SCARY STORIES TO TELL IN THE DARK (2019) ****

If you were a child of the ‘80s like me, you probably grew up reading the Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark series by Alvin Schwartz.  The stories themselves were scary, but those illustrations by Stephen Gammell were the true stuff of nightmares.  The series holds a special place in my heart as it was one of my major gateways into the horror genre. 

Part of the fun of parenting is sharing the stuff you loved as a kid with your child.  Because of that, my daughter loves the books as much as I did as a kid.  I’m so happy we got to share this fun, atmospheric, and most of all… SCARY film adaptation.  If you’re a fan of the old books (or just the horror genre itself), you’re going to love seeing these timeless tales updated and reimagined for a new generation.

The plot is kind of like the recent Goosebumps movie as it revolves around a haunted book.  Unlike that movie, the monsters are legitimately scary, or at the very least creepy.  One thing I loved about the film was that it stuck to the tried and true adage of a horror movie:  If you’re stupid enough to go into the local haunted house, you deserve what you get.  Especially these kids who read stories that are written in blood from the haunted tome.  They even make sure the heartless bully gets it worst of all.  In fact, he gets it so bad you might even feel a bit bad for him.  I know he deserves his comeuppance, but he didn’t deserve… THAT.  It’s seriously the creepiest thing I’ve seen in a PG-13 movie.

You know how some movies are just attuned to your wavelength?  That’s Scary Stories in a nutshell.  Not only was it based off one of my favorite book series, it’s chockfull of scenes of characters doing things like reading horror mags while Donovan’s “Season of the Witch plays, or trick or treating while “Quick Joey Small” blares from a radio, or hitting up a drive-in to see Night of the Living Dead… and that’s just the set-up before the stories even begin!  How could I not love it?

Is it a bit long?  Does it contain yet another predictable “The Ghost isn’t Bad, She’s Just Acting Out Because of an Unspeakable Wrong Done to Her” plotline, which now come standard issue in movies from producer Guillermo Del Toro?  Well, yes and yes, but it hardly matters in the long run.  When I think back to Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, will I think about its running time?  Nope.  That’s because the sounds of giddy nervous laughter coming from my daughter during the scarecrow scene will stick with me the rest of my days.  What more could a horror fan (or a father) ask for?

SECRET IN THEIR EYES (2015) ****

Chiwetel Ejiofor, Julia Roberts, and Nicole Kidman star as three anti-terrorist agents who discover the body of a rape victim that turns out to be the daughter of one of their own.  The suspect is guilty as sin, but since he’s a valuable snitch, the department deems protecting his information as more important than allowing justice to prevail.  The tight-knit cops then proceed to twist the law to see justice served. 

Despite the all-star cast, Secret in Their Eyes kind of came and went with very little fanfare.  Because of that, I wasn’t expecting a whole lot.  Those lowered expectations probably helped because I wasn’t expecting a total gut-punch of a movie.

The film is anchored by a devastating performance by Roberts.  She completely disappears into the role and delivers a brave, honest, and raw performance.  She pairs nicely with Kidman and the two have a lot of chemistry together, which will make you wonder why they waited so long to team up.  Ejiofor also does an excellent job as the dogged, desperate detective willing to bend the rules no matter the cost. 

Secret in Their Eyes is extremely well-plotted and unfolds like a fine novel, drifting back and forth seamlessly between the past and present. Director Billy (Shattered Glass) Ray doles out vital plot breadcrumbs sparingly and in such a way that it not only propels the story but enriches the characters at the same time.  There are plenty of surprises along the way too.  In fact, there’s maybe one twist too many as Ray pulls the rug out from the audience so many times that by the end of the movie, he’s practically ripping up the floorboards.  Then again, this is the guy who wrote Color of Night, so of course he’s gonna pull out all the stops in the final reel.  Even then. it never quite goes off the rails as the film is still able to hit all the important emotional beats before leaving the audience dizzy with all the crazy twists.

