What We Do In the Shadows (2014)

Jemaine Clement
Taika Waititi

Jemaine Clement - Vladislav
Taika Waititi - Viago
Jonathan Brugh - Deacon
Ben Fransham - Petyr
Con Gonzalez-Macue - Nick
Stu Rutherford - Stu
Rhys Darby - Anton

Genre - Horror/Comedy/Vampires/Werewolves

Running Time - 85 Minutes

PLOT (from IMDB)
Viago (Taika Waititi), Deacon (Jonathan Brugh) and Vladislav (Jemaine Clement) are vampires who are finding that modern life has them struggling with the mundane - like paying rent, keeping up with the chore wheel, trying to get into nightclubs and overcoming flatmate conflicts.

Did you ever wonder what THIS IS SPINAL TAP would look like if it involved vampires instead of a fictional rock band? Well you’re in luck, as WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS is pretty much that film. A horror-comedy that’s played more for laughs than scares, WWDITS is a 2015 film that is produced by Jemaine Clement & Taika Waititi - the men responsible for the cult favorite Flight of the Conchords. With the film now having been adapted into a TV show on the FX Network, I figured it was time to finally watch it and see what the fuss was about when the film was released four years ago. And while it’s not a perfect horror-comedy, WWDITS is definitely a must for anyone interested in a comedy based on horror roots.

What makes WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS work is how self-aware it is. Unlike a terrible spoof film like 2010’s VAMPIRE SUCKS, which used TWILIGHT and other pop culture elements to “make people laugh”, WWDITS is a mockumentary that follows a few vampires who live in a house together and film their lives in a human society [with some werewolves mixed in]. It’s The Real World with fanged creatures who attempt to adapt to a modern world and use this learning experience to feed on victims and figure out where they fit in within a society that sees them as sort of a joke. They dress as if they’re still living in their previous era. They have trouble getting inside establishments because they need to be invited. They still pine for a lost love from ages ago from afar. They feel out of place in a world that doesn’t take them seriously nor understand them in a way they want to be understood. Even the werewolves they encounter have a better grasp on the world than they do. Watching them fumble and live their lives within a society that has already moved on is both funny and clever, as most vampire films never really do that sort of thing. It’s also great that they mention pop culture references, such as the noodles from THE LOST BOYS and even mentions of TWILIGHT. It’s obviously the creators are in on the joke and allow us to be on it as well.

The characters are what makes WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS works, as each one has a distinct personality and allows the story to play out as one would expect out of a reality show documentary. Vladislav is the aristocratic Dracula wannabe who loves sex while still being heartbroken by “The Beast”. Viago is the nice vampire who is love sick, a bit effeminate and is innocent in a childlike way. He also seems to be the most grounded and the leader of the house.  Deacon is the bad boy who believes he’s a hipster and just the coolest vampire ever. Add in Nosferatu looking Petyr [who never says a word and has been living in the basement of the house since before the trio moved in] and you have unique characters you’ll be invested in. The drama ramps up when young Nick, a victim-turned-vampire by Petyr, joins the fray. While he’s the youngest and hippest of the group, which angers Deacon, he’s also kind of a douche bag as he goes against every single vampire rule throughout the film. The only reason they keep him around is due to Nick’s best friend Stu, a human the vampires refuse to turn because he helps them adjust to the modern era. Plus, the vampires just like him for some reason. We don’t know why but because they like him, we do also. We also get familiars, werewolves, and that previously mentioned “Beast”. A colorful cast of characters that you entertain you during the film’s short running time.

The direction by Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi is pretty damn great. There’s nothing too stylistic about it, but it works because it’s meant to look like a documentary/reality show. It flows well between characters and the way the character arcs play out are visually expressed well. The film also has some great special effects considering the budget, especially when the vampires turn into bats and start fighting each other. The werewolf costumes are laughingly bad though, but luckily they’re kept in the shadows when they do make their appearance. I also enjoyed a lot of the editing and transitions in the film, which spiced the look of the film. It was simple filmmaking, but it kept your interest the entire time.

The acting is spot on. Jemaine Clement, inspired by Gary Oldman’s performance in BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA, is great as the sex-crazed and aristocratic Vladislav. I also enjoyed Taika Waititi’s performance of the innocent Viago, which was inspired by his own mother. The nagging, effeminate nature of the character was comedy gold. Jonathan Brugh was cool as Deacon, a vampire who thought he was younger and cooler than he actually was. I thought the three of them had great chemistry together, playing off of each other as if they really had been living together for centuries. Even Con Gonzalez-Macue’s cocky performance as the unlikable Nick didn’t hurt the chemistry, even though it sure raised the drama. I even thought Stu Rutherford’s performance as human background player Stu added a lot to the film, even though he was quiet. The cast was totally into their roles and I thought they played loving homages to past vampires while goofing on them at the same time.

