performances extend beyond when they are together, of course. Both stand just as well on their own. Edgar-Jones brings Noa to life, despite the fact that we know little about the character – not her interests, not her job, etc. We mostly see her in how she relates to those around her, whether it’s a lousy date, her encounters with Steve, or her interactions with other women, like her best friend, Mollie, or Penny, a fellow victim of Steve. Her moments alone are rarely depicted, but when they are she easily displays what the character is thinking without having to say anything at all. Stan is ridiculously charming as Steve, even after his true nature is revealed – to the point where I feel uncomfortable with the fact that I still like him. (Damn it, I don’t want to be attracted to this sick individual! Stop doing things that would be hot or romantic in a consensual setting.)

Another great performance is given by Jojo T. Gibbs as Mollie. I love the friendship between her and Noa because it is depicted as a normal, real life friendship. These two love and support one another. They laugh and joke together, discuss the dating scene, act as a safety when the other goes on a date with a practical stranger, and protect each other. Mollie is a devoted and loyal friend who has Noa’s back no matter what, and by the end of the film, Noa proves she is the same for Mollie. These two are a team. Separately they’re strong individuals, but together they’re unstoppable. 

My Favorite Spoiler Free Mollie and Noa Interactions:

Noa: "I don't know how you do it, Mollie."
Mollie: "Do what?"
Noa: "Dating people. And I always end up alone. Which, by the way, I am very okay with."
Mollie: "No. No. What? You do not need a man, okay? Or anybody, for that matter. It's just the way we've been raised since fucking Disney movies."
Noa: "Yeah. Fuck Ariel."
Mollie: "Fuck her. Stupid bitch left the whole sea for a man. Come on, now. Like, fuck Beauty."
Noa: "Yeah, fuck the Beast. I am the beast."
Mollie: "You are the Beast!" 

 

Mollie: (talking about Steve and acting every bit like my sister-in-law) "What's his Instagram? I want to stalk a little bit."
Noa: "Oh, he doesn't have one."
Mollie: "Say what? What do you mean? Oh no. See, that's shady. I'm sorry. Red Flag." 
Noa: "Okay. Whatever. Stop raining on my sex parade."  

 

Noa: "I'm going away with Steve for the weekend."
Mollie: "What? Where?"
Noa: "It's a surprise."
Mollie: "Hold on, Noa. Uh-uh. A surprise? I don't like that."
Noa: "I'm just going to go for it. You said, 'fuck it,' remember?"
Mollie: "Girl, you're all dickmatized, and I haven't even seen this dude."

When Noa goes missing, Mollie refuses to give up looking for her, as any true friend would, and will not be appeased by the “she’s just off with her new boyfriend,” story. Good, so many films have “friends” ignore someone’s disappearance because of some BS story and nothing good ever comes from that.

Mollie knows something is not right. 

I’ve seen a few complaints about the character of Penny, a fellow captive of Steve that Noa befriends as they converse through the vents / walls between their cells. The criticism of her stems from the fact that she comes off kind of bubbly and good humored despite the trauma she’s endured. I disagree that this is a drawback to her character. I feel her sense of humor is a coping mechanism, so she doesn’t lose her mind due to the circumstances. Another unseen character named Melissa has this misfortune, and Penny has been there long enough to hear Melissa descend into madness. Her humor and spirit also help Noa maintain a clear head and strategize. I feel Penny plays an important role and don’t think Andrea Bang’s performance was too bubbly – there are definitely times when it’s obvious the character is struggling but manages to bring herself out of it with some humor in order to uplift and advise Noa. I liked Penny a lot, and didn’t feel she was a throwaway character as I’ve seen other reviewers claim. Without her, I’m not sure Noa would have the strength she does.

My Favorite Spoiler Free Noa and Penny Interactions:

Noa: "I want to hurt him, Penny."
Penny: "It's all I think about."
Noa: "I can't believe I slept with him."
Penny: "Wait, you fucked him? I never did. I don't think any of the others did either. I am not slut-shaming you, by the way. I'd say it's a compliment."
Noa: "I'm so fucking stupid."
Penny: "No, you're not. It's not your fault, Noa. It's always theirs." 

 

Penny: "I'm done, Noa."
Noa: "No, you're not."
Penny: "I don't even know who I am anymore. I hope he fucking chokes. And then he gets a fucking tapeworm and it just eats him from the inside, slowly. And that all his weirdo friends shit and puke out of their eyes until they all fucking die." 
Noa: "You're such a sweetheart, Penny. Just stay strong, okay?"

 

Penny: "You know, the other night, I was thinking of how nice it's been to talk to you. But then I was like, what if you're not real and I'm just going crazy? Like Melissa. But I feel like if I had an imaginary friend I wouldn't name her Noa. It would be like Sean Connery."
Noa: "I wish I could see you."
Penny: "Me too."

