HALLOWEEN HANGOVER: DAUGHTER OF DR. JEKYLL (1957) **

Two of my favorite B movie actors, John Agar (who was in The Brain from Planet Arous the same year this came out) and Gloria (I Married a Monster from Outer Space) Talbott star in this low budget mishmash from Edgar G. (Detour) Ulmer.  Talbott plays a woman who goes to her guardian’s home to tell him she’s going to marry Agar on her 21st birthday.  He then tells her she’s actually an heiress and that on her birthday, the mansion and the surrounding grounds will revert back to her.  He also reveals to her she’s the daughter of Dr. Jekyll and that she just may have inherited the family curse. 

You have to give Daughter of Dr. Jekyll credit:  It has a loony hook.  It’s the movie that asks the question:  “What if Mr. Hyde was, in fact, a werewolf?”  I mean, I guess I can see that as he sometimes looks like a werewolf in some adaptations.  (Most notably the Frederic March version).  This is the first version I know of that explicitly states it. 

That’s nothing though.  Get a load of this.  Not only does Dr. Jekyll turn into a werewolf, but he can only be killed by a stake in the heart!  You have to wonder if screenwriter Jack (The Atomic Brain) Pollexfen ever saw a horror movie before.

This all could’ve been goofy fun, but it just takes far too long to get the show on the road.  The first half is filled with a lot of stalling tactics that only succeed in testing the audience’s patience.  While I am a fan of both Agar and Talbott, I have to admit, this is far from their best work.  It looks really cheap too.  (Check out the obvious model that passes as the mansion’s exterior.) 

Then again, what do you expect from a movie that thinks a stake through the heart kills a werewolf?

Despite all that, Ulmer manages to wring some atmosphere out of the proceedings (especially during the dream scenes where Talbott transforms into a killer and stalks her victims).  You kind of have to respect the way he keeps on tossing in more and more cliches (hypnosis, secret passageways, suspicious caretakers, angry villagers brandishing torches, etc.), even if he never really follows through on any of them.  Without a sturdy foundation, the cliches just feel like boxes being checked off without any real cohesion.

The film finally comes to life in the last ten minutes.  Sure, the big twist is predictable, but I’ll watch any movie that features a lap dissolve werewolf transformation, no matter how bad.  My favorite bit though was the scene where Mr. Hyde plays Peeping Tom and pervs on a woman while she is getting ready for bed.  Too bad he doesn’t get to play Hyde the Salami with her.

HALLOWEEN HANGOVER: TREMORS: SHRIEKER ISLAND (2020) *

A billionaire big game hunter (31’s Richard Brake) is making a killing on his secluded island where people are willing to pay top dollar to hunt bioengineered Graboids.  He doesn’t realize that when the Graboids reproduce, they turn into pint-sized, two-legged “Shriekers”.  Naturally, it’s up to survival nut/Graboid killer Burt Gummer (Michael Gross) to save the day. 

Tremors:  Shrieker Island is the seventh entry in the Tremors franchise.  Seven was not this series’ lucky number, that’s for sure.  Remember back to Part 2?  That one was a fun variation on Jurassic Park as the newly mutated worms ran around like sawed-off raptors.  This one is a lot more blatant in its inspiration.  Not only does it rip off Jurassic Park, but it also shamelessly lifts from Predator too.  It’s one thing to mimic the infrared POV hunting shots from that movie.  It’s another thing to have a character say, “Hey!  That’s just like Predator!”  It’s as if the film’s bar is set so low, they have to spoon feed the audience the references.  (There’s even a character who uses a big ass gun not unlike the one Jesse Ventura had in Predator.)

The lone good idea was getting Richard Brake to play the megalomaniacal hunter villain.  Unfortunately, he’s not given much to work with.  He chews the scenery pretty well, but the lines just sort of hang there because his dialogue is so clunky and poorly written.

Gross looks slightly less enthusiastic than usual.  I’m not saying he phones it in or anything, but there’s a noticeable lack of glee in his eyes when he’s hunting the Graboids this time around.  It doesn’t help that he’s saddled with the irritating Jon Heder for a sidekick.  Jamie Kennedy wasn’t a terrible partner in crime for the past two movies, but Heder is downright insufferable.  You have to wonder how many people said no to the role before he said yes.  Maybe if he stayed in character as Napoleon Dynamite it would’ve been slightly better, although I highly doubt it. 