EXTREMELY WICKED, SHOCKINGLY EVIL AND VILE (2019) ** ½

I tried watching director Joe (Book of Shadows:  Blair Witch 2) Berlinger’s Netflix show about Ted Bundy, but I could barely keep my eyes open during the first episode, so I never went back for seconds.  This biopic, also made by Berlinger for Netflix is slightly more engaging, mostly due to Zac Efron’s performance as one of America’s most notorious (and charming) serial killers.  

Ted dotes on his loving girlfriend (Lily Collins), who blindly returns his love, even when he is accused of numerous brutal murders of young women and carted off to jail.  After numerous escapes, Ted is finally detained in Florida where his trial is televised across the nation.  As she becomes more and more emotionally distant, another flame (Crawl’s Kaya Scodelario) comes to Ted’s aid and stands by him in his moment of need.  

Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile is frustratingly vague when it comes to some of the biggest aspects in the Bundy case.  We never see Bundy stalking his victims and killing them, which is an odd miscalculation.  I guess this was done to spare the victims’ families or to avoid glamorizing Bundy’s mythos.  Berlinger is more interested in how two very different women stand by their man even when it’s obvious to anyone with half a brain he’s guilty as sin.  To that end, the movie only works in fits and starts.

It’s hard to say if Berlinger wants us to sympathize with the women who love Bundy.  The filmmakers also curiously sidestep much of his brutality, which further hampers the drama.  I mean why watch something called Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile if we never really see him do anything that lives up to the lurid title?  

It’s also difficult to know who the movie was made for.  Serial Killer fans and true-life crime fanatics will probably be left cold because of the lack of forensic detail, while those expecting a straight drama will undoubtedly feel a bit unsatisfied by the clunky love triangle.  The courtroom scenes late in the film are certainly fun and have an energy to them the rest of the flick lacks.  That’s thanks largely to the casting of John Malkovich as the hammy judge and Jim Parsons as the squirrely prosecutor.  

The film is ambiguous about whether or not Bundy committed the crimes up until the closing moments, which further adds to the frustration.  Ambiguity certainly has its place in fiction, but in a film about one of America’s most notorious serial killers--a man who was tried, convicted, and eventually confessed to his crimes—ambiguity doesn’t work. There’s a courtroom scene late in the game in which Bundy says something to the effect of, “The man who you see today isn’t the man guilty of these crimes”, perhaps suggesting he was a split personality or just plain out-and-out lying. It’s like they want us to believe Bundy had an alter ego, but we never get to see his other side.  It’s like making a movie about Clark Kent and only showing him as Superman in brief flashes in the closing moments.  Not that I’d compare Bundy to Superman, although we all know if there was a Justice League for serial killers, Bundy would definitely be the Superman.  I mean he’s got the looks and all-American charm for sure, and... 

Okay, I’m getting on a weird tangent here.  Let’s wrap this thing up…

Even though much of the film is frustrating, it remains a fine showcase for Efron.  If nothing else, it allows the actor to shed his squeaky-clean Disney image by playing a psycho like Bundy.  I just wish he was allowed to get a little more down and dirty.  Seeing him hacking up unsuspecting women could’ve gone a long way from distancing himself from that High School Musical crap.  

ENDGAME (1983) ***

Endgame is a bonkers Italian sci-fi action mishmash that sort of acts like a precursor to The Running Man with healthy doses of Escape from New York, The Warriors, The Omega Man, and even Planet of the Apes thrown in there for good measure.  It stars the holy trinity of Italian schlock stars, Al Cliver, George Eastman, and Laura Gemser (using the pseudonym, “Moira Chen”), all of whom are a lot of fun to watch.  Why are you still reading this?  Go out and watch it now!  

