Author: fenrisfil

The 2023 Box Office Breakdown

Posted on by fenrisfil

When looking at the box office, in past years I’ve used a more accurate spreadsheet that takes into account the slight variation in percentage of ticket sales that goes to the studio for the opening week and global territories. This year however I’m just using the simple 3 X production budget formula. What that effectively does is assume the marketing costs are about 50% of the production budget again and that the ticket percentage is a flat 50%. The actual figure is far more complicated. I’ve split this years films into Epic Wins, Success, Met Expectations, Disappointments and outright bombs. Let’s start at the top!

Epic Wins of 2023!

This is a relatively short list. The biggest winner of the year is “Barbie“. A movie that most expected to do well, but literally no one expected to cross $1.4 billion. There’s a lot that could be said about the movie, it certainly isn’t perfect but it does seem to have truly resonated with fans of the franchise. Regardless of if they agreed with the treatment of the Ken’s, the real world or the crude humour, they also recognised that this really looked like Barbie’s world. Barbie wasn’t the only franchise though to give it’s fans something that felt right and the second biggest winner of the year is again way out in front of the rest of the gang this year and that is “The Super Mario Bros. Movie“. Another film most expected to do well. My particular prediction was it would do “Minions numbers”, but it blasted even past that to a whopping $1.36 billion globally. I feel there is a lesson to be learned here about, but I’ll get to that later.

After these two phenomenons things get a little more subjective. Here we need to look at which movies massively exceeded all expectations rather than the gross ticket sales. The first such hit is unsurprisingly Oppenheimer. In what was probably the strangest viral marketing tactic of any movie people were encouraged to go an see “Barbenheimer”, a double bill of Barbie and Oppenheimer. Bizarrely this was embraced by audiences and both movies saw a considerable boom in ticket sales. The two movies couldn’t possibly be more different, but it’s an important lesson in never underestimating the power of a good meme. Is it something we’ll ever see again? Well Barbie is almost certainly getting a sequel and Christopher Nolan isn’t going to stop making movies any time soon, so who knows?

Two more movies to land in the epic win category are “The Sound of Freedom” and “Godzilla Minus One“, both with low budgets and both massively over performing. On top of that the audience response was off the charts. The Sound of Freedom is an emotional thriller from Angel Studios made for $14.5m, originally meant to be distributed by Fox, but after the company was purchased by Disney the movie remained on the shelf until Angel Studios requested out of the deal and found alternative distribution. Disney screwed themselves out of a good bit of money on that one, but they are full of bad decisions these days. Godzilla Minus One meanwhile is a Japanese Godzilla film made for a mere $12m and looking every bit as good as a $200m Hollywood blockbuster. The film takes Godzilla right back to his roots and is widely considered the best Godzilla film since the 1954 original.

Success Stories of 2023

At the higher end of the production budget scale there isn’t a lot of success stories for 2023 (Outside those epic wins). It’s pretty much just the animated Spider-Verse film “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse“, largely coasting off the great reception the previous Spider-Verse received back in 2018 as well as the continuing strength of the Spider-Man brand. Fan reactions to this one were mixed, with a few of the character portrayals not quite landing with viewers and the ending feeling anti-climactic. Turns out this was only half of a story and the continuation is already delayed thanks to the writers strike. However, the animation continues to receive praise and the Spider-brand remains the one guaranteed cash cow in the Superhero genre.

The most successful horror movie of the year was the video game adaptation “Five Nights at Freddy’s“. With a $20m production budget, perhaps on the higher side for horror the move raked in $300m globally, The thing to note here is that was with a day and date streaming release. That means no one actually had to go to the theatres to watch this legally but they chose to anyway. That is a huge success and honestly could have pushed this one to the epic win column. The movie itself was very true to the game and absolutely nailed the look of the animatronic monsters. That said it wasn’t without flaws, most notably how light the horror elements actually were. As a result the reaction to the movie was decidedly mixed, but the important thing was fans of the game loved it.

Not too far off the success of FNAF was an early release in 2023 the horror film “M3GAN“. A personal favourite of mine from the year, the film drew in $181m worldwide against a production budget of only $12m, making around $145m. That’s a considerable amount of profit and you can bank on this film seeing a lot of sequels in the coming years. The latest entry in the Saw franchise “Saw X” made itself a healthy profit with $109m against it’s $13m production budget. That’s a $147m profit and you can bet Saw XI won’t be too far off. Surprisingly, the sequel no one asked for “The Nun 2” managed to earn itself $268m against it’s $38.5m budget, netting $152m in profit.

“Talk To Me” had a production budget of just $4.5m and raked in $70m, with many calling it the horror film on the year. The latest Insidious sequel meanwhile, “Insidious: The Red Door“, had a $16m production budget and raked in $186m globally. Despite it’s financial success though, The Red Door was not well received and it remains to be seen how much life this franchise has left. Last but not least The Evil Dead series had it’s second reboot with “Evil Dead Rises” drawing in $146m against it’s $19m budget. That’s a profit of about $89m. though it’s worth noting when the production budget is under $30m the P&A cost (Mostly marketing) is likely more than 50% of the production budget so these films possibly made a bit less than I am listing, but they still did well.

Business As Usual – Meeting Expectations

I’m not going to cover too many lower budget movies here as it’s quite hard to judge what expectations are for a lot of those. Many of those films will be of more value on streaming after their theatrical run or are more about studio prestige than actual profits. But there are still a few films to talk about. First up, the most successful live action superhero film of the year “Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol 3“. This was the final part of the James Gunn’s Guardians story and his final Marvel movie before heading over to DC and Warner. With that in mind, expectations for this film were high and because of that it could be debated this is actually a disappointment.

Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol 3 is the fourth highest earner at the box office with a worldwide haul of $845m. The problem is the production budget of $250m pushes the break even point to about $750m, meaning the movie likely didn’t even bring home $100m of profit. On top of that it brought in less (Inflation adjusted) than the previous GOTG movie and represents a creative dead end for the MCU. That said, outside of the depiction of Adam Warlock the film was well received and made for a strong send off to the team and James Gunn.

Also rounding off a well love movie series was “John Wick: Chapter 4” and in doing so achieving about what would have been expected. The movie drew in $430m against a production budget of $100m. Despite the lower numbers it likely ended with a greater profit than GOTG3 and kept in line approximately with the previous movies. The reception from audiences were positive, despite a few noting how over the top it has all become now and how John Wick is basically a superhero at this point. The choreography and camerawork in the action scenes though was pretty spectacular. While the movie ended John’s story, it opened up the world in which is was set to any number of spin offs, so the franchise is still alive and strong.

Doing about what was expected in the box office was “Creed III“, the now Stallone-less Rocky spin off franchise pulled in a franchise best box office of $275m, but against a production budget of $75m (Also a franchise high), giving it profit of only around $50m. Fan reaction for this one was down on the previous two movies and it is doubtful we’ll see as many of these films as we did from Rocky. Still, no one will be too upset with this performance. Last on this list is “Scream VI” pulling in $168m against a $35m budget and with mixed reception from fans, it’s not lighting the world on fire but for the sixth entry in a horror franchise that should probably not have had sequels at all it’s not a bad showing.

The Disappointments of 2023

Obviously flops and bombs are also disappointments but we’ll deal with those separately. First film on the list is the latest out, “The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes“. This is a movie that seems to have landed precisely at it’s break even point of $300m against it’s $100m production budget. No one will be celebrating that, but at least it hasn’t lost money. The tepid box office about reflects the audience and critical responses for the movie. If ever there was a movie that could be described as “Mid” it is this one.

Next up we have “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem“, a movie that sort of farted onto the cinema coasting off general franchise popularity and then heading into the sunset with a haul of $180m against it’s surprisingly high $70m production budget. The theoretical break even point for that is around $210m meaning this probably made a loss of a round $30m. It’s close enough to the break even point that it may have cleared it’s costs, but it could also be a lot more. That ambiguity is why it is in the disappointment section instead of outright flops, but it’s safe to say no one will be happy with this. Seth Rogen continues to be franchise poison.