Don Michael Paul’s uninspired direction is the final nail in the proverbial coffin.  The lackluster action sequences coupled with the insipid humor makes this by far the worst in the series.  The pacing is stagnant too as the film slogs from one inert set piece to the other.  Also, there was no reason this needed to be 102 freakin’ minutes long. 

What’s worse is they foolishly try to give the film some dramatic weight at the end, which fails spectacularly.  Whatever potential for drama the scene had is squandered as it lands with a big old thud.  I mean, you can’t have your first ninety minutes be that bad and then expect us to actually care what happens in the final reel.  The fact they REDACTED makes it that much more infuriating. 

In short, Tremors:  Shrieker Island is nothing to shriek about.  Hopefully, this will be the final rodeo for the franchise.  Something tells me Universal will somehow worm another sequel out of this series in the not too distant future.

HALLOWEEN HANGOVER: READY OR NOT (2019) ** ½

Samara Weaving gets married at her husband’s ancestral mansion.  His family’s only request is that she play a game of Hide and Seek with them at the stroke of midnight.  Although that’s not exactly how she expected her wedding night to go down, she plays along and goes hide.  Much to her horror, her new in-laws begin to hunt her down with axes, crossbows, and guns. 

This is all fairly standard stuff.  The difference is the central performance by Weaving.  As with The Babysitter, the bare bones concept is made tolerable thanks to her winning presence.  She’s saved a lot of these borderline low budget movies.  it’s time for Hollywood to take notice and put her in a big budget blockbuster.  Well… once Hollywood starts making big budget blockbusters again… that people can see… in the theater… maybe…

Directed by the team of Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett (who did the only good segment of V/H/S), Ready or Not is a not-bad, if a bit generic horror-comedy.  It’s at its best in the early going as the vibe is akin to You’re Next by way of The Most Dangerous Game.  The film begins to lose steam once the game strays from the grounds of the mansion, but the finale is appropriately bloody, although it feels a bit silly and pat.

The supporting cast is solid.  Adam Brody steals many scenes as Weaving’s drunk brother in-law and Henry Czerny provides just the right amount of bland menace as the patriarch of her new family.  It was also neat seeing the usually effervescent Andie MacDowell playing against type as Weaving’s slightly sinister mother in-law.

Overall, Ready or Not is an OK way to kill 95 minutes.  Although it isn’t terrible or anything, I can’t imagine it working half as well if Weaving wasn’t front and center for most of the running time. Wearing a shredded wedding dress with a bandolier draped over her torso and brandishing a shotgun, she certainly strikes a memorable pose.  She’s all dressed up, but the movie has nowhere to go. 

AKA:  Wedding Nightmare.

HALLOWEEN HANGOVER: INSIDE (2018) * ½

Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury’s Inside is one of my favorite horror movies of the 21^st century.  As wary as I am of English language remakes to recent horror films, I was cautiously optimistic about this one, mostly because of the casting.  Rachel Nichols and Laura Harring are two of the best actresses working today and it’s a shame they aren’t household names because they almost always deliver the goods.  Their performances are the only things keeping this Inside from being a One Star movie. 

If you’ve already seen the original Inside, there’s no reason to see this one.  If you’re still curious, I’ll recap the plot:  A very pregnant woman (Nichols) is enjoying a quiet Christmas alone in her home when a strange woman (Harring) shows up and tries to take her baby… while it’s still inside her. 

The first act is fairly solid, mostly because so much of it revolves around Nichols.  Director Miguel Angel Vivas gets a little mileage out of the fact Nichols’ character is deaf, which leads to the film’s lone suspenseful sequence.  Once Harring sneaks into the house, the movie shoots itself in the foot and never recovers. 

I guess it all boils down to context.  If you haven’t seen the original, you might think this is an OK time waster.  However, if you’re familiar with the first movie, you will be downright appalled by the way Vivas drops the ball here.  The original Inside was a shocking, balls-to-the-wall horror show.  The only thing shocking about this one is how bad it is.