I can’t believe it took me so long to sit down and watch WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS. It’s a clever, witty take on MTV’s The Real World, but with vampires who decide to get real and attempt to adjust to a modern world that doesn’t quite get them. The characters have depth and all feel unique from one another, thanks to the cast who seem to enjoy goofing on the vampiric pop culture while also playing tribute to that world. The direction isn’t anything special, but it works for a mockumentary that happens to showcase some nice special effects and cool gore. I’m glad the film was brought back to my attention thanks to the very good FX television series of the same name. Not every horror-comedy works, but WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS’ humor definitely worked on me. Invite this one in if you haven’t already.

3.5 Howls Outta 4


Happy Death Day 2U (2019)

Christopher Landon

Jessica Rothe - Theresa “Tree” Gelbman
Israel Broussard - Carter Davis
Phi Vu - Ryan Phan
Suraj Sharma - Samar Ghosh
Sarah Yarkin - Dre Morgan
Ruby Modine - Lori Spengler
Rachel Matthews - Danielle Bouseman
Steve Zissis - Dean Bronson

Genre - Horror/Comedy/Science Fiction/Slasher

Running Time - 100 Minutes

The day after the events of HAPPY DEATH DAY, Carter’s (Israel Broussard) roommate Ryan (Phi Vu) [the dude who kept barging into the room at the start of each time loop] experiences his own deja vu as he keeps reliving the same day over and over until he’s murdered by a similarly dressed killer. Ryan, unable to handle what’s going on, decides to confide in Carter and girlfriend Tree (Jessica Rothe), who relays her own experience with the loop. Through their conversation, Tree learns that Ryan has been building a machine called “Sissy” - an invention that has the ability to mess with the aspects of time. Upset by this information, Tree demands Ryan and his friends (Suraj Sharma and Sarah Bennani) to fix this mess so time is back to normal.

As Ryan tries to fix the time stream, something goes wrong. It sends Tree back to her birthday, where she experiences the same loop she lived in the first film. However, things have changed - as the people in her life are now experiencing different lives and different relationships than what she’s familiar with. Will Tree want to live in this new reality, or will Tree help Ryan fix this mess and go back to her old reality?

Making $125.5 million on a $4.8 million budget, 2017’s HAPPY DEATH DAY was a surprise success considering it was a PG-13 slasher. It also proved what a force Blumhouse is, as it continued its reputation as the biggest force in the horror movie industry at the moment. HAPPY DEATH DAY was a really fun film that proved that PG-13 slasher films can work if they’re marketed and executed well. However, I never wanted or expected a sequel to the film, as the GROUNDHOG DAY aspect is a great plot device for one film. When I learned that this was being released and seeing trailers for HAPPY DEATH DAY 2U, I wasn’t sure what to expect. It was presented in the same fashion as the first film, almost looking like a carbon copy but with a few differences. There was no way Blumhouse was doing an actual remake of a film that was barely two years old, right? Luckily, the sequel manages to be its own thing while using familiar aspects of the original film, making HAPPY DEATH DAY 2U worthy of a look if you enjoyed the first film.

Instead of original writer Scott Lobdell working on the script, returning director Christopher Landon steps up to grab the reins. I feel Landon’s approach to the sequel will either turn original fans away, or make current fans hungry for more. While the GROUNDHOG DAY plot device is still in play, it’s not really the focus this time around. Instead, Landon has gone for a more sci-fi approach in terms of quantum leaps, multiverses, and alternate realities affecting the characters this time around. While Tree is still suffering from a time loop, it takes place in alternate reality where the people she knows aren’t the same people from her original reality. And some people who weren’t present in her old one are now present in her new one, making her struggle with the decision to either go back to her old time, or just let things play out - both options causing her to make a huge sacrifice in the process. HAPPY DEATH DAY 2U plays with the whole BACK TO THE FUTURE PART II and SLIDING DOORS idea of different realities being created due to the choices that are made. And it does it for laughs as it tries to explain why Tree is stuck in this loop to begin with.

