GOOD BOY (2025) **

A guy moves into his grandfather’s old house in the middle of the woods with his trusty dog by his side.  Almost immediately, the dog begins seeing ominous, human-shaped shadows lurking around the property.  It’s then up to the courageous canine to protect his master at all costs. 

Good Boy is basically a haunted house movie from the dog’s point of view.  It’s an intriguing concept, but one that has to thread a very thin needle.  If you lean too heavy in one direction it might wind up being like The Incredible Journey.  Go too far in the other direction and it could end up with Look Who’s Talking Now.  It’s a tricky balancing act to be sure.  However, the filmmakers are only intermittently successful at executing their admittedly high concept idea.  

The way director Ben Leonberg puts the humans in the background, makes them out of focus, or keeps their heads out of frame is reminiscent of how Spielberg filmed the adults in E.T.  It’s also similar in some ways to Steven Soderbergh’s Presence, which was a ghost story but seen through the eyes of the ghost.  Because of the dog’s acute senses, he can hear and see things his human master can’t.  (Conversely, we are privy to information the dog doesn’t have, like text messages.)  It’s all clever enough to work, but not quite smart enough to make it a classic or anything. 

Leonberg does everything he can to squeeze every last drop from the slim scenario.  Even at a relatively scant seventy-three minutes it still feels padded, especially when the dog starts having nightmare scenes.  I mean one doggy dream would’ve sufficed, but we’re talking multiple dreams here.  It probably would’ve worked better as a short, although I can’t quite fault everyone involved for trying to milk a feature length movie out of it. 

It does have at least one effective jump scare, but it basically falls apart in the third act.  The non-existent finale is especially weak.  Had there been a bit more action (or chills) in the home stretch, it might’ve skated by with ** ½.  Still, it has its moments.

In short, Good Boy isn’t a complete dog. 

THE NOTORIOUS DAUGHTER OF FANNY HILL (1966) ***

If you loved her in A Smell of Honey, a Swallow of Brine, you owe it to yourself to check out Stacey Walker in The Notorious Daughter of Fanny Hill.  Whereas Honey was a down and dirty, black and white New York roughie, this is a classy, respectable (and at times a bit too respectable) costume drama nudie in full color.  This just shows her incredible range.  It’s a shame she only made two features because she was an amazing beauty with considerable screen presence. 

I’ve long held the opinion that the true test of an actress’s screen sexuality is her ability to pull off a reverse striptease.  That is to say, is she just as sexy putting her clothes on as she is taking them off?  Walker answers that query in the very first scene as she wakes up, gets out of bed, and puts on her nylons.  All I can say is… Yowza!

Walker is Kissey, who works in a high-class brothel that caters to noblemen.  The film is essentially comprised of her various dalliances with her clientele.  There’s one scene where Walker nibbles seductively on carrots and bananas, and all I can say is if that doesn’t get your blood pumping, you might have to check for a pulse.  One of Kissey’s clients is none other than the Marquis de Sade himself who amusingly turns out to be a whimpering masochist.  Seeing Walker play dominatrix is one of the many joys of the film. 

After about a half-hour or so of Walker’s rampant sensuality, I was ready to label The Notorious Daughter of Fanny Hill a bona fide classic.  However, the third act pales in comparison with the rest of the film.  Once we get to meet the other ladies of the night who inhabit the brothel, the movie begins to lose some of its luster.  It also doesn’t help matters that Walker becomes more of a spectator of the action than a participant during this stretch of the proceedings.  Things finish strong with Walker having a sexy bubble bath, even if the tragic ending is out of step with the rest of the picture. 

Neither The Notorious Daughter of Fanny Hill nor A Smell of Honey, A Swallow of Brine are perfect.  Since they are the only two films Walker starred in, they deserve their rightful place in sexploitation history.  Watching these two films you can only imagine the career she could’ve had if she stuck with acting.  Come back Stacey, we miss you. 

THE PRINCESS AND THE MAGIC FROG (1965) *

A little boy gets lost in the woods on St. Patrick’s Day and stumbles upon a leprechaun that has gotten his beard stuck in a log.  He agrees to help him out of his predicament in exchange for his bag of magic gold coins.  The coins can be used to make wishes, but the catch is the wishes must help other people and not the person doing the wishing.  Luckily for him, the woods is crawling with assorted oddballs (knights, Gypsies, puppeteers, etc.) and even inanimate objects (a talking signpost) that need the kid’s help.  Oh, and there’s also an evil wizard running around the forest because… of course there is. 

The Princess and the Magic Frog is interesting in that the princess only appears for like two minutes and there isn’t a magic frog to be had.  (There is a toad however, but it’s really just the knight who was transformed by the wizard.)  My favorite part takes place in a desert where the kid and the knight meet a genie, and the boom mike is visible throughout the entire scene.  Now that I think about it, the boom mike gets more screen time than the princess… or the frog… er… toad.  Go figure. 