If you’re not going to at least try to top the original, then what’s the point?  It’s like that Martyrs remake.  Yes, it’s technically proficient, but why even bother if you’re going to neuter and/or completely remove what made the original so potent?  All this just so Joe Average Moviegoer doesn’t have to read subtitles? 

The last act is particularly insulting.  If you know the original, you’ll know how important scissors are to the plot.  In this one, the characters keep teasing and teasing the audience with the scissors before turning around and using a kitchen knife or a shard of glass or something.  Eventually, the scissors DO get put into use, but they go into an entirely different person than they did in the original, which greatly diminishes the impact.

Which leads me to the finale.  Remember the gut-wrenching climax of Bustillo and Maury’s classic?  Forget it.  It ain’t happening here.  In fact, what counts as a substitute is downright insulting to the audience’s intelligence. 

Fans of the first movie will want to stay far away from this one.  It might raise the pulse of a clueless dolt who is well-versed in Lifetime Originals, but most horror hounds will be left thoroughly unimpressed.  Unless you want to see Nichols and Harring earn a paycheck, there’s really no reason to see it.  If I do get a hankering to see Rachel Nichols being stalked by a psycho on Christmas, I’ll watch P2 again, thank you very much.    

HALLOWEEN HANGOVER: BRIGHTBURN (2019) **

In my younger days, I used to fritter away time by thumbing through the Leonard Maltin Movie Guide and picking two movies at random and trying to combine the plots.  Brightburn sounds like one of those hodgepodges I used to dream up.  It is essentially Superman Meets The Omen. 

It’s an interesting idea.  What if Superman came to Earth not to stand for truth, justice, and the American way, but to cause death and destruction?  However, the makers of Brightburn never push past the surface Damien-in-Smallville idea.

Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle (David Denman) are a couple of farmers who live in Kansas who are struggling to conceive.  They think their prayers are answered when a child literally falls from the sky in an alien spacecraft.  For a while, the kid (Jackson A. Dunn) seems normal, except for the fact he’s super-strong, can’t be wounded, and has the ability to fly.  Once he hits twelve, the ship in the backyard starts calling to him and he discovers his place in the universe:  The make the world burn. 

So, the set-up is great.  Director David Yarovesky captures the off-brand Superman scenes just right.  It’s when the movie switches gears and becomes a full-blown horror show that it all falls apart.

Much of the problem has to do with Banks’ character.  It’s not a knock against her performance as she does everything the role requires her to do, and then some.  It’s that the script (written by Brian and Mark Gunn, brother and cousin of the producer, James Gunn) treats her as a mere plot device.  The switch from protective mother to scared, cowering generic horror movie character is almost laughable.  It’s like when the movie switches gears, it skips a few gears along the way.

If you can’t find ‘em, grind ‘em, I guess.

The script never quite works.  It almost feels Frankensteined together, which is a shame because it’s a neat idea.  (Not content to rip-off Superman and The Omen, the screenwriters also directly crib moments from American Psycho and Carrie, if you can fucking believe it.)  Even the scenes of the kid using his powers to kill the various adults who get in his way just seem sort of perfunctory.

I did think it kind of funny that the filmmakers were ripping off not one but TWO Richard Donner films.  Maybe in the sequel, the kid can team up with other superpowered kids and go on an adventure like The Goonies while being tailed by a pair of mismatched cops, one of whom is a Lethal Weapon.  It’s just so stupid it might happen.

JUMANJI: THE NEXT LEVEL (2019) **

Jumanji:  Welcome to the Jungle was a surprise blockbuster in 2017.  That was partly because of the nostalgia ‘90s kids had for the original, but it was largely thanks to the inspiration, wit, and charm of the performers and filmmakers.  They took an old premise and breathed new life into it while also making a statement about gender identity and including a positive “Be Yourself" message.  I don’t think anyone associated with Welcome to the Jungle dreamed it would’ve made over $400 million at the box office.  However, when it came time to make Jumanji:  The Next Level, it’s apparent the only thing they were dreaming about was the box office. 

As a fan of Welcome to the Jungle, I am dismayed to report that Jumanji:  The Next Level is a lifeless retread that lacks the heart, spark, and fun of the original.  Video games usually get harder once you progress to the next level.  I guess that’s true because The Next Level is particularly hard to get through. 