Next up on the disappoint list is a director for who the word “Disappointment” has become somewhat synonymous with his career. Shyamalan M Night is a capable director that occasionally just makes very bad decisions. His movies tend to revolve around twists and that is always going to leave a lot of viewers disappointed if that twist just doesn’t resonate with them. The movie in question here is “Knock at the Cabin“, Drawing in about $54m global against it’s $20m production budget. Again technically under it’s break even point, but close enough that only the studio and their accountants likely know if it is in the black or in the red.

The last movie on this list to avoid being full on flops or bombs is somewhat debatable and that is Pixar’s “Elemental“. Going just on it’s theatrical performance of $486m against a $200m production budget it would be in definite flop territory. However, it has done very well on streaming and perhaps enough to remain out of Bob Iger’s nightmares this year. After all he has a lot more to be concerned about. The movie is pretty generic pixar stuff, but there’s been far worse animated movies out this year. No one is going to celebrate this one, but it could definitely be worse.

A few movies came out this year and flopped but avoided going “Full bomb”. First is Neil Blomkamp’s “Gran Turismo: Based on a True Story“, pulling in $117m against it’s $60m production budget and losing about $60m. This will certainly not help Blomkamp, which is a shame because he is a very talented director that should be the one making those big franchise movies. “A Haunting in Venice“, the third Kenneth Branagh Poirot movie had a $60m production budget, but drew in only $114m, losing about $66m. These last two I’m told are good movies, but am yet to see them. Last on the list is Trolls Band Together” drawing $139m against it’s $95m budget and losing about $45m.

In the genre of Horror an interesting one is “The Exorcist: Believer“, which technically did okay $136m against it’s $30m production budget. But Blumhouse paid out $400m for the rights to the franchise, meaning that they likely expected more from the film. If future movies do about the same, scraping out under $50m in profit, the franchise won’t actually have made any money until it’s ninth installment (Which would technically be Exorcist 10,12 or 13 depending how you count it). That definitely isn’t what they had in mind when they purchased it.

BOMBS AWAY!

This is where most of the big budget movies of 2023 ended up, so since I’d like people to actually read this article I’m not going to be verbose on this one and just plow through it. First up “is “. Next on the bomb list. “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves“, a movie I found disappointing but one not without support, it drew in $207m against it’s $150m production budget, losing around $200m for Paramount. Second on this list is Disney’s controversial live action remake of “The Little Mermaid“, which generated $568m globally. An impressive haul, except that with a production budget of $250m it’s break even was a whopping $750m, meaning the movie actually lost $182m for Disney.

Big franchises were no guarantee of success in 2023. “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” drew in $438m globally against it’s $195m production budget, losing around $147m for Paramount. It’s worth noting on this one, domestically the last three Transformers movies have made about the same, but the international numbers have been plummeting movie after movie, going from $555m to $391m to just $280m. Also Bumblebee had a more modest $118m production budget putting it’s break even point at $354m, had Rise of the Beasts been as careful with it’s spending it would have made $84m instead of turning into a bomb. However, there is no denying internationally Transformers may have run it’s course.

One of the years more surprising failures is “Mission: Impossible Dead Reckoning part one“, a movie that drew in a whopping $566m globally, yet still ending up losing $300m due to it’s insane $290m. The lesson there should be obvious, but I would add that I don’t feel audiences are too keep on going to see what they perceive as half a movie either. In practice the movie did have a conclusion but seeing “Part One” in the title probably put some people off. The movie also had unexpected competition from surprise “The Sound of Freedom”. Joining in the insane budget club is “Fast X” with an astronomical budget of $340m, meaning it needed to make over a billion to break even. It made $714m, loosing $306m.

Disney attempted to turn an amusement park ride into a successful movie franchise again this year with Haunted Mansion. The movie cost $158m, had a break even of $474m and generated just $115m. That’s a whopping $359m. If that is embarrassing it’s not as embarrassing as their centenary celebration movie “Wish”, whose nonsensical plot managed to pull in only $146m against it’s $200m (that they admitted to) budget. That means the movie lost Disney $454m, probably not how they planned to celebrate. It’s worth noting last year I was optimistic about Wish since it was supposed to be a return to classic hand drawn animation. However, that plan was abandoned and they reverted to rather poor looking CGI instead. The plot apparently was changed too and I Can’t imagine for the better.

But as bad as all that looks….Well, then their is “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny“. Another movie with a $300m production budget (bang on $300m supposedly, which likely means it was a lot higher but that’s all they’ll admit to). Indie 4 drew in a mere $381m worldwide losing Disney $519m. That is half a billion lost digging up a long dead franchise that already had two send decent send offs (I’m talking just of the end of “Crystal Skull” there, not the entire movie). It could be argued most of the damage was done with Crystal Skull or that the trust in Lucasfilm after it’s horrendous mismanagement of Star Wars is so low it didn’t matter what they put out, it was doomed from the start. Then again word of mouth wasn’t good either. Technically this was the biggest box office bomb of all time, at least for a few months….

Superhero movies were, with a couple of exceptions, box office poison this year and with Marvel and DC dominating the genre that means Disney and Warner Bros took a big hit. Disney’s “Ant Man & The Wasp: Quantumania” only brought in $463m globally against it’s $200m production budget, losing $187m for the company. But if that sounds bad, it was a huge success compared to some of the other movies in the genre this year. DC’s “Blue Beetle” could only manage a minuscule $128m against it’s fortunately more sensible budget of $120m. That means a loss of $232m for Warner on that one. The Shazam Sequel “Shazam! Fury of the Gods” is in a similar situation earning $132m globally against it’s $125m budget, losing Warner $243m. It’s worth noting had Quantumania cost $120/125m, it would would have broken even. Warner’s due meanwhile would have had to be produced for $40m to break even, but then let’s remember Godzilla Minus One cost $12m, so these things are possible.

So, as bad as those losses were they are nothing compared to the this years true super villains, “The Flash“, Aquaman: The Lost Kingdom” and “The Marvels“. It’s worth noting the Aquaman sequel is still out in theatres, though after the first full week and the first few days of the second we can make a pretty reasonable prediction. Least disastrous of the bunch is theoretically “The Flash”, but a lot depends on if you believe the official production budget of $200m. This film had a *lot* of reshoots. But even going by the official it’s break even would have been $600m and it only managed a paltry $266m. That means at best The Flash lost Warner $334m. Between this bomb and his personal issues it’s fairly safe to say Ezra Miller’s career may be over.

Speaking of people with no Hollywood career anymore, Amber Heard’s controversial legal feud with Johnny Depp may well have cost Aquaman II a good portion of it’s box office, but in a year where every DC movie has bombed it’s unlikely to be just that. The first Aquaman movie reached the billion mark, this one has barely scrapped $145m and going by it’s current legs will probably finish somewhere around $188m. The movies official budget was $205m and again this movie had a lot of reshoots. At one time Michael Keaton’s Batman was in it, at another Ben Afflecks, but the final released version contains neither. Going by their numbers it needed $615m to break even and will likely end with a loss of around $334m (Yes, the same as The Flash). Add it all up and Warner’s DC brand has cost them $1.14 billion this year. Ouch!

Remember when I said Indiana Jones was the biggest box office bomb of all time… for a few months. Well, that was until “The Marvels” came out. The movie probably winning the award for dumbest name of the year (Marvels The Marvels? Really?) and demonstrating that perhaps requiring the global audience to need to watch a load of Disney+ TV shows to have an entry point on a movie is not the best plan. It also suggests that perhaps Marvels D and E list characters just aren’t popular enough to lead a movie, at least not without the hype of an impending “End Game”. I’m not exaggerating about the character tiers either, Captain Marvel was always D-List and Kamala Khan is E list at best (Though Iman Vellani could have raised her up in better circumstances).