I’ve seen some bad kids’ movies in my day and that certainly describes The Princess and the Magic Frog.  It features some lame costumes, dumb characters, and puzzling logic (or lack thereof).  Like most low budget WTF kiddie matinee fodder, it does have some bizarre moments, albeit not nearly enough to make it worth watching. 

The most memorable scene centers around the puppeteer.  When he laments his hands are too old to control the puppets, the kid wishes to make them come alive.  You’ll instantly regret his decision, especially when the puppets in blackface start dancing about.  Then there’s the creepy bit when some dancing girl puppets that look like they came out of the Follies Bergere show up and flash the audience with their can-can dancing.  This scene will definitely raise an eyebrow or two, but there’s just too much boring shit with the kid and the dumb knight traipsing through the forest to hold your interest.  The seventy-eight-minute running time drags like a son of a bitch too. 

AKA:  At the End of the Rainbow.  

THE ADVENTURES OF LUCKY PIERRE (1961) ***

Before they made the iconic gore trilogy, director Herschell Gordon Lewis and producer David F. Friedman teamed up for this fun nudie cutie.  It follows the antics of Pierre (Billy Falbo) and his various run-ins with naked women.  The vignettes almost play like a nudie version of comedy one-reelers from the silent era.  Except… you know… with tits. 

“Prologue” (***):   A comedian introduces the picture and makes jokes before finally being taken away by the men in white coats.  Afterwards, there’s a skit in a shrink’s office that plays like a filmed version of a Playboy cartoon.  Both have obvious but amusing set-ups and punchlines, which give you a taste of things to come. 

“Pardon My Pigments” (***):  Pierre paints three nude models in the forest who wind up not appreciating his art style.  This segment is kind of funny and the models are cute.  The annoying calliope music is the only real debit. 

“The Plumber’s Friend” (***):  A man hires Pierre to fix his shower… while his wife is taking a bath!  The set-up for this one is so much fun that you can forgive it for the predictable payoff.  It also earns points for having Lewis’ Blood Feast star, William Kerwin as the husband. 

“For the Birds” (***):  Pierre goes birdwatching in the woods.  And I don’t mean like… robins and shit.  I mean like, cute girls who get naked.  This is essentially a one-joke premise, but Lewis is able to wring that one joke for all it is worth. 

“The Photographer’s Apprentice” (** ½):  This time, Pierre is working as a janitor in a photographer’s studio when three nude models mistake him for the photographer.  He takes their pictures, not realizing he has a magic camera that makes its subjects disappear.  This segment starts off with a lot of promise.  It’s just a shame it doesn’t go anywhere. 

“Drive-In Me Crazy” (***):  Pierre drives over a hundred miles to a drive-in playing a nudist double feature.  Fortunately for him (and the audience), the employees are all sexy nudists too.  This sketch is a bit long-winded, but it’s hard not to like a scene that combines drive-in theaters and naked women.  The film within a film, “Picnic at the Playground” is also amusing. 

In short, if you liked Benny Hill, you’ll probably dig The Adventures of Lucky Pierre.  Is it funny?  Kinda.  Is it sexy?  Sorta.  Is it entertaining?  Heck yeah!

TILL DEATH (2021) *** ½

I thoroughly enjoyed Subservience, the killer AI maid movie starring Megan Fox, so I figured I would check out her previous collaboration with director SK Dale, Till Death.  Turns out this one is just as good, if not better.  He takes a slight, but memorable plot and is able to get as much suspense out of the scenario as just about anyone could. 

Fox plays an unhappily married woman whose husband (Eoin Macken) is a rich douche.  On their anniversary, he lures her to their remote lake house in the middle of winter for a romantic get-together.  When she wakes up in the morning, she finds herself handcuffed to her husband and… well… I wouldn’t want to spoil it.  Let’s just say that it plays like a mash-up of Gerald’s Game and that one episode of Tales from the Crypt with Kyle MacLachlan.

Survival horror is one of my favorite subgenres and Dale does a good job setting up the premise.  At a lithe ninety minutes, he keeps things moving as well.  He doesn’t dwell on little details and relies on the audience to put two and two together.  (For example, we don’t need a scene where Fox fashions makeshift shoes for herself when a simple close-up of her wrapped-up feet will suffice during the action.)  The clever script by Jason Carvey also manages to keep finding new ways to ramp up the severity of Fox’s predicament. 

Fox does some fine work here.  I especially liked the scene where she realized what’s happening to her.  It’s almost like you see a switch thrown as she automatically transforms from trophy wife to survivor.  The role is also enormously physical, and she proves she is quite adept at being in way over her head without necessarily making her character a victim.  

I will say the movie loses some of its immediacy once more and more people arrive at the house looking for Fox and her husband.  However, there is still plenty of suspense to be had, even if it was more fun when Megan was all by her lonesome.  The climax is especially effective and contains some nice de Palmaesque camerawork. 