And don’t get me wrong - HAPPY DEATH DAY 2U is definitely a funny film that totally embraces the silliness and comedic aspects of its story. It feels like those 80s sci-fi comedies, like WEIRD SCIENCE, where the science aspect is played for laughs while trying to build a universe for the franchise to stand on for multiple sequels [it’s gonna happen so don’t roll your eyes]. Watching Tree suffer through different loops is hilarious, as she’s obviously grown tired of this whole deal and just wants to move on with her life. While her personality doesn’t change like it does in the first film, her struggle with dealing with the new reality thrusted upon her makes her mature as well. Unfortunately I don’t think it’s done as strongly as in the first film, but it’s there to see and understand if you’re a fan of the first film. The funniest moments [and moments that may trigger some people] are when Tree decides that she’s tired of being murdered, instead committing suicide in various ways that result in pretty cool visual transitions back to Carter’s bed. And there’s a lot of slapstick comedy, especially during the last act, where our characters try and pull off a heist against the Dean of the college. It’s done really well and I laughed at the silliness of it all. I also liked the emotional moments as well, where Tree doesn’t know whether she wants to keep living in the past or get rid of her fear of facing an unpredictable future. It’s mainly due to the strong writing for these moments and Jessica Rothe’s performance, managing to bring some gravitas to a sequel that surprisingly earns it. The writing isn’t as good as the first film, to be honest, but when it works, it really works.

I think the story fails when it comes to the horror aspect of the film. If you’re expecting a slasher film like the last movie, you’ll be seriously disappointed. I don’t mind that the focus is more on the comedy and science fiction aspect of the story, since it gives the sequel a different feel [which is the right move]. But it sort of starts as a slasher film, quickly forgets that there’s even a killer around, and then decides to go back to the slasher aspect. It makes the film feel disjointed, as the horror stuff feels forced in because that’s how the film was marketed and that’s probably what fans of the first film expected. The new killer is easy to predict as well, sort of playing homage to SCREAM in a way. But the mystery didn’t really work for me like it did in the first film, making me wish there wasn’t a killer at all. HAPPY DEATH DAY 2U could have focused on the science aspect and giving us a commentary on how technology and playing God leads to mischief and trouble and I don't think I would have had much of an issue. I feel this is why some haven’t been too kind to this sequel, as they expected something similar to the first film. I’m happy for the differences in storytelling and tone, but don’t shoehorn in an aspect you don’t plan on developing to please everyone. It usually never works.

I did enjoy how the time loops were used though. I don’t think the events of the first film really needed an explanation, but I thought the sequel did a decent job giving us a reason why Tree was suffering for so long. It was a great use of the budget in recreating scenes from the first film, but making them feel different and giving Tree reasons to keep ending her life in order to save people, or figure out which timeline she wanted to stay in or return to. The new science characters added a lot of charm and humor to the whole film, making the sci-fi stuff easy to swallow and enjoy. I look forward to what the next film [hopefully they make one] has in store, judging by that cute mid-credits sequence that will focus on another supporting character rather than Tree this time around. Should be fun if the film does well enough.

The direction by Christopher Landon isn’t as focused as it was in the first film, but Landon still manages to visually please the audience with funny montages and decent special effects that add to the sequel’s charm. When the comedic tone is at play, it really works due to the film’s flow and colorful visuals. Landon also recreates the original scenes excellently, changing subtle things when you least expect it. Landon really makes HAPPY DEATH DAY 2U feel like a seamless continuation for a movie that didn’t need one, making a guarantee that you’ll need to watch both films to get the whole story. The only time the film doesn’t work is when the tone shifts into slasher mode. There are no tense moments or even scary ones. I felt the pacing in the final act that involved the horror aspect lacked, and felt forced and rushed. I appreciate that Landon wanted to broaden the franchise’s horizons and not contain these characters within a single genre. But I would have preferred if this sequel was either a sci-fi comedy or a straight up slasher film. The slasher aspect really worked in the first film, while it feels like an afterthought here. I felt that Landon had a lot of ambitious ideas that worked eighty-percent of the time.

The acting is just as good in HAPPY DEATH DAY 2U as it was in the first film. Jessica Rothe, once again, carries the film incredibly on her back as Tree. While her character doesn’t have as much growth in terms of maturity like in the first film, Rothe still manages to give more depth to a character that we’ve really grown to love over these two films. Rothe has a knack for comedy, hilariously showing frustration over having to repeat herself again in the time loop. She shares amazing chemistry with her co-stars and even gets to do some real emotional acting in the new timeline. She’s really become an actress to watch out for and is the main reason to watch both of these movies. The only other actress who really stood out is Rachel Matthews as Danielle. While playing the stereotypical snotty bitch in the first film, Matthews has more to do in the sequel. She has a great moment of comedy in the final act that felt kind of inappropriate, but I couldn’t help but giggle at the entire thing. Plus, she still excels at being a snob that you can’t help but feel charmed by. The other actors, especially the returning Israel Broussard, Phi Vu, and Ruby Modine do well with the differences they’re given, showing us new aspects of their characters that will probably continue in the next film [if it happens].