The nerdy guy from Welcome to the Jungle goes back into the video game.  Why?  Because if he didn’t, we wouldn’t have a movie and Sony wouldn’t have another $400 million.  His friends try to go back in after him, but problems arise when the kid’s crochety grandfather (Danny DeVito) and his former friend/business partner (Danny Glover) wind up in the game instead. 

The movie has essentially one joke:  The Rock doing an impression of Danny DeVito.  Two, if you count Kevin Hart doing an impression of Danny Glover.  It’s not a terrible joke, honestly as it’s somewhat amusing in the early going.  However, the joke quickly gets beaten into the ground.  It’s especially painful once you realize that’s the only trick the movie has up its sleeve. 

Yes, other than that, it’s the same old shit.  It’s made even worse by the fact that the adventure this time out is severely underwhelming.  The set pieces are weak (stampeding ostriches, moving bridges, baboon attack, etc.) and the villain is a lame Viking/Barbarian guy who has nary a shred of menace.  Things proceed to get repetitive about halfway through when everyone switches back into the same bodies they had in the first movie.  From there on out, it REALLY feels like a cash-in. 

Just when you think it can’t get any worse, the always annoying Awkwafina shows up.  Then, once the body-switch thing happens, she becomes the Danny DeVito character, and things go further into the toilet.  I mean, when The Rock did it, it was OK, I guess.  However, once she cranks her already grating voice to match DeVito’s cadence, The Next Level goes to the next level of irritating. 

The biggest bright spot:  Karen Gillan is once again having a ball playing her Tomb Raider-style character.  If any of the characters in the film deserve their own spin-off, it’s her because she steals many scenes out from under her co-stars. 

I guess I’d be lying if I said I didn’t want to see the next one.  The set-up for the sequel at the end certainly holds promise.  At least, enough promise that I haven’t entirely written off the franchise… yet.  Then again, if the sequel is just as bad (or worse) than this one, it might be Game Over.

BAD BOYS FOR LIFE (2020) *** ½

Well, the Bad Boys aren’t exactly boys anymore, are they?  That’s actually the good news in this surprisingly strong belated sequel.  While the first two Bad Boys movies have their moments, they are, by and large, loud and obnoxious.  Kind of like the main characters themselves.  I’m glad to report that bad boys Will Smith and Martin Lawrence have matured into their roles nicely, and the film itself is far less abrasive than the previous Michael Bay-directed installments. 

While Smith is out helping Lawrence celebrate the birth of his grandson, he is shot during a drive-by shooting.  The gunman is the son of a drug kingpin who is motivated by revenge (Smith killed his daddy) and a domineering mother.  After a lengthy recovery, Smith is itching for some payback, but Lawrence, unwilling to see Smith in a hospital again (or worse) turns in his badge and retires.  It’s then up to Smith to take down the villains alone.

Smith and Lawrence have never been better together.  Their dramatic scenes are what give the movie its unexpected power.  I’m not saying this is a Logan deal or anything, but the movie has a lot to say about confronting growing old, and even death.  Lawrence is particularly strong during his moving speech where he reveals to Smith he has retired.  Who knew underneath all the decades of tomfoolery there was a serious actor waiting to get out?  (That said, he still gets a number of big laughs throughout the film.)  Smith is equally fine and does a terrific job in his solo scenes where he briefly ditches his partner and sets out on the road to revenge solo.

The new directors, Adil and Bilall wisely tone down some of the more Michael Bay-centric qualities while still making it feel like part of the traditional Bad Boys universe.  In fact, the opening scene pokes a little fun at the conventions of the series, and Bay’s trademark camerawork, which lets the audience know up front that this one is going to be a little different.  The action is impressive too.  Adil and Bilall know how to film action without resorting to the shaky-cam bullshit, and reserve the slow-motion for the big hero moments.  Although the big finale is a bit hard to swallow, it’s not enough to derail the movie or anything.  That said, the rest of the action sequences throughout the film are aces.  I especially enjoyed the chase scene featuring a motorcycle with a machine gun-mounted sidecar that made me simultaneously think of The Dark Knight AND Duck Soup.

My only real gripe is the title.  Bad Boys for Life?  This is the third movie in the series.  Shouldn’t they have named this one Bad Boys 3 and called the next one Bad Boys 4 Life?  Do I have to think of everything, Hollywood?