Tonight’s horror review is “Puppet Master” from 1989. Shockingly I’ve never gotten on board with this particular horror franchise. I’ve seen enough clips to be aware of the individual puppets and the general concept, but never watched a movie. That gives me a lot to catch up on because there are fifteen of them (Including one remake). The third movie “Toulon’s Revenge” is generally considered the best one, but I’m not one to skip ahead. This is of course from Charles Band’s “Full Moon Pictures” production company. The company (In one form or another) that gave us Ghoulies, Head of the Family, Tourist Trap and Bad CGI Gator, to name but a few.
Puppet Master is written and directed by “Tourist Trap” (1979) director David Schmoeller. As is often the case with these films, Charlies brother Richard provides the score. Cinematography is provided by Sergio Salvati who also performed that job for the Lucio Fulci movie “The Beyond” (1981). Paul Le Mat plays the protagonist “Alex”, but it’s an ensemble story really. You won’t know who any of these people are so I’m skipping the list. The story involves a group of psychics that are drawn together by a psychic message from an old acquaintance. An unpleasant man that has been searching for the ancient secret to giving life to the inanimate. When they arrive they find the man has died, but it seems he has plans that go beyond death.
Puppets in the Hands of Fate
This has a more complex set up than I was expecting from this movie. The group of psychics being drawn together by a message from a dead man is a pretty interesting premise in itself. It didn’t really need murderous puppets, nor did the puppets need the psychics. But, this is actually pretty normal Charles Band films of the time. Likely it was done to reduce the amount of time they had to animate the puppets. Ghoulies was very similar, with a story about sorcery that only tangentially related to the monsters. The difference here is story doesn’t get in the way of the carnage. The puppets are directly tied to the purpose of main plot rather then just being there like in Ghoulies.
The effects and animation of the puppets is pretty reasonable. Obviously these days you could do better, but nothing here took me out of it. I’m not convinced the design of Leech Woman and Pinhead (Not the one from Hellraiser) is particularly effective. Leech Woman needs people to basically stay still while she slowly vomits leeches onto them. Pinhead meanwhile just punches and strangles people, but is easily thrown off. Practicality aside, they are all pretty original and creepy looking. The acting is pretty reasonable for a low budget horror too.
Conclusion
While not a horror masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, this was a better film than I was expecting. It’s an entirely reasonable B-Movie. That said, there’s nothing to write home about here either. No stand out scenes or characters. The puppets don’t really get enough screen time individually to call them iconic just yet, though certainly creative. Despite having a more complex than expected set up, the story itself is simple once it gets rolling. So ultimately this is an okay horror, if a little dated. But it’s quick, punchy and original and is the first of a long run of films so I’d say it’s worthwhile if you are a horror fan. Just about a 6/10.
I was introduced to Hammer’s Dracula around about age ten. So for me Christopher Lee will always be my Dracula. So on the surface it may seem odd that I’ve never seen this sequel to 1958’s “Dracula” (“Horror of Dracula” to my US readers). But when you realize this is a sequel that features neither Christopher Lee nor Dracula you can probably see why I would skip it. A harsh decision to be sure, because it is still directed by the great Terence Fisher and still stars the legendary Peter cushing. Almost any Hammer film worth watching involves one or both of those people. So time to give it a chance. Jimmy Sangster, Peter Bryan and Edward Percy provide the screenplay and Jack Asher the cinematography. Composer Malcolm Williamson provides a score in the classic Hammer style of James Bernard.
Dracula is gone, but his disciples still plague Transylvania. One such vampire, “Baron Meinster” has so far been contained by his mother, the Baroness. He is kept chained in his private quarters at their castle. While his mother wishes to contain this evil, she still feeds it. The Baroness brings young women to the castle, kills them and feed his son their blood. One potential victim, “Marianne”, a school teacher passing through the area instead frees the Baron. This unleashes the evil and makes her the focus of the Baron’s dark desires. Fortunately for her, while feeling the castle she is picked up by a travelling “Doctor Van Helsing” (Cushing), in the area to hunt for just such monsters.
Brides of Meinster
Hammer horrors are formulaic, there’s no denying that. However they usually well made, have a great soundtrack and get elevated by a small number of great actors putting in powerful performances. Christopher Lee, André Morell, Michael Gough and Charles Gray are on that list of actors. But none were more important to Hammer films than Peter Cushing, who appeared in no less than twenty two of their movies. Peter of course stars here. However, there is no Christopher Lee in this “Dracula” movie. Christopher was concerned about being type cast and turned down the role. Obvious he got over it later (Appearing in another six sequels after this).
Instead of recasting Dracula, they stuck with the ending of the previous movie from 1958 and moved on to a new vampire threat. Fine in theory, though it makes the title even more misleading. “Brides of Dracula” in the novel refers to the vampire women that reside with the Count. So the two vampire women in the story could be called “Brides” but not really of “Dracula”. They actually contribute very little to the story too. But the bigger problem is the substitute “Baron Meinster” is a poor imitation. Played by a mediocre David Peel, who retired from acting not long after. His acting is solid though compared to the “Brides”.
Conclusion
While the brides role is minimal so easy to forgive, leading lady Yvonne Monlaur’s acting is inconsistent throughout. At times she’s very good, at times notably poor. Perhaps I am being a bit harsh though because this is all in comparison to Peter Cushing’s naturally flawless performance as Van Helsing. It may also be unfair to compare Meinster to Christopher Lee’s Dracula. I acknowledge that, but it’s impossible not to make that comparison in a Hammer film with “Dracula” in the title. It’s also worth noting Lee wasn’t always great as Dracula, though only because he didn’t want to be there for those later films. At his peak, there was no better Dracula.
More importantly and far less debatable is that there is no better Van Helsing than Peter Cushing. His presence raises this film up by at least one star. The music helps too. This is classic Hammer and while it doesn’t do anything new it works perfectly well. Sadly the story starts far more interestingly than it ends and it’s notable the good part of the story is the bit before Van Helsing turns up. This means the film never really peaks. Terrence Fisher competently directs throughout, but this isn’t his best work. For that, we’d have to wait another eight years for “The Devil Rides Out”. Sadly I can only give this a 5.5/10. Worthwhile for Hammer fans, but otherwise forgettable.
I watched and reviewed the first Wyrmwood movie for a previous October Challenge. If you read that review, you will know that I liked the film and gave it a recommendation. It was surprisingly innovative and very impressive for the shoestring budget. I found out about the sequel right away, but I held off watching it until this year’s October challenge. So here we are. Like the first film this is written/directed and produced by Kiah Roache-Turner and stars Jay Gallagher, Bianca Bradey and Luke McKenzie. Tristan Roache-Turner assists with the writing. Cinematography is by Tim Nagle and music is by Michael Lira.