While not as fresh or focused as the first film, HAPPY DEATH DAY 2U manages to be a surprisingly fun sequel that’s probably worth watching if you enjoyed the first movie. Jessica Rothe continues to carry the franchise well on her shoulders, showing us that she’s able to charm audiences no matter what genre of film she’s in. The 80s sci-fi comedic vibe gives the franchise a fresh coat of paint that no one was really expecting or asking for, yet it works for the most part by embracing the silliness of the film’s premise. The sequel, however, lacks a focus the first film had - especially with the horror aspect that feels shoehorned to please fans of the first film. If you’re looking for a slasher mystery, you’ll be seriously disappointed. While not as strong of a film as its predecessor, HAPPY DEATH DAY 2U has to be respected for thinking outside of the box and going into a new direction. I went in expecting a rehash of the first film and ended up getting something completely different, which I really admired about this sequel. Fans of the first film should give HAPPY DEATH 2U a shot. It may not work completely for everyone, but you have to respect the direction this franchise wants to go. 

3 Howls Outta 4


Brain Damage (1988)

Frank Henenlotter

Rick Hearst - Brian
John Zacherie - Aylmer (voice)
Gordon MacDonald - Mike
Jennifer Lowry - Barbara
Theo Barnes - Morris
Lucille Saint Peter - Martha
Kevin Van Hentenryck - Man with Basket

Genre - Horror/Comedy/B-Movie

Running Time - 86 Minutes (Director’s Cut)

While he does have a cult following, Frank Henenlotter isn’t a name many horror circles talk about a whole lot. He’s not as crisp of a filmmaker as John Carpenter. He didn’t bring the genre back into the mainstream like Wes Craven. And he didn’t shock people in a polarizing way like Eli Roth, James Wan, and Rob Zombie. Whenever Henenlotter is mentioned, it’s usually concerns 1982’s BASKET CASE, an insane low-budget horror film involving a twisted tale of conjoined twins on a quest for revenge. It’s considered a horror classic by many and one of the many inspirations for low-budget horror directors quickly after [along with Sam Raimi’s THE EVIL DEAD]. Others mention 1990’s FRANKENHOOKER due to its clever name and content. 

But rarely does 1988’s BRAIN DAMAGE gain the same kind of attention. Maybe it’s because it feels like the middle child between two big cult films. Maybe it’s because horror fans weren’t too fond of the film at the time, due to how much the MPAA had butchered it before its release. Thankfully, an uncut version was finally released in the late ‘90s. And while BRAIN DAMAGE has gained a good cult following since its release, it’s usually mentioned third after BASKET CASE and FRANKENHOOKER in some circles. I find it strange, since BRAIN DAMAGE is probably the best of Henenlotter’s films and worthy of more attention than it usually gets.

Brian (Rick Hearst) wakes up to find out that some sentient wormlike parasite called Aylmer (voiced by John Zacherie) has decided to burrow itself in his neck and effect his brain functions. Brian quickly realizes that Aylmer needs to survive on a constant diet of human brains and wants to control Brian to find victims. Usually Brian would be against this, but he relishes the feeling of Aylmer injecting a highly addictive blue fluid into his brain that fogs his memory and makes him hallucinate really strange things. Due to these events, Brian has neglected his girlfriend Barbara (Jennifer Lowry) to the point that she runs into the arms of Brian’s brother (Gordon McDonald). As Brian realizes Aylmer is doing more harm than good, he does all he can to make sure both his brother and girlfriend don’t become victims themselves.

It had been many years since I last watched BRAIN DAMAGE, forgetting all about the film until I saw someone mention it on social media due to a gorgeous blu-ray that was released recently. I decided to sit down and check it out, forgetting how great this horror-comedy is, while carrying a strong anti-addiction message that deserves more respect and recognition. Don’t get me wrong - I absolutely love BASKET CASE, as it never fails to entertain me. But let’s be realistic - BRAIN DAMAGE takes the similar concept presented in the previously mentioned film and does it ten times better due to its strong storytelling and unique visual presentation.