Well, if you still need more convincing…

Endgame is television’s top-rated post-WWIII game show.  Every year, “the prey” is given a head start to make a run through the desolated, radioactive wasteland before “the predators” (guys wearing face paint and leather jackets left over from Road Warrior) are let loose to hunt him down.  Rabid viewers watch it all in the comfort of their home while the bigwigs in charge try to keep them pacified so they can continue lining their pockets with money from the corporate sponsors.  Things get complicated when this year’s prey (Cliver) gets involved with a band of benevolent telepathic mutants who interrupt the game and beg him to guide them safely across the wasteland to avoid government persecution.

In addition to the movies previously mentioned, there’s also a bit of Seven Samurai here as Cliver hires a team of mismatched mercenaries to aid him in his quest.  (Including an Asian guy called “Ninja”.)  There’s also a floating rock scene right out of The Empire Strikes Back, and the mutant wasteland cretins sort of resemble half-assed X-Men too.  The ending is kind of reminiscent of Carrie, if you can believe it. 

Only a guy like Joe D’Amato could rip off so many movies at once and combine them in such an effective manner.  He even shows a flair for comedy too as the futuristic commercials are good for a laugh.  I also loved the love/hate relationship between Cliver and Eastman, who plays his main rival on the game show.  He only joins up with Cliver and his band to ensure he’ll live long enough for a rematch.  I eat macho shit like that up by the bucket.  

Gemser’s big scene comes when she is kidnapped by the evil lizard mutant biker who says things like, “Look at me when I rape you, dammit!”  We also get an incredible scene where Eastman snaps a guy’s neck 180 degrees UPWARDS.  Now, we see neck snaps in movies all the time where the villain’s neck is twisted side to side, but I think this may be cinema’s first VERTICAL neck twist.  

If you can’t already tell, Endgame is exactly the kind of nutty movie I live for.  This is why I sit through dozens of crappy flicks, because you never know when you’re gonna find a ripe slice of warped genius.  It’s not good… exactly, but it’s a damned good time.  

THE VIXENS OF KUNG FU (A TALE OF YIN YANG) (1975) ** ½

A hooker is walking through the woods when three hoods shoot her with an “anesthesia gun” (the hell?) and have their way with her.  Bobby Aster takes her mouth, Jamie Gillis goes down south, and the other guy just jerks off in her socks.  She is eventually found by C.J. Laing who runs an all-woman army of Kung Fu warriors who live in the woods.  Laing nurses her back to health, and by “nurses her back to health”, I mean she bangs her on a bear skin rug in the middle of the forest before training her in the martial arts.

The Vixens of Kung Fu (A Tale of Yin and Yang) is a Kung Fu/porno hybrid.  It’s decidedly less successful when it’s trying to be a full-fledged Kung Fu movie than a porno.  That said, I can’t say the porno stuff is exactly titillating either, but there are a few humorous moments to be had here to make it almost worth watching.  

A little of this nonsense goes a long way.  Ultimately, it’s just too damned long (even at a relatively scant 71 minutes) and eventually wears out its welcome.  I know it’s futile to criticize the plot, but I found it odd the hooker didn’t learn Kung Fu and use it to get revenge on Gillis and company.  Instead, Laing trains her to get it on with a rival male Kung Fu master who only appears once the film is halfway over.  

The most memorable scene has the Kung Fu girls sitting around meditating until their pussies start literally smoking.  The nude Kung Fu fights are amusing as well (they contain jump cuts to make it look like the participants are moving fast), but they’re all too brief.  While the choreography may leave something to be desired, the film does end with not one, but two freezeframe shots of people jumping into the air in slow motion, so at least its heart is in the right place. 

AKA:  Vixens of Kung Fu.