The movie picks up an indeterminate amount of time after the first film. Brooke (Bradey) and Barry (Gallagher) are travelling with another sibling pair of Grace (Tasia Zalar) and Maxi (Shantae Barnes Cowan). Grace is a hybrid, like Brooke but without the power to control other zombies. After some kind of incident between them the groups split and Grace is captured by Wasteland loner Rhys (McKenzie) and delivered to a research center where they are supposedly researching a cure. Rhys is beginning to doubt the researchers methods and goals and turns on them, teaming up with Maxi, Brooke and Barry.
Mad Max Vs Zombies
This is a grindhouse style zombie movie. There are a lot of grindhouse zombie films because it’s very easy and cheap to do and the stories largely write themselves. More upmarket zombie films may feature social commentary (All Romero’s movies), great special effects (Like in Return of the Living Dead) or a focus on human survivors (See, every Walking Dead show and spin off). Grindhouse zombie films are much more straightforward. The focus is on having some fun and not thinking too hard about it. As these goes, probably the best you are likely to get is “Planet Terror” (2007), from the double movie feature called “Grindhouse”. But the original Wyrmwood (2014) came pretty close. Introducing a Mad Max aesthetic to the genre and the idea of Zombie fumes fueling those Mad Max vehicles.
Apocalypse, follows on directly from that story and presents more of the same. This is both it’s strength and it’s biggest flaw. Although it does a relatively good job it doesn’t have the originality presented by the first film and it doesn’t move the story forward in any meaningful way. Ultimately there was no reason to do a sequel, at least not a direct sequel. The good aspects, the Mad Max stuff, the zombie fuel and the returning characters are all things we’ve seen before. In many ways this is a very safe sequel. The plot itself is mostly a duplication of the previous movie too. None of it is actually bad though, it’s just unimaginative.
Conclusion
Much like the previous movie, the acting is solid and a lot better than you usually expect for a low budget zombie film. It’s almost the same cast as the previous movie, but the quality in general seems improved. To be clear, no one is winning Oscars here, but it’s above average for grindhouse horror. The soundtrack is pretty solid and the effects work well. The cyborg zombie introduced late on does look pretty cool. The switch of roles for Luke McKenzie is another thing that works well and Rhys’ base camp and lifestyle are the closest this movie comes to an original idea. But it doesn’t last long and the focus mostly returns to re-doing the first film.
Overall, this is an okay zombie sequel. You need to watch the first Wyrmwood movie to understand it as it doesn’t really explain anything. If you have watched that and you did enjoy it, then you probably will enjoy this one. It is less innovative and doesn’t really add much to that story, but is perhaps a bit tighter and more polished production. I do like Kiah Roache-Turner as a writer/director. I’ve seen four of his movies, all were interesting and none were bad. The first “Wyrmwood” and “Nekrotronic” (2018) were actually quite good. This one is weaker, but above average overall and a solid 5.5/10. Recommended, but only if you enjoyed the first film.
Horror is booming. The entire genre has become a licence to print money and shows no sign of slowing down. That’s not to say every film has been a success, but the general rule of low costs and easy returns has made it most profitable. Horror and Anime are the only safe bets these days, with every other genre struggling to break even. Given that, it’s no surprise to see a trend of the odd horror movie getting a huge boost from hype and word of mouth. Last year it was “The Substance” that got the hype, this year it is “Weapons”. This is a movie from writer/director Zach Cregger (Whose previous movie “Barbarian” also landed on the hype wagon). It features an ensemble cast but primarily Josh Brolin and Julia Garner. Larkin Seiple provides cinematography and music is by the collaboration between Cregger and the “Holladay Brothers”.
One night, in the town of Maybrook, Pennsylvania, seventeen children from elementary school teacher “Justine Gandy”‘s (Garner) third-grade class suddenly ran from their homes at 2:17 a.m. and disappeared. Only one student, “Alex Lilly” (Cary Christopher), remained. The story picks up two years later and follows the lives of various characters impacted by this event as they try and move on with their lives and get to the bottom of what happened. Specifically Justine, parent “Archer” (Brolin), Police Officer “Paul” (Alden Ehrenreich), junkie “James” (Austin Abrams) and the surviving child Alex. But to figure it out they must get over their own mistrust of each other first.
Narrative Technique
There are several movies that tell a story from multiple characters perspective. It’s one of a few techniques that allow the writers to hide important information from the viewer while still constructing a compelling narrative. The other main way of doing this is by telling the story out of order (Such as in “Memento” or “Strange Darlings”). The advantage with giving character perspectives is that you can change events based on how a human remembers them, adding in the “Unreliable narrator”. Weapon’s doesn’t really do this. Instead, it’s more like the time jump technique but without a set protagonist. In that regard it’s more comparable to “Strange Darlings” than a film like “Rashomon”.
The technique does had it’s advantages here. Effectively how it works is to give you a little more both at the start and end of the story with each new character. Our final character provides us with both the start and end of the story. There are a few horrors that recontextualize the timeline with it’s conclusion. There’s several that hold off from showing the true beginning of the story until the end. But I can’t think of any that progresses it in quite the same way. So point for originality there. The structure keeps the mystery alive far longer that a straight forward narrative could (Even if it held back the true beginning).
Unravelling The Mystery
The movie gives a very good atmosphere throughout. While I’m avoiding spoilers, so won’t reveal the nature of the evil in this story, I will say that I approve. It’s rare that this particular horror archetype is actually scary. A bit like vampires being made into sexy/romantic characters, this archetype is usually portrayed as heroic, misunderstood, sexy or an allegory for… Well that would give it away. So I appreciate that. Perhaps not as much as I appreciated Nosferatu and Last Voyage of the Demeter making Vampires scary again, but I do approve. This is a fairly long horror and the pacing is steady. Definite slow burn, but not one that will have you checking your watch.
Where I have some issues with the story is that it requires a seriously incompetent police investigation to work. Really almost anyone in that town not doing even the vaguest bit of investigation would have figured it out. Of course that is basically what did happen, but only after two entire years of it not crossing anyone’s mind to plot likely paths of the children for intersections. The evil plan was ultimately never going to work We’re also seeing a power level that is so off the charts that it draws into question the need for such a crazy plan. There’s a lot here that falls apart if you think about it too much.
Conclusion
Overall, this is a very impressive horror movie. If you remember my “Wolf Man” (2025) review earlier in the year you may remember that Julia Garner was the lead of that movie as well. So she gets the “Skarsgård” award for being in both the strongest and weakest horror film of the year. If you don’t get the reference, Bill Skarsgård was in both the abysmal “Crow” remake last year and the magnificent “Nosferatu”. So this is becoming a bit of a redemption arc trend. Anyway, Garner wasn’t the problem with “Wolf Man” and she’s actually very good here. The whole cast is pretty solid to be fair.