If you’re looking for a lean, mean thriller, this will fit the bill nicely.  Chase it with Subservience and you have yourself a heck of a double feature.  I hope Dale and Fox team up again soon.  It will be fun seeing if they can go 3 for 3. 

THE BIG BAD WOLF (1966) ***

The Big Bad Wolf delivers a pure hit of WTF lunacy that only old-timey kiddie matinee movies contain.  It was a German kids movie made in the ‘50s that was poorly dubbed and released in America almost a decade later to kids that I’m sure had nightmares for years after.  The American version also contains songs by Milton DeLugg, the guy who wrote “Hooray for Santa Claus” for Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.  In fact, this would probably make for a delirious double feature with that flick. 

A single mother goat leaves her seven kids (get it?) alone while she goes off looking for food.  Before long, the Big Bad Wolf shows up trying to break in and turn the kids into a hot lunch.  When the Wolf eventually gains the upper hand on the children, it’s up to mom to rescue them. 

The Big Bad Wolf feels like a cross between Home Alone and David Lynch’s Rabbits.  The goats are anthropomorphic, talk, and look eerily realistic.  The costumes are great, but the effect gives them a soulless, ungodly appearance.  The poor cinematography in the scenes where they frolic through the woods gives them a cryptid quality.  The Wolf on the other hand looks like something out of The Rare Blue Apes of Cannibal Isle and even blows smoke through his nose when he’s mad. 

The whole ecosystem of the forest is puzzling.  The goats are obviously people in suits that stand upright and wear clothes, but other animals in the forest are played by real animals wearing hats and shit.  Also, the Wolf accosts random grocers and bakers and forces them to help him in his quest to fool the goats.  These guys are played by actual humans, all of whom are frightened of him.  I mean, I would be frightened of a wolf that walks on two legs, wears pants and talks too, but still. 

The scenes of the goats are unsettling as it is, but things take a dark turn in the third act when the Wolf eats most of the kids.  It’s here where the film turns into a kiddie matinee revenge thriller as mama goat cuts open the Wolf’s stomach to free her children.  Folks the sight of anthropomorphic goats emerging from the guts of a vivisected man/wolf is sure to befuddle anyone who’s watched as many movies as I have.  Then, they stuff him with rocks, sew him back up, and throw him down a goddamn well so he drowns!  It’s like I Spit on Your Wolf or something.  

Fun for the whole family!

AKA:  The Wolf and the Seven Little Goats.

FRANKENSTEIN (2025) ***

Guillermo Del Toro’s Frankenstein is handsomely mounted and gorgeous to look at.  In fact, it may be the most beautiful looking Frankenstein film of all time.  It’s also overlong, a tad frustrating, and more than a little uneven, but you can always remain enchanted by the lush visuals. 

The story is essentially the same as countless other adaptations, so I’ll refrain from doing a plot recap.  I will say the film suffers from some severe pacing issues, especially in the beginning.  Just because the novel started out on a boat in the frozen north doesn’t mean the movie has to.  I’m not sure why Del Toro felt beholden to the book’s structure, especially when he took so many liberties with the novel to begin with.  The stuff with Dr. Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac) as a boy and his dead mom and abusive father could’ve easily been trimmed too.  Once the picture jumps forward in time, it gets a shot in the arm when Christoph Waltz shows up as Frankenstein’s benefactor who eventually reveals he’s dying and wants his brain put into the creature. 

Isaac is blustering and abrasive as Dr. Frankenstein.  While his character has at least one amusing quirk (he drinks milk because after all it does a body good) his constant overacting proves that too much scenery chewing is bad for the digestion.  His overly bombastic antics are enough to make Kenneth Branagh’s version seem twee and demure in comparison. 

The film is separated into two parts, the doctor’s tale and the creature’s tale.  The scenes of Issac essentially being a bad parent to his creation (Jacob Elordi) work.  He even admits that he didn’t think the whole thing through or consider what would happen AFTER he created a monster, which hammers home the neglectful father theme.  Unfortunately, Del Toro drives the point into the ground that it is the doctor who is the real monster and not the creature.  It’s a valid approach, but I just wish Del Toro had used a little more finesse while making his points. 

The scenes with Elordi as the creatures are much better.  The section where he befriends a blind man (reminiscent of Bride of Frankenstein) who teaches him to read, is strong and his fight with a pack of wolves is rousing.  Also, this stretch of the film is much tighter paced.  Credit also must be given to Elordi for creating a performance of childlike innocence that makes us root for him, while still retaining a monstrous quality that makes him intimidating.  The second act is so good that it ultimately bumped the movie into the win column for me, even though I still felt a tad disappointed overall. 

Like most Netflix originals, Frankenstein is about twenty minutes too long.  The arctic bookends weren’t really necessary and only added to the already bloating running time.  Still, when Del Toro is firing on all cylinders, the film crackles.  It may take its sweet time to do so, but once the movie finally finds its heart, it works.