The movie’s official production budget was $275m making it’s break even a whopping $825m. How much did it make? $199m global. That’s a crippling $626m loss. That’s over $100m than Indiana Jones loses. I’m reminded of that time Kathleen Kennedy posted a “Passing of the Lightsaber” to Kevin Feige for breaking the $2b point with Infinity War (After The Force Awakens had previously hit that mark). How times have changed. Now if they were to pass that lightsaber around it would probably be to commit harakiri… except these days being stabbed through the guts with a lightsaber is something you can walk off, so maybe not.

Since I charted Warner’s superhero loses, it’s only fair I do that for Marvel too. Thanks to the small gains of GOTG3 that figure is around $715m in loses. While that may make Marvel seem healthier than DC, at least Warner is able to do a full reboot. Plus Disney have to add those other loses from Lucasfilm and their animation wing into that pile and those sting. The final tally is a loss of $2.4 billion for Disney’s movies. So yeah, Warner got off light.

Conclusion

Appearances can be deceptive, when you look at a list of films with the highest box office for this year you will probably see a few of these disasters and perhaps be mislead into thinking they are successful, but the level of production budgets and marketing costs these days means those big Hollywood movies need to make an incredible amount of money just to break even. Meanwhile most horror films, dramas and independent movies need to make very little to be a success. Hollywood tends to favour the bigger budget movies though because when they are profitable they tend to be incredibly profitable. But it is always somewhat of a gamble. This year most of those gambles ended in disaster.

Indeed it’s probably safe to say this is the worst year in history for the box office. The problems though are pretty clear. First of all, there is no denying that superhero fatigue is a thing now. People may debate on if it’s just over-saturation or too many low quality movies, but the truth is both of those are symptoms of a genre trend reaching the end of it’s road. Superhero movies won’t disappear, just as westerns never disappeared or horror movies after the 80’s boom. Quite often the best movies in a genre come out after it hit’s decline (For example both “Unforgiven” and “Tombstone” came out long after the western was supposed to be dead).

Not that superhero movies were the only clangers this year. Disney movies were almost entirely bombs this year, with only GOTG3 bringing in some bacon for them. It’s notable James Gunn’s swansong at Marvel was probably Disney’s most universally accessible movie that year, the rest of their output tended to be on the divisive side and when your budgets are at $200m and higher you really can’t afford to turn any potential fans away. Elemental was probably their next most accessible movie and that ended up the most likely to claw back into profitability via streaming and physical media sales. There is a definite pattern there. It’s not to say you can’t make heavily progressive leaning movies, but you need to budget them appropriately. When you are talking about huge franchises, it would be seriously stupid to turn off half the audience.

But accessibility goes for the global audience too. It’s not just about left and right leaning English speakers, it’s about global cultures. If you have stories and themes that resonate with people no matter where they live or what their politics are, then that $1 billion + box office will be in reach. If your film only really appeals to the population of California, then you need to realize that it’s probably capping off around the $200m mark. That means you need a budget of around $60m or less if you hope to make a profit. It’s as simple as that. Even aside from being divisive a number of films this year have shown that you can make spectacular looking movies for much less than Hollywood has been spending. Outside of a James Cameron Avatar movie, I don’t see why any film should cost more than $120m for it’s production budget. If CGI is so expensive, stop relying in it!

On the positive side though, for me at least, there is a clear indication that Horror is a sensible way to go right now. The “Success” section of this article was almost entirely horror movies because you can make them cheaply and the audience is fiercely loyal, both for horror in general and for specific franchises. Personally I don’t feel we need an eleventh Saw movie or a Seventh Scream, but chances are the fans would turn out for them. The first Evil Dead movie came out in 1981 and yet the second reboot in a row is 42 years later is still able to make a solid buck. The Exorcist is a trickier one, but had they not spent so much for the rights that would be considered a success. Considering the film had terrible word of mouth and fell off a cliff in it’s second week, it did surprisingly solidly. Certainly “The Nun 2” had no business being a success and yet it made more profit than “Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 3”. Right now, horror films are the only safe bet that a studio can rely on and studios love a safe bet.

When I look at this years epic wins though one thing becomes really clear. The top end of the movie market isn’t really driven by the studios or the mainstream movie media anymore. They are driven by the fans and social media. Mario Brothers and Five Nights at Freddy’s cashed in on a very dedicated gamer fan base. Barbie and Openheimer meanwhile, while likely to be successful in their own right, made huge gains due to a simple meme. It’s worth noting too that Mario, Barbie and FNAF all gained praise from the most dedicated fans of those non-movie franchises. It seems once again giving the core fanbase what they want pays off. Sound of Freedom and Godzilla Minus One were never expected to be hits (At least not in the US), but word of mouth can have a huge impact. In this instance it seems the secret is just make something worth watching!

Anyway that’s all for now… Thankfully! A year like this gives me far too much to have to fit into one of these. It remains to be seen if Hollywood (And more specifically Disney) will learn anything from this. In previous decades Kevin Feige and Kathleen Kennedy would be out of a job for taking the mantle of worst bomb of all time, but we don’t live in those times anymore and some producers seem untouchable. That’s not a good situation for Hollywood, but as we’ve seen if they aren’t willing to give people the entertainment they want, they will find it elsewhere. Not necessarily in movies either, we’ve had a good 100+ years of cinema, it would be foolish to think future generations would be as passionate about these films as you or I. Happy New Year!

Bad CGI Gator (2023)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Yes, you read the title correctly. It’s time to dive into the world of modern B-Movie horror with this ridiculous horror comedy from Full Moon Features. If you know the name, you will know this is Charles Band’s company, so this is a studio (In one form or other) that have been making low budget horror (and some sci-fi) since the 70’s. They know how to get the most out of the budget and how to make movies quickly. That doesn’t make this movie sound any less silly of course! This feature is just under an hour in length and is directed by Danny Draven (Also taking composer duties) and penned by Zalman Band (Charlies son).

There is some controversy with this film. The makers of “Bad CGI Sharks”. Obviously they feel their idea was ripped off. It’s worth considering though gimmick shark movies aren’t exactly original either, so maybe it’s fair game maybe not. You can decide that one for yourself. There’s certainly no doubting they stole the “Bad CGI” idea, the only question is, does that matter? Personally I’m not sure, but I do know at this budget level there is a lot of band wagon jumping in general. Anyway, let’s get back to the Gator and see if it has any teeth!

A Reptile Dysfunction.

The synopsis for this one is short. It’s a 1 hour horror comedy B-movie, what did you expect? A group of friends (Well four friends, one sister and a guy dragged along apparently to set him up with the sister), head to a lakeside cabin for spring break. The nearby lake has an alligator living it, though the friends aren’t aware of this. One of the girls, a tik-tok “Influenced” wants to throw the groups college laptops into the lake for a video (Because “The college will just replace them”). After the stunt they return to their cabin, however the laptops electrocute the lakes alligator transforming it into…. Uh, BAD CGI GATOR! Yes, that happened.

It’s worth reminding you, this is meant to be a comedy, so don’t expect anything to make sense. Anyway, the now CGI Gator starts attacking the friends picking them off one at a time until only the sister “Hope” (Played by Madie Lane) and the non-friend “Sam” (Michael Bonini) remain. Sam and Hope are also quickly developing feelings for each other after Sam romantically stalked her instagram account. Between them they must find a way to escape from this gator, which by the way can also fly and after consuming a bluetooth speaker, grow in size because that’s how it works now.

Bad CGI.

Okay, so this is a ridiculous plot. But for a horror comedy it isn’t really a problem as long as the film is funny and fortunately this is. I laughed out loud several times and in a movie that is less than an hour in length that is a win. Honestly the film probably could do with being a little longer, especially as the ending is a little on the quick side. That said, something like this being too short is probably better than being too long. The effects are what you’d expect and despite the severed limbs I wouldn’t really describe it as “Gore”. Indeed the severed limbs are mostly used for comic effect and quite effectively. There’s also some nice ironic elements with the corpses, which I always approve of in horror films.