Ultimately this is a film that gives a great first experience in watching. It has definite flaws (Such as incompetent police and FBI investigations) and I am not sure it will maintain my appreciation through too many re-watches. But it’s one of the most original horror films I’ve seen for years and is well deserving of a strong 7/10. Highly recommended.
A horror movie that got a bit of hype this year (Though not as much as “Weapons”) was Michael Shanks feature film directorial debut “Together”. Written and directed by Shanks (Not the Stargate actor btw), but designed as a vehicle for husband and wife actors Dave Franco and Alison Brie. This is a loud and proud body horror, with the trailer being pretty clear with the viewers where the movie is headed. The two leads are joined by Damon Herriman as the only other cast member of note. Cinematography is by Germain McMicking and music by Cornel Wilczek.
Millie Wilson (Brie) and Tim Brassington (Franco) move to the countryside so that Millie can take up a job teaching elementary school English. This is tough on Tim, who is dealing with the recent passing of his parents, can’t drive and is trying to pursue a career as a musician. Despite his issues, he loves Millie and their bond is strong. It’s about to get a lot stronger though. After going on a hike around the nearby forest the pair fall into a cave during a rainstorm and are forced to stay there for the night. They wake, to find their legs stuck together by something, but are able to separate them. Over the next few days though the pair are inexplicably drawn to each other and find their bodies fusing together. They desperately try and stay apart, while figuring out what is happening.
Chemistry
This is certainly an interesting film. The big negative here is that it really doesn’t do that much more than what you already see in the trailer. The basic premise is basically, this thing is happening to this couple. Eventually they get a little info on it, but it doesn’t really add anything. There were no extra layers beyond what I already knew going in. This is two lovers, being forced physically together in a body horror film. That’s it. It’s also worth noting there is still (At the time of writing) a law suit alleging this film is a rip off of the 2023 film “Better Half”. The script for which was apparently pitched to Brie and Franco in 2020, but they declined. It’s hard to know the truth, but this kind of thing happens all the time in Hollywood.
The big positive of this film is the two stars. Brie and Franco are married in real life (And have been since 2017) so unsurprisingly, they have great chemistry together. You do truly get the impression they are in love and this is what makes the film really work. The body horror stuff isn’t really that shocking if you’ve watched much Cronenberg. The plot is also minimal and feels linear. On top of this, movie has a tiny cast and so puts all the weight on the two leads. Fortunately between the chemistry and the fact they are both good actors, it makes the movie work. Brie especially shines here. There’s also some solid cinematography and direction from Germain McMicking and Michael Shanks respectively.
Two Become One
One surprising thing is this is really a bit of a black comedy. It’s not like there is a lot of humour here, but it is present. Most specifically in one situational bit and a one line joke about diazepam. That joke made me laugh but it was in the middle of one of the most intense scenes of the film, so not really where I was expecting to be laughing. Honestly, not sure how I feel about that one. I’m swaying towards it being a demonstration of the characters chemistry and okay. That said, using the Spice Girls “Two Become One” song, felt a little too goofy for the film. Interestingly two out of three of these elements are key parts of the “Better Half” lawsuit, and that film is more of a comedy.
Overall this is a pretty good body horror. It’s not something I’m likely to want to re-watch. It’s not likely to become a cult classic or get Oscar nominations (Like “The Substance” did last year). But if you like body horror or romantic horror it’s worth watching. If you like both then I definitely recommend it. I’m giving this a solid 6/10. It would be higher, but I don’t feel like I got much more from the movie than I did the trailer. This is the execution of a basic idea and not much else. If the trailer got your interest, give it a watch. But don’t expect to be blown away.
Years before Stephen King wrote his movie about an evil car in “Christine”, there was “The Car”. This is a story about an intimidating black car that goes on a psychotic killing spree around a small American town. The movie is directed by Elliot Silverstein and written by Michael Butler, Dennis Shryack and Lane Slate. The movie stars James Brolin (Westworld, Amityville Horror) as “Deputy Wade Parent”. Supporting cast includes Kathleen Lloyd, John Marley, Ronny Cox and Elizabeth Thompson. The car itself, a highly customized 1971 Lincoln Continental Mark III, was designed by famed Hollywood car customizer George Barris. This was rebooted in 2019 with “The Car: Road to Revenge”, but we don’t talk about that. It was also directly parodied in the Futurama episode “The Honkening”.
Wade is a deputy in the desert town of “Santa Ynez”, Utah. He has two daughters that he is raising by himself. His girlfriend “Lauren” (Lloyd) is a free spirited teacher of the town school. Life in this quiet town is heavily disrupted with the appearance of a mysterious car that seems to be going out of it’s way to kill people. The local police are tasked with taking the vehicle down and bringing it’s driver to justice. Though according to one witness, there is no driver. As the police close in, it becomes apparent this is no ordinary car and it will require more than simple road blocks and guns to stop it.
The Honkening
Well, I it’s nice to finally get what that Futurama episode was parodying. I recognised the car design right away. Notably different though is that the real thing doesn’t come with any kind of explanation. I’m not one that says it’s always better to not know. Some genres such as Science Fiction tend to be better when you do get to the bottom of the mysteries. But that is a genre of discovery. Horror is a genre of fear, and fear of the unknown is universal. Things get more complicated when you cross genres (Especially for Sci-Fi/Horror), but this is straight horror and so keeping it mysterious was smart. We don’t even get to find out if there really was no one behind the wheel.
Another thing I’d like to mention about this film is the use of the “Dies Irae” musical motif. I wouldn’t be shocked if the name means nothing to you, but you would probably recognise it. Dies Irae is a 13th-century Gregorian chant meaning “Day of Wrath”. The melody was re-purposed in classical music to evoke fear and foreboding and that trend carried over to horror movies where it found recurring use. It’s most famous (Though not first) use is probably in 1971’s “A Clockwork Orange”. It also appears in “Friday The 13th” and “Doctor Sleep”. It fits here remarkably well and helps to push the viewer to the conclusion it wants in regard to what the car is. Nice work.
Motor Mayhem
Overall this is a surprisingly good movie. The premise simple and since they don’t ever reveal anything about the car, it stays simple. The cops have to stop the psychotic rampage of a mysterious black car. That’s it. To make that kind of plot work you need to have some interesting characters and they achieve that. That’s not to say any of those characters are super deep and conflicted or even especially charismatic. It’s more that they aren’t 2-dimensional and feel like real people. Out from the lead and a fair way into the supporting cast you have characters with their own motivations and backstory. All smoothly worked into the story.