BLOOD FOR BLOOD (1974) **

A trio of bank robbers kill a pair of stranded motorists and steal their car.  They then make their way to a farmhouse owned by the churchgoing Ernest Borgnine, thinking they can lay low.  They’re surprised to learn old Ernie is quite handy with a shotgun and he quickly blows a hole in the ringleader’s abdomen.  Borgnine then proceeds to hold the robbers hostage in his home, and while he waits for the cops to arrive, he takes a little too much glee in keeping the gunmen prisoner.  This doesn’t sit well at all with his granddaughter (Hollis McClaren), who is sickened by how cruel her Bible-thumping gramps can be. 

Blood for Blood is a fine showcase for Borgnine, who has fun playing a character that is equal parts Bible-quoting grandpa and warped psychopath.  Some fun can be had from seeing the twinkle in his eye when he’s putting the screws to the robbers.  Michael J. Pollard is also good as the main thug who is unpredictably crazed, and McClaren has a nice Sissy Spacek-type quality about her.

This is a typically ‘70s movie where the moralizing is purposefully murky and the violence is often gratuitous, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into a good picture.  You can tell the filmmakers were trying for a Straw Dogs-type vibe, and yet it fails because there’s very little suspense to be had.  After the shock of seeing Borgnine’s kindhearted character turn coldblooded on a dime wears off, there’s not much here, I’m afraid.  The confrontation scenes quickly become repetitive and the tension never builds up much steam as Borgnine is more than a match for the killers at every turn.  

AKA:  Sunday in the Country.  AKA:  Self Defense.  AKA:  Vengeance is Mine.  AKA:  Killing Machine.

THE HUNTSMAN: WINTER’S WAR (2016) * ½

No one really asked for a sequel to Snow White and the Huntsman, but we got one anyway.  If anything, it gives Charlize Theron another chance to act vampy.  Too bad her appearances are limited to the beginning and end of the movie.

Like 300:  Rise of an Empire, The Huntsman:  Winter’s War is part prequel and part sequel.  The overlong prologue acts as an origin story of The Huntsman and the rest tells what happened after Snow White vanquished the evil queen played by Theron.  Emily Blunt plays Theron’s sister, who has the power to freeze people who piss her off.  After having her heart broken, she rules over her icy kingdom and tells her followers they can never love… or else she’ll freeze their ass.   Chris Hemsworth once again plays The Huntsman, who is a member of Blunt’s trusted guard.  He tries to keep his relationship with his childhood sweetheart (Jessica Chastain, who deserves better) a secret, but predictably, Blunt finds out about it and drives the two apart.  Years later, the untrusting lovers reunite to bring down the queen (who is now questing to find her sister’s magic mirror) once and for all.

The Huntsman:  Winter’s War is Universal’s attempt to get some of that Frozen money.  It’s based on the same Hans Christian Anderson story, “The Ice Queen” and contains some similar imagery to Frozen (like Blunt’s ice castle).  If the original felt like a fairy tale version of Braveheart with its overstuffed battle sequences, this one seems like a fairy tale X-Men with Blunt playing the Magneto-type villain who uses her powers to right an unspeakable wrong.

I like all the performers involved (including Liam Neeson as the narrator), but the movie itself is a chore to sit through.  As with the first film, the cast is trapped in a jumbled narrative and surrounded by chintzy special effects.  Chastain and Hemsworth seem aware they’re on a sinking ship and keep themselves amused by outdoing each other with their hilariously overdone Scottish accents.  

There is one standout scene when Blunt deceives the two lovers and cleverly drives them apart, along with a few fleeting moments of enjoyable stupidity (like Blunt riding on the back of a domesticated polar bear).  Everything else is thoroughly dull though.  That includes the finale, which feels like something out of a comic book movie with Blunt’s Iceman powers vs. Theron’s half-assed Venom black goop. 

Also, how can The Huntsman: Winter’s War be about an evil queen who has killer freezing powers that has a last-minute change of heart and saves the day in the name of love and her final scene ISN’T a close-up of a single tear running down her cheek and freezing?  WTF?  DO I HAVE TO THINK OF EVERYTHING, HOLLYWOOD? 

AKA:  The Huntsman and the Ice Queen.