BRAIN DAMAGE reels me in due to its story and how well written it is. Henenlotter loves using the theme of symbiotic relationships between a man and some freak of nature that only he understands. And while it’s presented as more of a creepy mystery in BASKET CASE to shock audiences, BRAIN DAMAGE uses the same concept to tell its audience a strong message about addiction. It’s sort of the B-movie equivalent of those drug commercials with that frying egg on the hot pan. Drugs will fry your brain, just like how Aylmer fries Brian’s brain. Even though Brian knows this worm creature isn’t totally on the up and up, the high he receives each time Aylmer attaches himself to Brian is a pretty accurate depiction of an addict. There’s even a scene where Brian tries to do cold turkey away from Aylmer, only for the creature to smugly mock him and force Brian to beg for his help. This is a common story with addicts, who believe they can hear their addictions talking to them as if they’re the only friend they’ll need. Even Brian’s relationships with people in his life and the world around him deteriorate quite fast, due to his willingness to please only Aylmer and the high he feeds Brian. For a silly creature feature, it takes a serious subject [that was extremely topical at the time] and portrays it excellently. BRAIN DAMAGE is never subtle about it, but it never really forces it on you either. 

The characters aren’t deep or anything, but they’re not unlikeable or hard to relate to. We barely know who Brian is before he succumbs to his addiction, since Aylmer possesses him right from the start without any sort of backstory. In a way, it’s as if this creature has raped Brian in his sleep and Brian suffers from some sort of Stockholm Syndrome to maintain the pleasant feeling he receives from Aylmer. It could also be a clue that Brian was weak-willed to start with, and Aylmer took advantage of that vulnerability. Brian does seem to have a decent relationship with Barbara, who adores her boyfriend in an almost obsessive way. It’s like she’s addicted for Brian’s affections towards her! Brian also shares a weird relationship with his brother Mike, who loves Brian so much that he’ll take the first chance to bang Barbara. There’s also this strange fantasy where Brian hallucinates having a threesome with Barbara and Mike, almost insinuating some sort of creepy incest element that doesn’t get fleshed out thankfully. There seems to be something going on with Brian that the film never fully develops, but BRAIN DAMAGE doesn’t really need to. The fact that he takes to Aylmer so quickly and decides to deal with his nonsense for a quick fix proves that Brian is a victim mentally and emotionally.

Speaking of Aylmer, he’s obviously a smart villain that has no problem taking advantage of people weaker than him to get what he wants - which are human brains that he enjoys feasting on. He’s apparently been around for centuries, attaching himself to others to do his dirty work. He’s also quite the charming wormlike fellow, making us see why Brian [or anyone else] finds him alluring. Plus, he has an interesting visual design with his tiny eyes and weird needle-like teeth. Plus, he has a great singing voice. Why wouldn’t anyone allow him to eat their brain?

Frank Henenlotter and the special effects team do a really great job on a small budget, even though I believe BRAIN DAMAGE cost more money to make than what was used to film BASKET CASE. It’s a more ambitious film than BASKET CASE for sure, which shows the growth of confidence Henenlotter achieved between the two films. The hallucination, trip out scenes are done really well with neon colors that pop out and make you experience the high Brian is feeling. The camera moves smoothly, giving us great angles and shots that build tension and reveal a lot about the characters and the setting of New York City in the late 1980s. Henenlotter also relies a lot on the color blue. Aylmer’s hallucinogen is a blue fluid, while a lot of the scenes where Brian is high are shot with blue hues that add a ton of atmosphere. I especially love the first hallucination sequence where Brian is submerged into the blue fluid. My only minor issue is the repetitiveness of Aylmer shooting his fluid to get Brian high, which is done like four or five times. But overall, it’s beautiful filmmaking from a man you wouldn’t expect that from.

As for the special effects and gore, you won’t be disappointed here. You get a lot of stop-motion sequences, along with multiple moments of Aylmer burrowing himself inside people’s skulls to eat brains. Aylmer, himself, looks quite silly but you get over it due to how he’s portrayed and the voice acting. There’s a creepy moment where Brian pulls his brain out of his ear in a blood-soaked scene that would make Sam Raimi proud. And probably the reason for the uncut version of this film - a very memorable scene of fellatio gone bad where Aylmer enters the mouth of a woman as she gives Brian oral stimulation. It’s gross, shocking, and one-hundred percent funny. BRAIN DAMAGE definitely uses its budget well.