But the car itself is also a character. It throws tantrums and holds grudges, but it also love to play with it’s prey. It acts pretty much as you would expect pure evil to act. Unlike “Christine”, the more famous killer car, this machine has no owner and no affection for anyone. Though it won’t bother to kill an unrepentant wife beater. The devil recognizes his own. The car also looks the part. A heavily customized 1971 Lincoln Continental Mark III, with darkened glass, no door handles and other tweaks. Add to that some mean engine sounds and horn and a windstorm that heralds it’s arrival and you have an imposing presence and quite the non-human antagonist.
Conclusion
It’s been a good few years since I watched “Christine”, so it’s hard to do a comparison. I think this probably isn’t as good, but it’s definitely a worthy challenger and it should be remembered came a good few years ahead of even the novel of Christine. There’s a good chance King (And John Carpenter) was influenced by this film. While the plot is simple and the movie probably won’t blow you away, it’s execution is about as good as you could expect in 1977. Like a lot of 70’s horror it has a little unexpected edginess. Being a likable character won’t save you here. This is a very strong 6.5/10. Recommended.
The full moon is up again here at Screen-Wolf, so it’s time for another werewolf triple bill. I think I’ve finally washed the bad taste of “Wolf Man” (2025) out of my mouth, so this will be the last one for now. Here are three more reviews of this difficult to pull off sub-genre of horror. Tonight I present you with “Bad Moon” from 1996, “Wolf Cop” from 2014 and “The Wolf of Snow Hollow” from 2020. One thing these all have in common is they are all from writer/directors (In the case of Snow Hollow also the star). So these are very much one man’s vision, yet each vision is radically different. I love the posters for all three of these by the way. It’s always nice to not have to share generic giant head posters. Anyway, let’s take a bite out of these movies shall we?
The Wolf of Snow Hollow (2020)
“The Wolf of Snow Hollow” is from actor/writer/director Jim Cummings, who also stars in the movie. This black comedy horror is his second feature, after his acclaimed “Thunder Road” (2018) debut. He is supported by Riki Lindhome, Chloe East, Jimmy Tatro and Robert Forster (In his final performance). Cinematography is from Natalie Kingston and music is provided by Ben Lovett. The 2020 indie movie was made for a mere $2 million and clocks in at only 84 minutes. Cumming’s plays Jon Marshall, a Deputy Sheriff and struggling alcoholic with anger management issues and young daughter.
After a vacationer discovers the mangled body of his girlfriend at their rental house in Snow Hollow, the police begin a manhunt for her killer. Deputy Sheriff Marshall takes the lead. When a second victim is found with her head and arm torn off and wolf fur found at the scene the investigation takes a turn for the macabre. Marshall refuses to believe this can be a werewolf. He is hampered though by his struggle with alcoholism and his conflicts with those around him, including his daughter. No one seems to have faith in Marshall’s ability to solve this case, least of all himself.
Anger Management
This is one of those horror comedies that forgets to be either funny or scary. As a dark comedy, you expect this somewhat as usually the humour comes from quirky characters and odd situations. Here though it seems the comedy is meant to come from the incompetence of the police, and it just doesn’t land for me. Dark comedies are tricky though, as are werewolf movies, so they set themselves a difficult task here. The movie also falls prey to a lot of the cliches of more recent film making. None of the characters are likeable and the movie seems to be trying to present a message about toxic masculinity. It’s not preachy, but it is a bit too on the nose. Possibly the problem is the movie is a little too focused on it’s lead (and writer/director).
That said, the movie has some positives. The attacks are well filmed (For the budget). The cast is reasonable and the identity of the killer isn’t obvious. The only problem was the character wasn’t really involved in the plot much, so you had no reason to suspect them. Honestly I didn’t actually care who it was by the end. This tends to be a problem with “Guess the Werewolf” films. There is another twist in regards to the werewolf that was a bit more predictable, given the nature of the film. Ultimately the ending fell flat for me. The rest of the film I’d call solid, except for actively disliking the protagonist. Creatively that is fine, but it is harder to like a movie when you think the protagonist is a dick. Anyway, this is a solid 5/10. Not terrible, but not a recommendation.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 5 out of 10.
Wolf Cop (2014)
“Wolf Cop” is a low budget Canadian horror comedy from writer/director Lowell Dean. Staring Leo Fafard and Amy Matysio. It is very much a Saskatchewan production, shot entirely in Regina, Saskatchewan, largely featuring natives of the area and with a soundtrack from “Shooting Guns”, an instrumental Metal band from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The production budget of $1 million was granted through a canadian film contest. The concept won through social media engagements and fan votes against nearly 100 rivals.
The movie follows “Lou Garou” (Fafard), an alcoholic cop in the small town of Woodhaven. Lou is mocked and disrespected by most of the locals, especially the criminals. He spends most of his time sleeping or at a local bar (Even when on duty). After investigating a report of devil worshipers he stumbles upon the murder of a local politician and is knocked out. He awakens later with no memory and a pentagram carved into his stomach. That isn’t the only change as his facial hair is now rapidly growing and his senses are heightened. That is just the start of it as eventually Lou finds himself turning into a Wolf Man. Not a feral beast though, but one that is still very much Lou – A alcoholic and a cop. As he looks into what happens he begins to discover a vast conspiracy.
It’s the Fuzz
If the name was not a give away, this is very much on the “Fun B-Movie” side of horror films. It is fully aware of what it is, but doesn’t go so overboard. They avoid falling into the trap of trying too hard to be bad. The movie actually starts out somewhat like The Wolf of Snow Hollow, with a small town, a washed up alcoholic cop as the lead, a more competent female deputy and a Sheriff that is largely uninvolved for most of the movie. That’s where the similarities end though. The comedy in this movie is obvious, the gore over the top and the identity of the Werewolf… well, it’s in the title of the film! The film offers few surprises but generally delivers exactly what you would hope for.
Unsurprisingly they have gone for more of a “Wolf Man” werewolf instead of something more wolf-like or monstrous. That approach is usually chosen to allow a little bit more humanity in the character. This is the case here, however it’s not for sympathy but rather to allow Wolf Cop to deliver the occasional one liner and to use his gun. Yes, this film features a werewolf that shoots people. It’s also the rare situation of a werewolf that is basically good, even in monster form. The movie still provides monstrous villains however. Despite the comparatively straight forward make up job of the “Wolf” form they actually do put effort into a unique and impressive and quite funny transformation. This is a fun movie that is much better than it probably had any right to be. Shockingly, I’m giving it asolid 6/10.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 6 out of 10.