The bad CGI gator is of course bad CGI, which you would expect. One issue with this though is the quality of CGI is actually no worse than I’d expect in a low budget horror anyway and case in point, even before the alligator is transformed it is bad CGI. My criticism here is they probably could have made the transformed version a bit worse! It would have been a nice touch to have had it “clipping” into the scenery and stuff on occasion too. For example they could have had it unable to pursue people at some point because it’s tail has clipped into the ground and so it is stuck. Missed opportunity.

Spring Break.

The characters and acting is around about what you’d expect for a low budget B, but there are definitely three tiers to it. Effectively you have three couples (Though the lead pair aren’t a couple until the end) and each couple is about on par for acting talent. One pairing is notably bad, especially the girl’s dialogue delivery, but the movie helps us out here by making them the gators first victim. The next tier are actually in some ways the most fun characters in the film. Both characters are shallow college kid stereotypes, but the actors go all in on the roles and that really helps the comedy. When we are introduced to them I rolled my eyes, but since they provide most of the comedy it was almost a shame to see them killed off.

The final pair is our two leads, Sam and Hope. As actors Bonini and Lane are better than you would expect at this budget level and with the right breaks could probably go a lot further in their careers. It’s always worth remembering just how many big Hollywood stars started out in low budget horrors (Maybe not always this low, but sometimes). Demi Moore for example was in another Charlie Band produced movie “Parasite” from 1982. So they are worth keeping an eye on. Not that this was an Oscar level performance or anything, just better than I expected.

Conclusion.

So overall, this is actually a lot better than most people would expect a movie called “Bad CGI Gator” to be. The plot barely exists, there is bad acting and bad effects, but the movie is fun, funny and in it’s own B-Movie way, clever. Some of the acting is better than you’d expect at this level and some of the characters you’d expect to hate turn out to be the most entertaining. Overall, while it’s not going to get a high rating, when I put this on I figured I’d be lucky to get a 4/10 but instead it’s a high 5/10. Not the best, but higher than I’ve rated some Hollywood horror movies. If you love your B’s, you’ll get a kick out of it.

Rating: 5 out of 10.

Crime Wave (1953)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For my penultimate November Noir this year I’m checking out the very low budget B-Movie Noir “Crime Wave” from 1953 (1954 for the US). This is from director André De Toth (Pitfall) with a screenplay from Crane Wilbur. The movie stars Gene Nelson, with support from Phyllis Kirk, Sterling Hayden, Ted de Corsia and an early role for Charles Bronson (Credited as Charles Buchinsky, since it is before he changed his name). Sterling Hayden as the biggest star at the time got top billing despite his supporting role. Hayden would of course become an even bigger name in the years to come with films like “The Killers”, “Doctor Strangelove” and “The Godfather”.

Cops and Robbers.

“Steve Lacey” (Nelson), is an ex-con that has gone straight. He has settled down with his lovely wife “Ellen” (Kirk) and holds a pretty decent job despite his record. However, people who knew from his days of crime or his days in prison regularly hassle him and he struggles to truly escape his past. “Gat Morgan” (Nedrick Young) comes crashing into this, injured after he and two others were involved in a shoot-out with the police. Lacey refuses to get involved, but the wounds cause the man to die. The doctor Morgan had called arrives too late, but takes his pay out of the criminals suit before leaving.

Enter detective Simms (Hayden), a hard-nosed lieutenant that seems to have Lacey in his sights, assuming he will try and help his former convict friends, he sweats Lacey for three days in jail but eventually lets him loose. On returning home, the con finds ‘Doc’ Penny (de Corsia) and Ben Hastings (Bronson), his former colleagues, have invaded his apartment. Not only do they intend to hide out at Lacey’s they also want him to be their getaway driver for an ambitious bank job. With his wife as hostage he doesn’t have any choice but to cooperate.

Beating The Budget.

As I said in the introduction, this is a shoestring noir and so it’s not surprising there are times this is very noticable in the film. Two occasions in particular had horrendous dialogue delivery from a couple of bad actors, but both were minor characters and were easy to ignore not matter how obviously they are trying to remember their lines and speak them at the same time. It’s worth noting with low budget movies like this, there isn’t the luxury to reshoot every scene 100 times to make sure the take is spot on. So the acting may not be much worse than on a bigger budget movie, but there is no covering it up here. Even Sterling Hayden has a scene where the dialogue felt wrong in it’s delivery. Not actually bad like the other two events, but notably lacking the sleek delivery of the majority of his lines.

The cheapness isn’t all bad though. In many ways it makes the crime drama feel grittier and more realistic. It’s possibly the earliest film I’ve seen with something akin to “Shaky Cam” footage. Especially of note is the filming from inside vehicles, which really feels like a camera stuffed inside an actual car. It appears that they shot all the car footage on location, not using green screens. Indeed the final car chase actually follows a legitimate car route between the locations. One of the strengths of the film is how it utilizes heavy location filming with these more mobile camera techniques. They used a lot of genuine locations, and some, such as the veterinary practice, are still standing today (albeit with a different name). All told, I think they actually turned the lower budget into something positive here, and the film alone is worthy of praise for that.

Life And The City.

The characters are fairly one dimensional, even Steve Lacey who is a victim of circumstances for the entire movie. His more heroic actions aren’t the result of inner turmoil like was in the case of Dana Andrews character in “Where the Sidewalk Ends”, instead it’s just Lacey being Lacey. From the very start he’s firm in not wanting to have anything to do with the gang, but is forced to take part due to them using his wife as a hostage. Detective Lt. Simms is a very standard Haydn detective character. Hard-nosed, authoritative… frankly a bit of a dick, but unlike Haydn’s character in The Godfather he’s not corrupt and so ultimately figures out who are the criminals and who is the victim. This is played more as a heartwarming moment for the protagonist and his wife instead of a character moment for Simms. It does achieve what it was going for though, giving the movie a somewhat upbeat ending.

The story itself is straightforward, but compelling. It’s a classic noir in that regard, an ex con whose past is catching up to him. A character dragged into events, with seemingly no control of their own fate. This definitely provides the fatalism you expect in noir. The heavy use of location filming and the way way of presenting the city itself almost like a character is all part of the package of 50’s noir. Because of the guerrilla like filming style we get a bit of an unexpected visual treat with this in how authentic the city feels. This is the city as it is, the buildings in their naked stone… the people without makeup. That line is from “The Naked City” (1948), but as good as that movie was, this feels more authentic.

Conclusion

This is an interesting noir. It’s not the best plot, it’s not the best characters and it’s not got the best cinematography or soundtrack. But what it does have is buckets of creativity applied to making an effective film on a shoestring budget. To be fair, the rest is perfectly adequate and would probably land this film with a narrow 6/10. However, the uniqueness of this, the cleverness of how it deals with the budget restraints and the gritty feel all boost that up to a strong 6.5/10. Well worth checking out.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

The Equalizer 3 (2023)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For today’s review I’m stepping away from horror and film noir and checking out the recently released “The Equalizer 3”. This sees star Denzel Washington reunite with his favourite director Antoine Fuqua for the third installment in his race swapped Equalizer reboot series. I never really figured out why they decided to make the first film as a reboot of an 80’s TV series franchise most people didn’t even know. It always seemed to me there was more clout from having Denzel than their was from the franchise. It’s particularly puzzling since they dramatically changed the character and the franchise as a whole. At this point it’s only the name and the name of the protagonist that has any ties to the original. Ultimately though it doesn’t matter since the first two installments were really good. Anyway, let’s see if this one holds up to the others!

The Equalizer Busy Equalizing.