The acting isn’t really much to write home about. But it’s definitely an upgrade of the campiness of BASKET CASE, which wouldn’t work for this film at all. Future soap opera actor Rick Hearst does really well as Brian, convincingly playing an addict who happens to be addicted to a puppet. Considering the type of film he was in, Hearst took it entirely seriously and made Brian as fully a fleshed-out character that the script would allow. I’m not surprised he went on to work on multiple television shows. He has the chops. Gordon MacDonald and Jennifer Lowry were okay as Mike and Barbara. They didn’t really get a whole lot to do but played their supporting roles well enough to make the premise work. And I can’t end this review without mentioning former television horror host and singer John Zacherle. He gives Aylmer so much personality just with his voice, bringing the character to life and making you forget you’re watching a silly looking puppet destroy a young man’s life. I think he was the perfect voice for the character and I loved his singing voice during the cold turkey scene. Just great stuff.

Plus, we get a cool cameo from a familiar guy carrying a basket on the subway.


  • This older couple destroyed their apartment looking for an escaped Aylmer. There are easier ways to get on Property Brothers on HGTV.

  • As Brian hallucinated in his bedroom, his ceiling lamp turned into a giant eye in the sky. The Alan Parsons Project approves of this film. 

  • While high, Brian acted silly in a junkyard at night. He better be careful. He might believe that he’s really watching a dog pee fire to resurrect Freddy Krueger. Nothing stupid like that would ever happen. Oh wait…

  • Brian sat in a bathtub for three hours. Maybe he’s having a Daryl Hannah SPLASH phase. Don’t judge!

  • While high, Brian saw his spaghetti and meatballs transform into throbbing brains. That’s the last time I eat at Olive Garden.

  • Brian slowly pulled his brain out of his ear, tearing his ear off in the process. I imagine this would have been a trick Vincent Van Gogh would have pulled if he had become a magician rather than an artist.

  • Brian caught his brother boning his girlfriend, while fantasizing that he was having a threesome with the both of them in incestuous fashion. This is some Jerry Springer shit!

I'm very happy that I decided to revisit BRAIN DAMAGE after not having watched it in many, many years. It’s one of the finest anti-drug films and a clever low-budget film by Frank Henenlotter that proves how good of a horror filmmaker he is. The film has a message that’s presented well, solid acting by the two leads, slick direction, and pretty cool special effects considering its budget. BRAIN DAMAGE is smart, clever, funny, creepy, and satisfying for anyone looking for blood and guts. If you enjoy BASKET CASE and/or FRANKENHOOKER, I have no doubt BRAIN DAMAGE will be up your alley. Definitely recommended, but be careful - you may gain an addiction from the film’s awesomeness.

4 Howls Outta 4


Inferno (1980)

Dario Argento

Irene Miracle - Rose Elliott
Leigh McCloskey - Mark Elliott
Eleonora Giorgi - Sara
Daria Nicolodi - Elise De Longvalle Adler
Sasha Pitoeff - Kazanian
Alida Valli - Carol
Feodor Chaliapin Jr. - Varelli
Veronica Lazar - The Nurse
Gabriele Lavia - Carlo
Ania Pieroni - Music Student

Genre - Horror/Supernatural/Witchcraft

Running Time - 107 Minutes

In New York City, Rose Elliott (Irene Miracle) buys a book called The Three Mothers - a book that details how the author (Feodor Chaliapin Jr.) built houses for three powerful witches known as The Three Mothers. One of these houses was created for Mater Suspiriorum [The Mother of Sighs] in Germany, seen in 1977’s SUSPIRIA. After reading and figuring out the clues, Rose realizes that her apartment is a building built for Mater Tenebrarum [The Mother of Darkness]. Her knowledge, unfortunately, leads to her death by a mysterious person.

Before Rose’s death, however, she wrote and sent a letter to her brother Mark (Leigh Mccloskey), who is studying abroad in Rome. Realizing that his sister is missing and in trouble, Mark arrives in New York to investigate. What he encounters are a series of supernatural events that lead to a bunch of murders within or around the apartment building that may make him a victim of The Three Mothers.

In the 1970s, Italian maestro Dario Argento could do no wrong. Films like THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE, DEEP RED, and especially 1977’s SUSPIRIA brought a lot of attention to Italian horror from all over the world. The success of SUSPIRIA in the US market inspired Argento to quickly capitalize on it with a sequel titled INFERNO, the second part of a proposed trilogy that would showcase each of the Three Mothers. 20th Century Fox, riding high from SUSPIRIA, quickly offered to co-finance the production [along with Italian and German consortia] with a budget of $3 million. Co-writer, actress, and then-Argento flame Daria Nicolodi was inspired by her stay at Central Park for the film’s main setting, while legendary Italian horror director Mario Bava, Lamberto Bava, and William Lustig helped fill in during production to create a good atmosphere and finish shooting scenes when Argento fell ill during production.