Bad Moon (1996)
“Bad Moon” comes from writer/director Eric Red. Eric is best known as a writer and penned the horror classics “The Hitcher” (1986) and “Near Dark” (1987). This is another Canadian movie, this time from Morgan Creek Productions and with a significantly higher budget (Especially with inflation) of $7 million. It is based on the novel “Thor” by Wayne Smith. The movie stars Mariel Hemingway, with support from Michael Paré and Mason Gamble. All reasonable mid tier actors that never quite made it to the big time. Paré is all over genre entertainment and usually safe casting, so no surprise to see him here. Cinematography comes from Jan Kiesser and the score is provided by Daniel Licht (Who is most famous for scoring the TV series “Dexter”).
During an expedition to Nepal, photographer Ted Harrison (Paré) and his girlfriend are attacked by a werewolf. Paré survives but as a result now carries the curse. He returns home and hides away in his remote lakeside cabin to try and find a way to cure his condition or live with it. After reaching out to his remaining family, his sister “Janet” (Hemingway) and her son “Brett” (Gamble) he agrees to move his trailer to the back of their house and stay with them. While he struggles with his condition in secret, the families dog “Thor”, suspects the truth and instinctively wants to protect his family from the danger.
Man’s Beast Friend
Of this round of reviews “Bad Moon” is undoubtedly the most traditional werewolf story. We know who the werewolf is from the start and he transforms into the standard “Howling” style beast. The creature actually looks pretty good, better than I expected. But then, back in 1996 there were a lot physical effects masters around and no drive to use CGI (For this kind of film anyway). Although we see a bit of the tragedy of the cursed lycanthrope, the focus is more on his sister and nephew. It’s not really their story either though and that is the real twist with this movie. The lead of this movie is the families’ dog “Thor”. It’s a novel approach that isn’t without issues, but it did make this werewolf movie stand out from the pack.
The plot itself is stripped down and straightforward, but it didn’t really need to do anything more complicated. The characters are likable enough and have a little depth, mostly from the conflicted nature of dealing with a loved family member turning into a monster. The tragic aspect of the story could have had a little more to it. Ted flips at some point from a sympathetic character to an outright villain and the change is a little jarring. Part of the reason for this is that he isn’t the focal character. Janet fairs a little better and you do feel her internal conflict in the situation. Thor though is the star, but even this could have been explored a little more thoroughly. The truth is this straight forward movie does just enough to make it work. Not outstanding, but just about worthy of a 6/10.
Today I have a Werewolf double bill for you, checking out the just released “Wolf Man” from Universal/Blumhouse and “The Beast Within”, an independent release, directed by Alexander J. Farrell, from last year. I’m going to put these two wolves head to head. These movies are pretty similar so it makes sense to make a comparison. Wolf Man though has the backing of two of the biggest players in the horror field in Universal and Blumhouse and is of course part of Universals ambition to make use of the classic Universal Monsters they are associated with. A while back they wanted to establish a shared universe for these characters, but a real clanger of a “Mummy” movie cause a rapid re-think. That rethink has seen director Leigh Wahnell tackle “The Invisible Man” and now “Wolf Man”.
Really, the whole Universal Monsters thing is a fools errand for the studio. Almost none of those monsters are IP’s owned by Universal and are almost all public domain, or generic enough (I.E. Werewolves & Mummy’s), that anyone could make a movie. This is a similar situation to a lot of Disney’s classic line up. What the studios actually own is their own take on the products, some of which will be under copyright but all thick with trademarks. But if that is the case, what is the benefit of doing entirely new and modern takes on these products? Perhaps an attempt to try and claim the public perception of ownership? Certainly the shared universe plan made some sense (Especially given the Universal Monsters were the first shared universe). Anyway, let’s dig in.
Two Wolves Inside You
The plot for both movies is similar. Both feature a small family of husband and wife and one daughter. In both it is the families’ patriarch that is the wolf of the story. There are a few key differences though. In Wolf Man, the male lead “Blake” (Christopher Abbott) doesn’t start off as a “Wolf Face” and instead is infected. Meanwhile in The Beast Within, “Noah” (Kit Harington) is implied to always have been the monster. Both films end up with the wife and daughter desperately battling for survival against their father/husband at a remote location. The Beast Within tells the entire story from the point of view of the daughter “Willow” (Caoilinn Springall). In Wolf Man, the daughter “Ginger” (Matilda Firth) is the focus but the film is from a more neutral perspective. The name of course is a reference to “Ginger Snaps” (2000), a much better movie.
The other main difference is in the look of the character. Both productions opted for a 100% practical effects, which I definitely approve of. The Beast Within went with a traditional Werewolf design, but Wolf Man went in a very different direction. The idea seems to be to modernize the look of the “The Wolf Man” (1941), but in practice there is little resemblance. Really the beast looks more like some kind of sasquatch. The transformation is also very slow, so you don’t see much of the full transformed monster. The Beast within saves the Werewolf’s appearance until near the conclusion too and both films work a very, very slow build up.
Werewolves For Modern Audiences
Perhaps disappointingly, the themes for both movies are exactly what you’d expect in the current year. That is, both basically tackle “Toxic Masculinity”. The difference though is that Beast Within is far more clear cut. That is really about how families stay with an abusive man and make excuses for them. That is a genuine problem, so while it is obvious, I can’t complain about it. Also portraying that from the young girls perspective opens up a lot of creative avenues. Ones we’ve seen a few times before, in better films. It’s not a bad take though, and I appreciate the attempt, even if it is at times clumsily implemented.
Wolf Man however tackles a far more debatable version of “Toxic Masculinity”, suggesting that masculinity in general is a problem and that one may inherit this toxic behaviour from your father. I don’t want to use the “W” word here, but lets just say it reminded me a bit of a certain Gillette advert. The thing is the behaviour the movie paints as negative is entirely protective in nature. The leading man’s father shouts at his son for wandering off alone in a forest full of bears and that he knows has at least one Werewolf in. This is portrayed as an abuse of some kind. Later Blake shouts at his daughter for tight rope walking on a concrete barrier by a main road. The movie suggests he learned this bad behaviour from his father and similarly…. well, there’s an obvious plot twist down the road.
Style And Atmosphere
As far as atmosphere goes, I find myself favouring Beast Within. It’s notably cheaper, but it is creatively put together and provides a constant atmosphere of tension. Wolf Man relies on the a lot of jump scares, but does have some moments of good cinematography. The music wasn’t especially notable in either case. All the actors are reasonable in both movies, perhaps a little stronger in Wolf Man. However, the dialogue is better in Beast Within. Honestly a lot of the dialogue in Leigh Wahnell’s movie felt clunky and forced.