Our movie starts with Robert McCall (Washington) taking out a Mafia stronghold, to recover something (What is revealed at the end and is not relevant to the main plot, though it is to the character of McCall). While leaving he is shot by the grandson of the Mafia boss. Being a good guy McCall naturally didn’t want to kill a child and this left him injured and even considering taking his own life. In the end though he drives off, but falls unconscious somewhere along the Amalfi Coast and is rescued by Gio Bonucci (Eugenio Mastrandrea), a local carabiniere. Bonucci brings him to the remote coastal town of Altamonte, where he is treated by small-town doctor Enzo Arisio (Remo Girone).

As McCall recovers he grows attached to this little town and it’s people. He perhaps considers making his retirement permanent here. However it becomes apparent the local Mafia has plans for the town and it’s relentless shakedown of the working people there is part of a greater scheme. To protect this little pocket of paradise he has found, McCall must go back to what he knows and start equalizing things. Eventually he will have to face off the local Mafia boss, but he must also protect the town people.

Small Town Charms.

This is not an action film. This is the first thing to take into consideration because it doesn’t really work as an action film. Robert McCall is basically an unstoppable killing machine, so as an action film it would need a real physical threat to our hero and this film doesn’t find one. Instead it is a drama story book-ended by two major action scenes and with one very small action scene towards the end of the second act. In some ways it would make a good superhero film and it’s interesting because it does remind me a lot of Spider-Man 2. Specifically how the turning point in that movie is regular New Yorkers stepping up to defend Spider-Man. In the same way the town folk step up to help McCall, saving his life and effectively allowing him to do what he does.

While this is mostly a drama, the action that is there is well done. It’s nothing that wouldn’t be out of place in the first two movies. However the strength of this movie is in the heartwarming retired hero finds a home story. We get to see day to day life in a picturesque Amalfi Coast town and it is certainly charming. Italians love to socialise and this makes it impossible for McCall to stay aloof from things, he can’t help but love the place. After being nursed back to health there Robert it seems wants to stay. So when the village is threatened by the Mafia he has to stand in their way. It’s a very simple story. The side plot with CIA Agent Emma Collins is almost irrelevant. With or without that larger criminal activity, McCall would still need to protect the town.

Conclusion.

I have mixed feelings about this film. I can’t help but feel plot wise there is pretty much nothing here, at least not in the case of genuine stakes and plot that feels important. Yet, what is here works well. Perhaps it is a triumph for character focused storytelling. Perhaps it is proof that the charm of a small town is pretty much irresistible. Then again maybe it’s just Denzel Washington. He is after all one of the last genuine movie stars out there. Anyway, I’m giving this film a 6.5/10. About on par with the previous more action orientated sequel and a notch below the original film (Which is a strong 7/10).

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Ministry Of Fear (1944)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For tonight’s Film Noir I’m checking out the Fritz Lang film “Ministry of Fear” from 1944. This is a spy thriller, one of the less well known sub genre’s of Film Noir. These films were mostly popular around the second world war, for obvious reasons. Fritz Lang having fought in the first world war and fled Germany during the second was naturally a good fit for the genre. This particular story was based on the novel by the same name by Graham Greene (Adapted by script legend Seton I. Miller). It’s worth noting there have been a number of changes from the source material likely mandated by the Hays code and it does impact that story and characters. But I’ll mention that in the review section. The movie stars Ray Milland (Who would later go on to star in Noirs “The Lost Weekend” (1945) and “Dial M For Murder” (1954).

Guess The Weight, Win The War!

Set in England during the blitz, our story starts with the release of Stephen Neale from Lembridge Asylum. He was placed in the asylum effectively for legal reasons after he had been involved in the mercy killing of his wife. Though his wife took the poison herself, he did purchase it and so the court decided to sentence him to the asylum instead of prison. While waiting for the train to London, he stumbles upon a town fête. While having his future read by a psychic he is told to give a particular weight for the “Guess the weight, win the cake” game. He takes the advice and then wins the cake, but shortly after it’s clear there was a case of mistaken identity.

After boarding his train, he is joined by a blind old man who during an air raid takes the opportunity to attack Stephen and take the cake. Neale pursues, but the old man is killed by a bomb. With no trace of the cake, Stephen takes the man’s gun and returns to London. He seeks the help of private eye, who takes them to the charity that was organising the fête. Here he meets Willi Hilfe (Carl Esmond) and his sister Carla (Marjorie Reynolds) who seem to want to get to the bottom of things themselves. They pursue the medium from the fête and after joining her in a seance Neale is framed for murder and must go into hiding. Though he seems to be getting close to a dangerous Nazi spy right that are a threat to the entire country.

Creative Differences.

So the first thing to talk about are the changes from the book. These mostly impact the leading man and ladies personality. In the book, there is significantly more guilt on Neale’s side for the death of his wife. She was still ill, but he actively poisoned her and it’s suggested he feels it was more to end his suffering than hers. Meanwhile Carla is suggested to be part of the spy ring herself. This frames their relationship in an entirely new perspective. Two people afraid of having their dark secrets revealed finding some uneasy comfort with each other. It’s worth noting too that screenwriter Seton I. Miller fell out regularly with Lang over the direction of the film, but Miller usually had the final say (As he was a producer too).

It’s hard to say if the changes were related to the Hays code or just Miller’s vision. But either way along with the character motivations, the Asylum itself is entirely removed from the spy plot. The resulting plot is a little far fetched, but no worse than the majority of spy films. I can’t help but think there were more foolproof ways to deliver microfilm than to rely on key words to a fortune teller to be told the weight of a cake that literally anybody could have guessed. Once the ball is rolling the first two acts settle down nicely. The final third though is a little rougher though with it feeling like a bit of a rush to tidy things up. This includes a happy ending that flies at you from out of nowhere.

Building Suspense.

In practice the movie basically feels like a Hitchcock spy movie than a regular film Noir. The plot having a number of twists and turns and there being a big focus on building suspense. If there is one man that can rival Hitchcock for his ability to build suspense however it is Lang and he demonstrates this tremendously here. There is never a rush to action, so each moment is given time to provide maximum tension. Scene by scene these are superbly well crafted moments and it makes the relatively short run time of the movie fly by. In actuality the moments of plot are very fast paced and straight forward set pieces, but the build to each moment is prolonged.

What I like about Lang’s approach is it is very casual and natural. Here he doesn’t rely at all on the score and often these moments are quiet, except for things like footsteps. The train scene in particular stands out as well built tension in a scene that is on paper very simple. Another scene has a tailor is on the phone while casually twirling around a very large and dangerous looking pair of scissors. The scene provides important plot information from the call itself, but also signals to the viewer something is about to go off. Neale is aware of this too and you can see his tension build, especially as he eyes the scissors.

Conclusion.

This is an interesting film. The performances from Ray Milland and his supporting cast are fine and the story is relatively fun, but it is Lang’s direction that makes this worthwhile. He really knows how to get the most out of fairly straightforward scenes, especially ones that are light on dialogue. Perhaps this is due to his silent film roots, but it’s something we rarely see these days so well worth spending time to appreciate it. That said, this isn’t one of Lang’s best movies. The final act is a little messy and the character changes from the novel definitely hurt it. Perhaps were he given more creative control it could have been a true classic, we will never know. What we have however, is still good and I’m rating it at a high 6.5/10.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Censor (2021)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Back in the 1980’s, every teenager and young adult in the UK knew the term “Video Nasty”. We were into a period of boom for the horror industry and specifically for low budget direct to video horror. Producers like Charles Band would be pumping out two horrors a year (One for theatres and one direct to video). Italians were actively making films for international audience and video stores paid very little attention to certifications (I know this first hand, I wasn’t 18 until 1994 and I watched it all in the 80’s). Unsurprisingly there was a moral backlash to this which got big media attention. As a result a number of movies got banned in the UK and even today those UK release VHS tapes are incredibly valuable. Because they were band obviously we deliberately sought them out. It became a point of pride to have watched a “Video Nasty”.