INFERNO was released in 1980 in the United States in a very limited theatrical release, which was the total opposite of SUSPIRIA’s release. Apparently, Fox had a change of management at the time, leaving INFERNO’s fate in limbo. The film, outside of Italy, was pretty much unseen until 1985, where it finally went straight to video. The reception at the time wasn’t all that positive, leading to Argento waiting to finish the trilogy in 2007 with THE MOTHER OF TEARS. While the reception of INFERNO has grown more positive over the years, it’s easy to see why this sequel isn’t as beloved as SUSPIRIA. It’s also not as strong as Argento’s earlier films, or later works, such as 1982’s TENEBRE, 1985’s PHENOMENA [aka CREEPERS] and 1986’s OPERA.

That’s not to say that INFERNO doesn’t have great things going for it. The direction, mostly by Dario Argento, is fairly solid and what you would expect from the Italian maestro. If you loved the style of SUSPIRIA, INFERNO will be right up your alley. Like the previous film, the lighting and colors pop extremely well, with many scenes shot in vibrant reds, blues, and greens. In fact, several scenes seem to have been taken right from SUSPIRIA, just with different actors involved. One example is Eleonora Giorgi sitting in a cab as the rain downpours around her, shot in red and blue lighting. It’s totally reminiscent of Jessica Harper’s Suzy at the beginning of SUSPIRIA. It’s a nice throwback that fans will pick up. Same with the film’s final act, which is a shorter play at SUSPIRIA’s ending, but still very effective and fun to watch. Like with many of Argento’s works, the direction comes across as surreal, elegant, and awkwardly titillating when you least expect it. That being said, one of the film’s best scenes wasn’t even directed by Argento. The gorgeous opening sequence involving Irene Miracle diving into a water hole in a cellar, leading to a corpse floating right by to frighten her, was shot by Mario Bava after Argento had fallen ill with hepatitis. It’s well crafted, as the scene slowly builds to that reveal for our first scare. Regardless of who directed what, INFERNO is visually stylish as one would expect.

Adding to the awesome visual presentation are the perverse death sequences that only Argento could picture in his head. The guillotine death, with the use of a window being slammed over a victim’s throat, is pretty brutal. Another person gets stabbed viciously before being mauled to death by a group of cats. And probably my favorite kill - a crippled man falling into water by a sewer [in order to drown cats in a bag], only to get attacked by hungry rats before getting stabbed in the neck multiple times. It may be overkill, but it’s pure Argento and I love it. We also get bizarre imagery, like women hanging, paper dolls getting decapitated, and beautiful women creating a wind and sound distraction in a lecture room. None of these things seem to connect to anything, but the imagery is bizarre and somewhat creepy. Honestly, the direction and visual presentation for INFERNO are the best things about the film.

Another highlight is the musical score. Unlike many of Argento’s other films, INFERNO is not scored by Claudio Simonetti of Goblin fame. Instead, the musical duties were given to Keith Emerson of prog rock group Emerson, Lake, and Palmer. While not as memorable as Simonetti’s themes, Emerson provides a nice rock and synthesizer score that reflects the turn of the decade from the 1970s to the 1980s. I do think that the music wasn’t used in the proper moments in some cases, creating a jarring effect that hurt these scenes more than help them. Watching a woman sit in a taxi shouldn’t have an upbeat, high-energy rockin’ tune going with it, especially when it hasn’t earned that and only makes the moment silly rather than poignant. And some of the suites are a bit hokey at times. But for the most part, the score works and I liked it. It’s one of the few things that set it apart from SUSPIRIA, so I’m okay with it.

The acting is pretty okay as well. I thought Daria Nicolodi did a good job as Elise, a tenant inside the cursed building that Mater Tenebrarum controls. She’s obviously comfortable working for Argento due to their personal relationship. Plus, she co-wrote the film and knows where her character is coming from. She doesn’t get a whole lot to do, but she’s always a welcome presence. Sasha Pitoeff is also fun to watch as Kazanian, the bookstore owner. His hatred of cats and how it ended up leading to his fate was handled well, and Pitoeff is great through it all. I also thought Feodor Chaliapin Jr. was great in his short role as Varelli, the author of The Three Mothers. I did feel that Leigh McCloskey wasn’t the most captivating male lead in the world and he doesn’t even get to do a whole lot until the film’s final act. His performance was kind of bland in my opinion, but it’s not a performance that ruins a film. I think the acting is much stronger in other popular Argento films, but it’s still pretty good for the most part.