Special effects is a trickier one to rate in a head to head. The design for Wolf Man is not very good, but it is well executed. The slow transformation provides a lot of interesting moments, making this movie a bit of a body horror. While Beast Within punches above it’s budget, the final act provides a good few shorts of the monster that don’t look particularly realistic. The design though is solid. You don’t see the werewolf until very late in the movie, but there are a few good dream sequences featuring transformation effects. I’m favouring the underdog (Pun intended) again here.
Werewolf Vs Wolf Man
So in conclusion… Well, I don’t recommend either of these movies really. But let’s tackle them one at a time. If you like slow burn horror with an unreliable narrator then you may enjoy The Beast Within. But it’s not something worth going out of your way for but personally I enjoyed elements of it and didn’t feel like I wasted my time watching it. It is however not really what most people want from a werewolf movie. That it the metaphor is so obvious doesn’t help it either. It’s not particularly clever, even with the use of the child’s perspective and there is no fun here at all. It is passably average so I give The Beast Within –5/10.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 5 out of 10.
I have to be honest here and tell you that Wolf Man was a very disappointing movie for me. Leigh Wahnell made a very good low budget movie with “Upgrade” (2018) and provided a solid if somewhat obvious take on “The Invisible Man” in 2020. Here however, he’s made an absolute clanger. Clunk dialogue, bad creature design, slow to the point of boring and a frankly cringe subtext. Indeed given that Invisible Man was also basically about toxic masculinity, I’m starting to wonder if Wahnell actually has more than one idea in his head. That also means currently the entire new body of Universal classic monster movies is about modern identity politics. Lame and disappointing. I give Wolf Man– 3.5/10.
It’s been a while since I did a review roundup. But I’m back with three movies from this year to check out. These are basically family/kids movies. Seems appropriate for the holiday. All three of these movies will entertain kids and may entertain adults too. First up we have that other Ryan Reynolds movie that came out this year “IF”, then we have the first Transformers animated movie since the 80’s with “Transformers One” and finally I have “The Wild Robot”, you won’t want to miss that one I promise.
If
First up is the imaginary friend comedy “If”, also known as the other movie with Ryan Reynolds that came out this year. This is the latest release from Writer/Director John Krasinkski, so I’m not the only one switching from horror to family movies. Krasinki of course was the man behind the “Quiet Place” franchise. While Quiet Place had a relatively small cast, this one is exploding with named talent including Reynolds, Louis Gossett jr., Steve Carell, Emily Blunt, Blake Lively, Matt Damon and others. The leads though are Reynolds and Cailey Fleming as young Bea, the films protagonist.
12 Year old Bea moves into her grandmother Margaret’s apartment in New York while her father waits for heart surgery in the same hospital where her mother died of cancer years earlier. Naturally she is worried, but her father uses humour to try and raise her spirits. On her way home one day she spots a strange creature and follows it to another apartment in the same block. She discovers a whole load of strange creatures and a strange man that lives there called “Cal” (Reynolds). Bea learns these are imaginary friends that have been shed by their child and that Cal is trying to find them all new children to attach to. Bea as someone able to see all of them is the perfect person to help.
Then
This is a visually imaginative and interesting movie. Each imaginary friend is distinct and unique and their world is weird and wonderful. Unfortunately, most of this was shown in the trailer and the movie itself adds almost nothing. If you have seen the trailer, you have seen pretty much all the characters. Each basically comes with a joke and so you’ve seen that too. They are all painfully one dimensional and frankly so are most of the human characters in this story. That said, it does have heart and maybe that is enough for some people.
The plot though is paper thin and none of the characters (Even the usually charming Reynolds) bring much vitality to the story. The story features a twist at the end that everyone will have predicted by the time it is revealed. That isn’t a deal breaker though, not all twists fail just because you guessed them. That said, this movie is more interesting for the vast list of actors that Krasinski convinced to do voice cameos than for the story itself. You won’t even be aware of many of cameos until you see the credits. But it’s still impressive, as is Krasinski’s imagination. But imagination alone doesn’t create a good movie
Ultimately this is a kids movie. As such it may entertain young children on the strength of the visuals alone. It is heartwarming in places, but offers very little in the way of memorable humour or compelling storytelling. . This is a 5.5/10, recommended only if you have kids and want a heartwarming, visually interesting movie. Everyone else should probably just skip it.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 5.5 out of 10.
Transformers One
Next up is the new Transformers animated movie. The first such release since the original Transformers movie from 1984. While that film was a huge success, this one didn’t do well in the box office. It did however garner good reactions from those that went to see it. I was always going to be a lot harder to please however, since I grew up in the golden age of Transformers and am very much a G1 Purist. I had all the comics, a huge amount of the toys and of course watched the cartoon. This film however is technically in the Michael Bay continuity and that’s already a mark against it. This time around they’ve drafted in a formidable voice acting cast including “The Avengers” Chris Hemsworth and Scarlett Johansson.
Set an undisclosed amount of time before the Michael Bay transformers movie, the story depicts the origin story of Optimus Prime, Megatron and many others. In this world Cybertronians are forced to live beneath the surface of their planet and mine for Energon. Supposedly because the Matrix of Leadership has been lost and without that the energon seas have all dried up. The alleged loss happened during a battle with the Quintessons, where all but one of the “Primes”, the most powerful cybertronians were slain. Two friends and lowly miners without transformation cogs Orion Pax and D-16 stumble upon the truth behind the story and their fates and the rest of Cyberton’s are forever changed. But while their stories began on the same path they will diverge radically and the friends will become the bitter enemies Optimus Prime and Megatron.
Teenformers
This is very much Transformers for teenagers. Some reviews are suggesting the characters are deeper and more nuanced than ever, but that is nonsense. These characters are generic MCU type characters. Ironic, considering the voice cast. Every male character starts as goofy comic relief with the exception of Alpha Trion. The only reason he isn’t goofy is because he’s the wise old mentor and exposition guy. By contrast all two female characters (Always a minority in this franchise) are overly serious and efficient. This is almost exactly the same set of characters as we saw in the D&D movie and any number of other action based films since the rise of the MCU. It’s a cliche, We really need a lot more variety with movie characters in action/adventure type stories. Especially when it comes to the women as this archetype has literally no charm.
Now one odd thing with the goofy characters is this makes the film a comedy and yet I don’t think the Michael Bay movies were meant to be comedies. Sure they had humour to them, but for the most part they were serious. But that’s not the only reason they don’t fit together. There’s also a second origin story for the Decepticon insignia. I don’t get the obsession with making a Transformer with the insignia for their face but this franchise has now done it twice. First with “The Fallen” and now with “Megatronus Prime”, which is bad twice over. Not only is it explaining something that didn’t need to be explained (Twice!), it means Megatron was just a fanboy for Megatronus Prime. It wasn’t even his name. Definite negative for me.