Anyway horror film Censorship became a big issue in the UK. Largely down to campaigner Mary Whitehouse and the MVLA. But there were those that realised this was a huge marketing boost for people peddling anything that pushes the boundaries. Whitehouse and friends became an unwitting marketing tool. The result was more such content got created and it fed back into the boom. So much for censorship huh? Anyway, the independent British movie “Censor” from 2021 plays off that entire scene. This is from upcoming writer/director Prano Bailey-Bond and appears to be based off a short film she made a few years earlier called “Nasty” (At least the synopsis sounds really similar). It stars Niamh Algar (Raised by Wolves).

The Mary Whitehouse Experience

Enid (Algar) is a film censor that takes her job very seriously. She wants to protect people, and this stems from some childhood trauma where her sister disappeared, presumably being abducted. No one ever solved the case. While her parents have taken the move to have her declared legally dead, Enid is unwilling to move on. After being shaken up by having one of the movies she approved accused of inspiring a real life murderer she is asked to look at a film from a particular notorious movie director. In the film one of the actresses looks really familiar to her and she starts to wonder if this is her missing sister.

This sets Enid off on a mission to find out about the director and see this woman for herself. She starts to believe her sister is in genuine peril from these people and it’s down to her to save her. But is everything what it appears to be? Has a career doing nothing but watching the most violent of movies for the greater good damaged her? Eventually she finds her way to the movie set where they are recording the sequel to the film she saw earlier. Mistaken for an actress she is thrust right into the center of the action.

Video Nasties

The biggest problem with Censor stems from it being a feature length extension of a 15 minute short. This is something I’ve noticed a lot in similar films. The truth is what it takes to come up with a cool 15 minute horror isn’t necessarily enough for a feature length movie. Despite not being especially long, Censor really feels like it doesn’t have much to say. We have the basic idea of the video nasties and a damaged mind unable to separate reality from fiction and… that’s it. That’s the movie. You can tell this is a story that could have just as effectively been told over 15 minutes. It’s a problem with a lot of modern horrors. Writer/Directors go in with one good idea and just try and stretch that out.

As far as the sort-of tribute to video nasties goes, it’s a little shallow. There were some aspects of it I appreciated, such as how Enid’s rampage is shown to us in a similar fashion to the movies she was watching earlier. But this isn’t a clever meta film like Scream was to slashers. It uses the British backlash and censorship of these movies as a backdrop but doesn’t really go much deeper. There are is a sort of minor plot thread involving a murder that is thought to have been inspired by a video nasty that Enid had cleared, but that is somewhat detached from the main plot. Eventually it transpires the killer never even saw the film. Of course Enid has seen all those films, so it’s left unclear where the film stands on the topic. Indeed, it feels like the film doesn’t really care to examine it that closely.

VHS Nostalgia

I do appreciate that they went to the effort to make the film itself look like it was filmed in the 80’s and that part of the production is well done. The flickering of what looks like bad VHS tapes done for atmospheric and stylistic reasons and work well in both regards. This isn’t the most original concept and 80’s nostalgia is the most cliched nostalgia, but for me it’s a positive. That aside the film doesn’t really provide much in the way of memorable visuals and perhaps it could have done with making some visual references to more famous 80’s horrors. The soundtrack is pretty forgettable too and feels like a missed opportunity. A “Goblin” or Fabio Frizzi style soundtrack could have really elevated this movie.

There are some things I liked about the movie, mostly in the final act. Although the twist is obvious in coming, I liked the way it is presented. Really this sequence is the highlight of the movie and remains good right up to the credits. I also liked the ending of the scene where Enid accidentally kills the horror producer. The scene itself was nothing special and missed a lot of opportunities to demonstrate Enid’s bad mental state, but her polite exit after the incident was a good way to show her shattered mind. That is basically the signal point for the final act which is in all very solid. The trouble is the first two acts to get there are not at all interesting or compelling. Niamh Algar however puts in a very impressive performance as Enid and that certainly helps elevate that finale act.

Eject

This is a conceptually good, but mostly below average horror with a strong final act that narrowly falls short of redeeming the movie. The trouble is while the concept is interesting, far too little is done with it. Ultimately the entire film is just designed to get us to the ending and little interesting or worthwhile is provided along the way. It would however have made a great Creepshow episode. It’s not a complete waste of time though and British fans of 80’s horror will likely enjoy the references to some extent. Censor falls just short of “Good” and levels off slightly above average at 5.5/10

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Where The Sidewalk Ends (1950)

Posted on by fenrisfil

The 1950 Film Noir “Where The Sidewalk Ends” is a reunion of a sorts for classic Noir “Laura” from 1944. Bringing back the pairing of the intense Dana Andrews and gorgeous Gene Tierney alongside that movies director, Otto Preminger. The movie is based on the William L. Stuart novel “Night Cry”. The screenplay is provided by veteran writer and academy award winner Ben Hecht who’s credits include “Underworld” (1927), Scarface (1932) and Hitchcock’s “Spellbound” (1945) and “Notorious” (1946). The movie marks the end of a run of films Preminger made for 20th Century Fox. Often with one or both of the two leads. All three were very comfortable working together at this point. This is a very strong set up, but will that translate to good film? Let’s find out.

The Set Up

Andrews plays “Mark Dixon”, a tough police detective that constantly gets into trouble for his rough treatment of criminals. He is a driven man, whose father was a criminal and this has left him determined to prove he is a better man. One of the criminals he particularly wants to take down was somewhat of a protegee to his father, “Tommy Scalise” (Played by Gary Merrill). He spots the opportunity to do so after a man is murdered at a craps game hosted by Scalise. However, he points the finger at “Ken Paine” (played by Craig Stevens), a man that brought the murdered man to the venue. Dixon doesn’t buy it, but is sent by his boss to investigate Paine.

Dixon confronts Paine, but Paine turns it into a fist fight. After a punch from Dixon, Paine falls hitting his head and dies. Likely this is a result of the steel plate Paine has in his head from a war wound. Fearing the consequences Dixon attempts to cover up the accidental murder, while trying to pin it (and the original murder) on Scalise. However, Paine’s wife “Morgan” (Tierney) , who accompanied him to the craps game and her taxi driver father “Jiggs Taylor” (Played by Tom Tully) are drawn into it, with the evidence pointing to Jiggs as Paine’s killer. It’s down to Dixon to put things right.

Between Two Eras

As a film sitting right in the middle of the Film Noir period it’s no surprise to find the film has elements of both halves. Mixing the gritty hard boiled stories of the 40’s and more experimental and visually polished films of the 50’s. Like many Noirs from both periods though the focus is on one character torn between self interest and doing what is right. A classic dilemma for a movie protagonist, but rarely handled with such intensity as it is in Noir. This movie is an excellent example of doing the trope right. The more Dixon tries to dig himself out of the mess he is in, the worse things become.

The cinematography is worthy of special praise here. Right from the opening scene it is clear we are in a new era of Noir. We start with steps on a rainy sidewalk revealing the movie title. This is followed by shots of the city at night and Dixon riding with his partner to the Police Station. It’s all just the title sequence, but it’s also a mood setter that gets you anticipating the movie to come. The the rest of the film features a fair amount of location shooting that helps enhance it’s visual appeal. The set lighting has the usual Noir use of light and shadows. Here though it is kept relatively subtle so doesn’t detract from the events on screen. The soundtrack meanwhile is a fairly standard affair for the period. Occasionally it dabbles into more experimental territory but then firmly returns to it’s 40’s love theme hook. It works well enough anyway.

I didn’t know a man could hate so much.

Dixon’s character is a bit of a mixed bag, but grows on you over time with the film. Early on he’s a bit over the top in his tough guy cop routine. While he and his boss are grilling Scalise, Dixon is a bit over the top. He’s so desperate to rough up Scalise regardless of having just been demoted for such behavior. That sort of conduct it sets him up as quite hard to sympathise with. However, the accidental killing of Paine was truly not his fault. With everyone being aware of Dixon’s temper, you can understand why he’d resort to covering this up. Even in the face of it all though, he never loses site of his grudge against Scalise. He keeps trying to work the situation to his advantage. It’s only when he realises how similar he has become to the man (And his own father) that he decides to do the right thing.