I do, however, agree with the criticisms that some characters are underutilized. Paul, the bartender, seems nice enough and has a good sense of humor, but I feel could have been used better as Mollie’s backup in her search for Noa. While he has a funny moment toward the end where he realizes he’s in a horror movie situation, remembers how well black characters tend to fare in such films and gets the hell out of dodge, it renders the scenes leading him to this one pointless. With this leading nowhere, all the scenes with him outside of the bar could have been cut and nothing would have been lost.

The character of Ann also didn’t seem to serve much purpose other than to represent Steve’s other life as well as women who hurt other women to benefit themselves. There are interesting aspects about her that I wanted to explore but ultimately were never developed upon or explained. Her entire character could have been removed from the film and nothing would have really been lost.

The story progression and style is interesting. The film begins like a romantic comedy with the title card and opening credits not showing up until thirty-three minutes into the film, right as the plot begins to take a dark turn. There are hints that something isn’t quite right with Steve, but it’s easy to see how a woman on a date with him may not pick up on them. He uses charm and humor to cover what would possibly be red flags on someone else. Still, there’s enough that the viewer isn’t really surprised when the tone shifts from light rom-com to dark comedic horror. The film eases you into the darkness, slowly getting more uncomfortable and disturbing, but not so slowly that the viewer loses interest. The pacing is fairly spot-on and kept my attention for the entire hour and fifty-four minute run-time.

The violence and gore are fairly minimal, but no less uncomfortable when depicted. Much of the horror is psychological – the isolation, the knowledge of exactly what is going to happen to you, literally being awake paralyzed by an epidural while a part of your body is cut off (not shown, the viewer just has a close up of the victim’s terrified face as it’s happening, and that is somehow almost worse), knowing you’re being fed something heinous and having to eat it anyway. The eating scenes made me particularly uncomfortable. In the hands of someone else, I fear this would have been little more than an exploitative gore fest a-la the torture porn of the early to mid 2000s. Here it is tastefully done with lasting impact, no excessive gore or nudity needed. 

The final act leading up to the ending is fairly predictable but still manages to sneak in a few surprises. Noa’s strategy for attempting escape is pretty obvious to everyone except Steve but I was cheering her on none-the-less. She has more strength than I would in her shoes and forces herself to do what she has to in an effort to survive.

This is a feminist horror film done right. Where many others have failed (looking at you, Black Christmas [2019]) this one thrives. Firstly, the female characters seem like real people, not caricatures and stereotypes. The female friendships are strong and founded upon building each other up. There is no belittling, judgment or slut-shaming from the regular characters (with the exception of Ariel from the above quote) and very minimal derogatory language from the villain(s). This is a film about women leaning on each other to fight against oppression and survive. It’s filmed from the female gaze with no sexualizing of the characters, even during the sex scenes or when there is brief nudity. It explores many fears women have of the dating scene and the ridiculous crap we have to put up with before we find someone we think is worthwhile. (I’m so glad I’m married and out of the dating game.)

This is a fun feminist horror comedy that comments on the ugly side of dating and the importance to strong female friendships. It will charm you with the romance then make you uncomfortable with the horror, despite not being very graphic or gory. It is flawed. I felt some scenes and characters could have been cut and the plot was fairly predictable, but it was still an entertaining ride. This is definitely worth the watch, and I have a feeling I will be returning to it multiple times.

7.5/10

Scream (2022)

 

Directed by: Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett

Starring: Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette, Marley Shelton, Melissa Barrera, Jenna Ortega, Dylan Minnette, Jack Quaid, Jasmin Savoy Brown, Sonia Ammar, Mikey Madison, Mason Gooding, and Kyle Gallner

Genre: Horror / Slasher, Thriller

Rated: R

The fifth entry in the Scream franchise takes place twenty-five years after the events of the original film. Someone has once again donned the signature Ghostface ensemble and started yet another string of attacks and murders in Woodsboro. This time, however, the focus is not on Sidney Prescott, but Samantha Carpenter, a young woman with a secret connection to the events of the original. A new group of young people are on the chopping block, forcing Sidney Prescott, Gale Weathers and Dewey Riley to once again face down another masked killer and hopefully put an official end to Ghostface’s legacy.

When I heard a fifth Scream film was in the works I was initially very hesitant – like Neve Campbell had said in many past interviews, I didn’t think it could be done well without Wes Craven. I was worried the series would be ruined. However, when I learned Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, the men behind Ready or Not (2019), would be heading the project, I grew far more optimistic – these two know how to combine horror and humor, badass final girls and brutal gore effects into very fun stories. When Neve signed on to return as Sidney (something she was reluctant to do without a good script) I knew I could get excited, and I was not disappointed.