‘Till All Are One
Despite those negatives, the movie is amusing in places and the action is solid. The voice acting is fine, but really didn’t need the big name actors. The movie probably would have cost a lot less had they just stuck with the same voices that have been playing these characters for decades. The Megatron turn is not out of the blue but it’s not as nuanced as reviews would have you believe. He’s just angry. That’s it. Angry. It works better as an Optimus Prime origin, but not by much. The biggest positive is it does look good visually. I especially liked the Quintessons brief appearance. All told, it was entertaining but it’s not great. 5.5/10. Worth it if you are already a Transformers fan. If not, it won’t win you over.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 5.5 out of 10.
The Wild Robot
The final movie of this family friendly round up is a “The Wild Robot”, from Chris Sanders and Dreamworks. Sanders previously gave us “Lilo and Stitch” and “How To Train Your Dragon”, so it’s reasonable to have high expectations for this one. The voice cast here is headed up by Lupita Nyong’o, Pedro Pascal (Because it’s mandated by Hollywood that he must be in everything), and relative newcomer Kit Connor. The rest of the voice cast is full of recognizable names. Too many to list, but you’ll likely recognize a lot of the voices. The movie is based on the children’s novel of the same name by Peter Brown.
When a storm causes a Universal Dynamics cargo ship to lose five ROZZUM robot, one unit “7134” finds itself washed ashore of a remote island inhabited by a variety of wildlife. Following her build in directive she sets out to find how she can assist someone. To do so she has to learn their languages, but even then they react with hostility so she decides to return to her factory. After accidentally destroying a bird nest she discovers an egg and decides her task is to protect the egg. When the egg hatches she intends to return to the factory, but is convinced to raise the hatching until it can migrate. Of course things won’t be that simple. She is at least assisted by a Fox, in it for the luxury afforded by befriending a robot helper.
Mother Nature
This is a surprisingly good movie. In some ways it reminds me of Wall-E but this time with anthropomorphic animals. But these animals are only able to talk because Roz learned their languages. It’s obviously a leap to expect the animals to suddenly have human personalities because the robot now can communicate with them. That doesn’t really matter though, it’s still a clever way of reaching the main setup of the movie. But while a robot talking to animals may sounds like childish, it’s worth noting that the cycle of nature of very much at the forefront of this story. Quite a few of the jokes are actually about the reality of predators, prey and the chances of surviving as a wild animal. Playing these for laughs is actually very effective, because it tends to catch you by surprise. But it’s also fundamental to what the story becomes as Roz effectively learns to be a mother.
The Wild Robot has a great flow to it. The funny moments and the emotional ones are well balanced and the occasional action scene maintains a pace. The movie basically keeps you interested the whole way through. While the story has a primary three characters, it gives you just enough personality with the supporting animals and robots for them to feel like genuine, interesting characters. The truth is they are all at their core very simple. Their motivations and personality are somewhat one dimension because they are animals and robots, so of course they are. But the voice acting is able to raise this to a level where they still feel genuine and you actually care about them. The praise for that must be shared between the writers, animators and voice cast.
Conclusion
I delayed watching this movie because frankly I’m bored with Pedro Pascal being in everything. Lupita Nyong’o meanwhile, I was aware of but, largely indifferent to. Her roles in Marvel and Star Wars movies never really gave her a chance to shine. I have to admit though, both did a tremendous job with the voice acting here. Kit Connor I didn’t know at all, but he impressed me too . The animation is top notch as well, but then this is Dreamworks and they tend to put out quality looking features. There’s not really any weak links that I could find.
But while the cast and animation are solid, it is the story that makes the film work. The most important thing is it has heart and is also very funny. It will entertain the kids, it will entertain the adults and some may shed a tear or two along the way. Dreamworks have outdone themselves here. I’ve got to give it a 7.5/10. Highly recommended. So that’s it for the wrap up, two situational recommendations and one must see. Not bad. See you next time!
November is over, but I have three more Film Noirs I watched this month to review. That means you get another triple bill review round up! These reviews don’t get as many views as the horrors or recent releases, but that’s not why I do them. I do them because Film Noir is great and I want more people to watch it! Some of the best film makers of the last 40 years were influenced by these movies. That influence is starting to wane and it shows in the movies being released. Another factor is a lot of people just won’t watch black and white movies. This is a shame because some of the best films ever made were black and white.
So for your consideration, I give you the movies “Slightly Scarlet” from 1956, “The Fallen Sparrow” from 1943 and “Murder By Contract” from 1958. This is an interesting mix. We have a Film Noir actually in colour and we have a movie shot in 7 days. We have spies, we have assassins, and we have kleptomaniacs. These all score a 6 or above so are all recommendations. But you’ll likely notice I rarely score a Noir lower than 6. There are bad ones of course, but time has not been kind to those, so chances are if I’m watching it, it is at least above average.
Slightly Scarlet (1956)
This is one of the very few film noir from the fifties that is actually in colour. That makes it somewhat debatable as a Film Noir but all the other elements are here. The title refers to the two redhead sisters the plot revolves around and so you can see why they opted for colour. The film stars John Payne, Rhonda Fleming and Arlene Dahl with support from Kent Taylor and Ted de Corsia. Experienced director Allan Dwan takes the directing chair and has the benefit of the legendary John Alton for cinematography. Alton’s impeccable eye helps make the movie still work within the genre, despite not being black and white. The screenplay is by Robert Blees based on the novel “Love’s Lovely Counterfeit” by James M. Cain.
The movie revolves around the manipulative and ambitious Ben Grace (Payne) and his attempts to manipulate his way to the top of the mob. His plan involves seeing off current boss Solly Casper (de Corsia), controlling the mayor and installing his friend as chief of police. To achieve these ends he must gain influence over mayoral candidate Frank Jansen (Taylor). To do that he targets Jansen’s girlfriend and secretary June Lyons (Fleming). His leverage there comes in the form of June’s troubled sister Dorothy (Dahl), recently released from prison for a spate of shop lifting offenses. Things go to plan up until a point, but the somewhat unhinged Dorothy can’t but avoid to throw a spanner into the works. The house of cards may then very well fall down.
Seeing Red
It is strange watching a 50’s noir in colour and outside of actually seeing the ladies red hair I’m not sure there was any benefit to it. However, Alton does make it work and there is plenty of his trademark painting with light and shadows. Plus the two ladies do look rather good. It mostly works visually. Thematically it is very much a noir though, with the ambitious schemes of a morally questionable man working towards his own undoing. Dorothy isn’t exactly a femme fatale, instead she has more in common with Carmen Sternwood from The Big Sleep. Basically, a headcase that causes trouble for everybody else. June on the other hand is the “Good girl”, though in my view is a bit too easy to be manipulated by Ben.