The film features strong dialogue despite Dixon’s somewhat one dimensional start. The lead, Scalise, Morgan and Jiggs are all interesting characters and unsurprisingly Andrews and Tierney have strong on screen chemistry. On top of that the pacing is very well done and the plot is clever, though the grand finale show down with the gangsters was a little contrived in how it resolved. To be fair, Scalise was never the story, so it’s what happens after that where the film really climaxes. What I like the most about this film is that Dixon is frankly a jerk, but yet I still feel sympathy for him and can tell he has enough good in him to make things right in the end. It’s a very well constructed character and perfect for the genre.

Conclusion

Overall this is a quality Film Noir from a top director in the genre with an excellent cast and great cinematography. At the time it drew comparisons with 1944’s “Laura” (Due to the cast and director) and was found lacking and while I do prefer Laura, I can’t help but feel that was unfair on the movie. Dana Andrews was developing a lot of personal problems around this period (Alcoholism mostly) and becoming very frustrated with the studios, but he seems to have channeled it into one of the best performances of his career. All told I’m going to give this a strong 7/10. On a side note, let’s take a moment to remember that sixteen years later, Otto Preminger would play “Mr Freeze” in the Batman TV series. Mind blown, right?

Rating: 7 out of 10.

Smile (2022)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Just because October is over, doesn’t mean I’ve stopped watching and reviewing horror movies. This particular one I originally planned as part of my October Challenge, but I swapped it out for “Five Nights At Freddy’s” at the last minute. So this is somewhat late review of “Smile” from 2022.

Newcomer Parker Finn writes and directs the movie and it stars Kevin Bacon’s daughter Sosie Bacon in her horror movie debut. Bacon is not a complete stranger to horror however, having appeared in the “Scream” TV series for four episodes. The main support is from Jessie T. Usher and Kyle Gallner. Smile had a tremendously successful marketing campaign which mostly involved the stars standing around at public events with insane grins. It went on to gross $217m worldwide, which for a movie costing only $17m to make (and probably more than that in P&A) represents a huge profit. But is it any good?

I’m Not Crazy!

Sosie Bacon plays “Rose Cotter” an overworked but driven therapist at a psychiatric ward. Rose is largely driven in this career by the impact of witnessing her mother’s suicide when she was young. Having been too afraid of her mentally ill mother to assist her, she blames herself for her death. One day she asked to speak to a new patient called Laura (Played by Caitlin Stasey). Laura is thought to be suffering extreme trauma After witnessing her college professors suicide. She claims she isn’t insane and is instead being tormented by some kind of monstrous entity. The thing would appear to her in the form of various people, all of whom would be grinning. After freaking out in the interview, Laura takes on this same manic grin and cuts her own throat.

Rose is shaken by the incident and soon she starts seeing this entity herself. After realizing there is more to this then just trauma Rose begins to investigate. Looking into both her patient and the professor she finds a long chain of suicides. Convinced now that this curse is real she desperately tries to find a way out of it. Her friends and family however don’t believe her, largely because they wonder if she has inherited her mother’s mental illness. Her ex boyfriend however, police detective “Joel” (Gallner) attempts to help her dig into this mystery. They discover there was a break to the chain of suicides and Rose wonders if this may give her a way out. But will it be that simple?

Behind The Smile.

So first thing to talk about here is the crazy grin. This isn’t the first film to make use of the unsettling nature of an exaggerated grin. The first use was likely “The Man Who Laughs” from 1928, famously the inspiration for The Joker. It’s also worth noting a famous “Creepypasta” known as “The smiling Man” also features this and may well be the inspiration for the film. Not too many years before this Blumhouse released the movie “Truth or Dare” (2018), which also heavily pushed the gimmick. That movie was a much more generic horror than this, but it used the smile in much the same way. In both it is a way to tell the viewer and the victim of the presence of the movies antagonist. It’s also not really explained as anything other than just a thing that happens. Both antagonists seem to enjoy toying with their victims, but outside of that there is no real reason for it. It is a gimmick. Despite naming the film after the smile and very successfully focusing the marketing on it, It still feels like a gimmick

The strength of the movie though is in the atmosphere it builds. It’s notable that there are actually only two deaths on screen. Several are mentioned, but only two are actually shown. The vast majority of the horror is the evil entity creeping out Rose and these scares are done very well. Outside of this the movie relies a lot on the the creative cinematography (Interesting, though not always effective) and the discordant noise based music to maintain the atmosphere and it does it well. It’s become a trend with a lot of modern films (Mostly, but not exclusively horror) to have noise based soundtracks. Lots of ambiance, bangs, scrapes and a few discordant notes. I’m not especially fond of this trend, but it works effectively here. Without the creepiness the soundtrack brings to the table, the movie probably wouldn’t work.

Suicide Girls.

The movies is very competently put together, especially consider this is a directorial debut. We have an interesting protagonist. Rose is flawed and damaged, but is aware of both. She knows most of this stems from her guilt over her mother’s death. That trauma plays a key role. It’s hinted that all the Smile entities victims have this kind of past trauma. When she isn’t being abused by the entity, we get to see Rose’s regular life and watch her gradually failing mental state. It’s worth noting the “Birthday present” scene (No spoilers) either demonstrates that the entity can impact the world outside their victim, that it can control her already or possibly that Rose actually did it herself. It poses an interesting question for sure.

Laura the first victim, launches the film and sets the audience up for what to expect. Caitlin Stasey, mostly known for her roles in Australian soap operas, plays the role. As the first victim, the first person controlled by the Smile entity, the first person to provide exposition and the form the entity takes for a lot of the film, everything hinges on her performance. Fortunately she puts in a cracker. You really feel her terror and once she is taken over by the entity it is definitely creepy. I was less impressed with Jessie T. Usher, who just didn’t seem that genuine as a character, but despite being Rose’s fiance had only a small role.

Conclusion.

In conclusion while the smile thing is a bit of a gimmick and not particularly original, the movie itself is pretty good. It is straightforward but well put together. It provides a great creepy atmosphere, gives us a new interesting take on an evil entity (We’re never given a clue as to what it is, so I’m sticking with “Entity”) and gives us an interesting and flawed protagonist who we get to see deteriorate to breaking point. Perhaps the movie could be accused of being a little “One note”, but that persistence to the theme is key to what builds the atmosphere. I do think there could have been more done with it, but Overall I’m impressed and look forward to seeing what Parker Finn does next. This is a 7/10

Rating: 7 out of 10.

The Big Shot (1942)

Posted on by fenrisfil

So now October is out of the way, it’s tradition here at Screen Wolf to throw in a few classic Film Noir reviews for November (Or “Noirvember” as I call it). November is largely a recovery month for me after hitting up 31 horror reviews for October so I don’t set any particular targets, but there will certainly be more than one. My Noir watch list is almost as large as my horror one so I have no lack of material. The month won’t be exclusive to Noir though like October is to Horror.

Anyway, first up is a double whammy for me as it’s also part of my quest to watch every single Humphrey Bogart movie. This is “The Big Shot” from 1942. Directed by Lewis Seller (Who also worked with Bogart on “King of the Underworld” in 1939) and written by the team of Bertram Millhauser, Abem Finkel and Daniel Fuchs. Bogarts support in this film includes Irene Manning, Richard Travis, Stanley Ridges, and Chuck Chandler.

Every Angle Covered.

The story focuses on Joseph ‘Duke’ Berne (Bogart), a three time loser trying to keep his head down and stay on the straight and narrow after his recent release from prison. Naturally that doesn’t work out as he is encouraged to lead a team in a heist. After meeting the heists mastermind, a lawyer called Flemming (Ridges), he is reunited with his former girlfriend Lorna (Manning), now married to Flemming. She meets Duke in his apartment and encourages him to stay out of the heist, which he does.