Scream (2022) is a true love letter to the original film and gives friendly nods to the three previous sequels. There are tributes to several fallen characters of the past – beloved characters memorialized rather than forgotten. There are also a couple surprise appearances from past characters which I was ecstatic about. I would highly recommend watching / rewatching the four previous films prior to catching this one in order to pick up on all of the references.

Our legacy actors, Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette, are amazing as always in their return to the respective roles of Sidney, Gale and Dewey. Despite not being written by Kevin Williamson, the characters still feel true to their roots and have developed naturally over the past twenty-five years. I’m so proud of how far Sidney has come and cannot wait to add her entry to my character study blog (I had been holding off until I could see this film). She has finally stopped running and found her peace, and she will do anything to prevent the destruction of her happiness. Gale has calmed down and become a lot more caring. She has found her success and is willing to put others before a major story; however, she is still not someone you want to mess with. Dewey is still lovable and goofy, but he’s been through a lot, and it’s finally starting to show. These three characters have been through hell, and developed accordingly. The only other major returning character is Judy Hicks from part 4, and I was pleased to see she is treated with a lot more respect in this film. Rather than being the suck-up deputy with a crush on Dewey and a penchant for baking and cheesy quips, she has become the sheriff of Woodsboro. She’s a single mom who adores her teenage son and sushi. She is far more likable this time around, and it was nice to see Marley Shelton flex her more dramatic acting skills.

I wasn’t sure how I was going to feel about the new young cast members. I was excited to see Kyle Gallner in the cast (surprise, surprise to anyone who has followed this blog for a while … it’s no secret I love this actor), and saddened that he was criminally underutilized. The only member of the new group of teens I’ve seen before is Jenna Ortega. I really enjoyed her as Phoebe in The Babysitter: Killer Queen, and her turn as Tara Carpenter, Samantha’s younger sister, in this film, is equally fun but definitely more badass. Tara takes hit after hit and gives back as much, if not harder than she receives. She’s tiny, but she’s feisty and very underestimated. She also has excellent taste in the ‘elevated horror’ side of the genre.

I am always reluctant to embrace a new “final girl” when it comes to this franchise as Sidney will always and forever hold that title. However, Melissa Barrera’s Samantha is a quality next generation lead. She has the heart, she has the brains, and she has the strength to face these circumstances head-on. Given more space to develop, she has the makings of becoming Sidney Prescott 2.0, and could possibly carry any further entries in the series. While this entry does feel like a solid, definitive end, we know Hollywood can never leave well enough alone, and there could and probably will be more.

The rest of the new characters aren’t really fleshed out well enough for me to form much of an opinion. Having two of Tara’s closest friends be the twin niece and nephew of Randy Meeks was great. Mindy takes right after her uncle, though she has far better luck with the ladies. Her brother, Chad, is more of a doofus jock, but he seems sweet. Liv is rather forgettable, unfortunately being exactly as Mindy describes her, “too boring.” Amber seems like a nod to Tatum in her having the “super protective best friend” role, but lacks the charm of Rose McGowan, and almost comes off as possessive of Tara. I thought it was cute that they named a character Wes as a tribute to Wes Craven, and Dylan Minnette is adorable, but I would have liked more time with his character. Lastly, we have Ritchie, Samantha’s supportive, somewhat naïve and hapless boyfriend of six months that accompanies her back to Woodsboro when her sister is attacked.

This version of Ghostface is particularly brutal and far less restrained than previous renditions. The deaths are cringe-inducing and one specific kill will rip the heart out of any Scream fan. (I legitimately cried in the theater. No, I am not ashamed.) This Ghostface does not hold back and no one is off limits to them. The deaths are bloodier than in some of the previous entries. Ghostface opts for more vicious attacks with multiple rapid-fire stabs and I love the lack of obvious CGI gore effects. Ghostface also plays heavily with the heads of the victims in this entry which amps up the tension far more than the run-of-the-mill “hey, I’m going to kill you,” calls in earlier sequels. This killer really enjoys toying with good-hearted people and knows how to hit them where it counts, but also severely underestimates the lengths good people will go to to take down evil. The reveal of who is behind the mask is a bit underwhelming, but the commentary on the toxic side of fandom and the lust for infamy that mass murderers have is the true unmasking.

Overall, this is a solid, well-done entry to the franchise that has me questioning my original ranking of the previous films. (It may be time to revisit and revise my prior ratings.) The original will always be untouchable to me, however, this sequel is superior to most, if not all of the preceding ones. It is a love letter to the source material rather than a cash grab, holding true to the roots of the franchise and what made it so great in the first place. Assuming Hollywood doesn’t push to continue the series, this feels like a satisfying ending for the characters and the story.

8/10