The story works relatively well. Ben gains some semblance of a conscience by the end and matters resolve pretty much how you would expect. The big problem with this though is none of the characters are really that likable. This is a common problem with modern movies, but in this era you could usually find some degree of charm. June comes close, but I never felt that invested. The performances from the cast are decent, especially from Payne, but nothing really elevates the movie. Ultimately this is a fairly average noir that just happens to be in colour. Fortunately, average for a noir is still worth watching so this is a 6/10.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 6 out of 10.
The Fallen Sparrow (1943)
Our second movie takes us back to the early days of Film Noir, before the end of World War 2. The war was very much on the minds of those making movies in those days (Especially with so many in Hollywood in those days being Jewish immigrants that fled Nazi persecution). So it’s no shock to hear spy movies were quite popular in the early forties. Film Noir would tend to have it’s own spin on spy stories and this is no exception. “The Fallen Sparrow” is director Richard Wallace from a screenplay by Warren Duff. This is based on the novel by the same name by Dorothy B. Hughes (Writer of “Ride The Pink Horse” and “In a Lonely Place”). Roy Webb provides the score and was nominated for an Oscar for doing so. Nicholas Musuraca provides cinematography.
The movie stars John Garfield, Maureen O’Hara and Walter Slezak. Garfield plays Spanish civil war veteran John McKittrick, returning from a period of rehab to his hometown to investigate the murder of his friend. McKittrick was imprisoned in Spain for two years and was tortured constantly but never revealed his secrets. The source of a lot of that trauma is the sound he would hear of a man with a limp, whom he never saw but was certain was his chief tormentor. Now it seems the death of his friend may be tied to the machinations of his former captors and the secret which McKittrick still holds. It seems it is time to confront his chief tormentor… If he can figure out who that is.
Drip Drip Drip
This is more of a psychological movie than a straight spy movie. Indeed the actual spy elements are somewhat disappointing. The big secret is ultimately not really important, what is important is McKittrick’s suffering while a captive and the trauma he has been forced to carry with him. This is really his story of overcoming trauma and facing those that traumatized him. This is him regaining his humanity and his masculinity. For the story to work from this angle the weight is on the shoulders of Garfield, Wallace, Webb and Musuraca. Garfield was one of the most underrated actors in the history of Hollywood and he really does sell the trauma well. Wallace, Webb and Musuraca meanwhile provide a tapestry of nightmares woven out of the reality surrounding McKittrick. Every drop of water, every footstep and every shadow seems to conspire to remind the war veteran of his trauma.
The movies weakness is in the plot. There is a bit of a muddle of characters and distractions that fluff up a very straight forward plot. The villain of the story effectively reveals himself at the start and you never really doubt where this is going, yet the film still wants you to think it is a mystery. At some points you find yourself questioning how much is in McKittrick’s head and yet that is quickly dismissed by events going on around him. The muddled plot is balanced out by how good the rest of it is landing this movie as a somewhat above average Noir. This is a 6.5/10.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 6.5 out of 10.
Murder By Contract (1958)
For the final movie of my Noirvember Reviews, I’m covering Irving Lerner 1958 Film Noir “Murder By Contract”. I saved the best for last. This is a film with a bit of a reputation, largely thanks to Martin Scorsese citing it as perhaps his largest influence. Ben Simcoe provides the screenplay and apparently Ben Maddow had an uncredited hand in it too. Lucien Ballard provides cinematography and Perry Botkin the score. Vince Edwards stars as “Claude” the hitman, Herschel Bernardi and Phillip Pine provide the main support as his minders “George” and “Marc”. The movie was shot in just over just seven days.
Claude is a cool, yet peculiar young man with a single ambition, to buy a beach house. But he wants to achieve this in an unusual way. He wants to be a contract killer and he is cool as a cucumber about it. He has an in with a local crime boss and makes the most out of his opportunity. Eventually becoming a highly sort after hitman. When the opportunity comes up to make $5000 on one hit he jumps at it, but the job has one complication: The target is a woman. Claude doesn’t do hits on women, not for any kind of moral code though as Claude doesn’t have one of those. He just finds them too unpredictable; Women always mean trouble. This one turns out to be particularly difficult to kill.
Women Are Always Trouble
From the opening scene you know you are on to something here. A nice bit of guitar music (Reminds me a bit of “The Third Man”) accompanies a simple scene of Claude getting ready for for his big interview with the crime boss. We get a similar scene shortly after as he waits for the call for his first jobs. These are nice sections and we haven’t even started the plot yet. Actually that is one of the films trademarks, it doesn’t rush to get to any part of the plot. Instead it allows you to spend time to enjoy the characters. specifically Claude with his relaxed charm and occasional intense monologues, but also his constantly frustrated handlers, George and Marc. A good portion of the film is just the three of them hanging out. It helps the dialogue is very good. The scenes manage to be amusing and compelling.
All the characters are a little quirky, but not unbelievably so and it makes the basic interactions strangely compelling. While Scorsese may have claimed this has his biggest influence I would put money on this being a favourite of the Cohen Brothers too and perhaps It’s not just the characters though, the movie has good cinematography throughout. Most of it is actually shot in the day, but there’s a few of the trademark noir shadows. Really the visuals are particularly impressive with the short run time. The movie is sort of bare bones, but everything important is there. The back and forth with the attempts at assassination and the final moments where Claude accidentally remembers he is human are all compelling story telling and very Film Noir.
Conclusion
This is an impressive Film Noir. Not just because it is good, but because it achieves a lot with a little. Most of the action happens off screen and is implied with sound effects. The music is sparse but effective (There’s pretty much just two guitar tunes and a lot of silence) and there’s more dialogue than action. But it works. If the movie has a flaw it is in the swiftness of it’s ending, but considering the Hays codes requirements on stories about criminals, it was to be expected. They made the most out of the ending and it does work for the character. Claude ends up one of the most interesting characters from Film Noir and this is one of the genres better films. I am giving this an 8/10.
Really, I should have done this as a separate review given the score, but November is already over and I had three reviews to get out, so it’ll have to make do in a triple bill. That’s it for this years Film Noir wind down from the madness of the October Challenge. December will be fairly quiet on the review front, but I will have at least one roundup and the year in review to give you. Until then, I hope you enjoyed these reviews. My hope is that I can encourage people that may not normally watch old movies to give some of these Noirs a chance.
You must be logged in to post a comment.