Unfortunately a witness incorrectly places him at the scene and not wanting to expose his involvement with Flemming’s wife he get’s the attorney to find him a fake alibi. After Flemming finds out about the pairs involvement he double crosses Duke, who is sent up for life. This leaves him trying to find a way to break out and perhaps get even. However it’s not that simple as innocent lives are being dragged into this, notably a good man named George (Travis), who had provided his fake alibi.

The Wise Guy.

The Big Shot is a one man show, but fortunately for the movie that man is Humphrey Bogart. Since the scene changes mid way through to the prison, the supporting cast shifts with it. Only George following him to lock up, so most of the supporting cast is absent for this middle section. Not that this is a problem, since most viewers turned up to see Bogey anyway. Bogart had a long period playing gangsters for Warner Brothers, but this would be his last appearance for the studio in such a role.

This was one year after he finally made it big with “The Maltese Falcon” and High Sierra. So it’s not a surprise he wasn’t just playing the villain here. He was instead a sympathetic lead, a gangster with a heart. The main theme of the film being focused on his internal struggle between doing what is right and doing what he knows. The movie has solid dialogue and Bogart’s delivery is very good, but the truth is this is a pretty average performance from the screen legend. The rest of the cast do a solid job in support and with them all having fairly limited roles none really had a chance to stand out more.

My New Act Will Kill Ya!

We get a good bit of variety of settings with this movie. We get some bar scenes, a botched heist, a court room scene, the prison section with it’s break out and of course a variety of apartment buildings. The variety adds to the story, but there’s not really much of note for the cinematography here. Really the film feels more like a 30’s gangster movie than a 40’s Noir. True to that, the most notable visuals are the high octane car chases.. Dating the movie a bit further is the prison entertainment show that includes a blacked up prisoner dancing with a life sized gollywog. It was a different time.

The strength here is in the character aspects of the story. Duke has a conscience but is constantly drawn into things but more nefarious characters. This always seems to lead to innocent (Or mostly innocent) people being pulled into the line of fire and Duke being responsible for it. Some of these maneuverings are quite subtle, but when you put it all together you can see the chain of events. For example despite Duke telling his fellow escapee “Dancer” to leave the planning to him, it is him that suggests using Georges job as the warden’s chauffeur to bring items in to the prison to use for their escape. That of course puts a big target on George’s back after Dancer murders a guard while trying to escape.

Duke of Nothing

That said, there is also a lot about the plot that doesn’t really seem to make sense. The only reason Duke is fingered for the heist (Which he didn’t take part in) was because the police encouraged the witness to name him as the person that grabbed her and used her as a human shield. She clearly couldn’t remember and even thought it was the chief of police at one point (Because their photo was on the desk). While the cops of the day may well have worked that way (I couldn’t honestly say), it seems like you’d need more than one very bad witness to pin the crime on Duke. A simple cross examination should have been enough to put doubt in the jury’s mind. It wouldn’t even need the fake alibi.

The other issue is Dukes reputation. At one point it’s declared he is pushing 40 (He was 43 at the time). The Warden claims Duke is one of the best criminals out there and had a 20 years career. However, it’s also pretty clearly spelled out that Duke has done three stretches in prison, two of five years and one of ten. So If he’s 40 and spent 20 years in prison, that doesn’t seem to leave much time to actually be the big shot everyone claims he is. Even if he started out very young, he still spent most of his time in prison, suggesting he’s probably not the great mastermind with all the angles covered either. Honestly, it’s a bit messy.

The Verdict

Overall, the movie has strong dialogue (All the more stronger for Bogart’s delivery) and reasonable ideas but is dragged down by notable plot holes. Visuals and music are pretty average and really there isn’t a lot else that stands out about it. I enjoyed the movie for what it was, but there are better Bogart movies and better movies about Gangsters doing the right thing in the end. If you are a fan of star you will enjoy it, but otherwise probably not worth your time. I’m giving this a strong 5.5/10. Falling under a six mostly because I just don’t buy the set up for this one. I should add, the film (Or at least the copy I saw) has not been preserved in especially good condition so this may impact my rating and your own enjoyment.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Blood Diner (1987)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Well that’s it, the final review of my 2023 October Challenge. This is the low budget horror comedy “Blood Diner” from 1987. The movie was the third of four movies directed by Jackie Kong in a short career likely only made possible by the VHS boom of the 80’s. The movie was written by Michael Sonye, who has had a reasonable career as an actor but only has writing credits for six movies. This is the highest rated on IMDb at 5.3/10. His lowest is rated at 2.8 out of ten. This is one of those movies where much of the cast have only appeared in this one film and many of the ones that have been in other things use shots from this movie as their bio picture on IMDb (Or have no picture). This gives you hint of what to expect!

Bon Appétit.

The plot of the movie revolves around a pair of cannibals and their “Vegetarian” diner. Two brothers and their dead uncle (Now a brain in a jar) are planning to perform an ancient ceremony to resurrect the ancient Lumerian goddess Sheetar. To do this they have to make a number of preparations that mostly involve killing young women, preparing a cannibalistic stew that will make those that consume it turn into feral zombie like cannibals and prepare the sacrifice of a virgin. On their tail are a pair of tough yet bumbling police officers, investigating a what appears to be a serial killer targeting vegetarians.

Junk Food.

Okay, so I’m just going to say it: This is a bad movie. Whenever I review a fairly average movie I usually say “It’s not terrible but…”, well this one is terrible and there is no real “But” to that. There are some good ideas, but the execution of them is so poor that most viewers likely won’t even give it that much credit. It is poorly acted, poorly scripted, badly paced (Rushing from one joke/murder to the next without giving any of it room to breath), music that seems absent half the time it is needed and overstays it’s welcome when it is not, the gore was so comical that it lost all impact and worst of all, it just wasn’t funny.

Most of the humour falls flat. Most of the jokes are either casual but cartoon like violence or general gross out stuff. There were three scenes that were sort of funny. One was the intro, specifically the radio broadcast about the psycho. Another was where one of the brothers has to keep running someone over before he actually dies and another where a woman having seen her friend being chopped up goes to run away, but then runs back because she forgot her handbag. That was it. The rival chef’s ventriloquist dummy could have been funny in theory, but didn’t really work in practice. It felt out of place and just came across as pointless and dumb.

So Bad It’s Bad.

The acting is especially bad. I’ve watched a lot of low budget B-movies, so I have a pretty good tolerance for bad acting, but this was next level bad. Pretty much all the actors playing the police were dreadful. The worst of the bunch was Sheba Jackson as “LaNette La France” and it’s no surprise to see this is her only credit on IMDB. Max Morris was almost as bad as the Police Chief and joins Sheba in the “This is my only acting credit” department. Fortunately Rick Burks and Carl Crew, who played the two cannibal brothers were just regular bad, though the script they had to work with didn’t do them any favours. Drew Godderis also managed a tolerable performance as the brain in a jar psycho uncle, though he is helped by just being a voice actor.

I get the impression half of the joke here is meant to be that the film is really bad. This kind of thing never really works for me. Things being intentionally bad always fail to reach that “So bad it’s good” category. Most humour works best when played straight, most funny low budget movies work best when the makers treat it seriously, no matter how crazy the ideas they are working on are. Here it seemed they spent too long laughing at their own jokes. Really a lot of this plays like a series of sketches haphazardly thrown together, with most of it adding nothing to the overall story.

Concussion.

Ultimately, this is one big fail. The concept could have worked, but not with this director, writer and most of these actors. Some people may be able to get a kick out of it and I think being drunk and/or high will help. But coming in dry, it’s just plain bad. I give it a few points for trying to be fun and for the half decent concept, but the most generous I can be with this one is a low 3.5/10. On a side note, I like the trailer. It’s better than the movie. That’s all. Happy Halloween and whatever your viewing tonight (If anything), I hope it’s better that this!

Rating: 3.5 out of 10.