My real issue with INFERNO is the film’s story. Argento’s films have always been more style than substance, even with his classic gialli and supernatural films having flawed storytelling that you can forgive because it’s a fun ride getting to the film’s conclusion. Unfortunately, INFERNO can be a bit of a chore to sit through at times because the way the plot is presented is really disjoined. The film takes place at multiple locations, going back and forth between them as the narrative plays out until the film’s final reveal. There’s nothing wrong with this - that is if we had characters we could care about. Besides Mark, Rose and Sara, the other characters appear in and out without much character development. Some of them just seem to be in the film in order to die a vicious death. That’s great for a slasher film, but not for a supernatural movie that’s the sequel to a classic. In fact, we’re not even really sure why Mater Tenebrarum would even want to deal with these unlikeable people. What’s her purpose? It’s not like killing these people adds to anything she may be planning. When she finally appears, it doesn’t make much of an impression because the storytelling is all over the place. The mystery and the journey solving it should have been stronger. Maybe it’s because Argento fell ill during the production, or because he felt pressure in topping SUSPIRIA. But INFERNO could, and should, have been better than it is if there was more going on in the narrative. There’s definitely an interesting idea underneath INFERNO and it presents itself during the film’s best moments. It’s just a shame it’s not expressed better. I think even if it had a wider release back in 1980, fans probably would have left wanting more.

While not as strong of a film as SUSPIRIA, INFERNO still manages to be a good watch for anyone who is into Italian horror. It’s also a decent continuation of The Three Mothers trilogy started in SUSPIRIA. The film has a lot going for it - great kills, that beautiful Argento visual style, and cool music by Keith Emerson that probably could have been used better at certain points in the film. Unfortunately, the story is all over the place. The characters are weak and things seem to happen in order to fill a gap needed to move the story along. That being said, INFERNO has a ton of atmosphere and a vibe that is sometimes missing in horror films. INFERNO is a classic Argento film that works more than it doesn’t, making it worth a look if you’re a fan of the man’s work.

3 Howls Outta 4


Midnight Confessions 2018 Reunion Special: Halloween (2018)

A Midnight Confessions reunion! Reverend Phantom, Moronic Mark and myself recently got together and talked about the new HALLOWEEN movie and more! Check it out!


Venom (2018)

Ruben Fleischer

Tom Hardy - Eddie Brock/Venom
Michelle Williams - Anne Weying
Riz Ahmed - Carlton Drake/Riot
Jenny Slate - Dr. Dora Skirth
Reid Scott - Dr. Dan Lewis

Genre - Action/Horror/Sci-Fi/Comic Books

Running Time - 112 Minutes

When Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) acquires the powers of a symbiote, he will have to release his alter-ego “Venom” to save his life.

Even after the terrible usage in SPIDER-MAN 3 and the licensing of Spider-Man from their studio to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Sony decided to continue with their “Spidey-Verse” with the release of VENOM - a solo venture featuring one of Spider-Man’s more famous foes and resident anti-hero of the Marvel Universe in general. While the lack of Spider-Man involved in Venom’s origin left me feeling less than motivated to watch, the casting of Tom Hardy as Eddie Brock did leave me intrigued as I’m a fan of his work. But you know me - I’m going to watch any comic book related movie in a theater, so VENOM was always going to be on my radar. I wasn’t expecting much out of the film and the bad reviews didn’t help to persuade me that I was going to waste my money watching this. And while VENOM is definitely mediocre and forced at times at what it’s trying to accomplish, I couldn’t help but enjoy myself throughout. It definitely has serious issues, but I thought VENOM was more fun than it had any right to be.

The main reason VENOM may be worth a recommendation for superhero genre fans is for Tom Hardy as Eddie Brock. Hardy seems to be really enjoying himself in the role, acting like a schizophrenic with an alien voice in his head while doing some cool stunt work. He also plays Eddie like a human being, flawed and all, wanting the big scoops as an investigative reporter that end up costing him not only his job, but the love of his life in the process. The human moments for the character seem to be where Hardy thrives the best, creating a three-dimensional character that we can identify with and support throughout the film. And when he actually becomes Venom, his behavior becomes more erratic and he has hilarious dialogue with his alien counterpart. Hardy could have phoned it in for a paycheck, but you can tell he’s one-hundred percent invested in giving us a great performance and to lead a franchise. He definitely made me forget about Topher Grace’s unfortunate performance from eleven years ago.

And while the screenplay isn’t anything to write home about and the direction as generic as they come when it comes to this genre, at least both aspects are memorable enough to be entertaining. Whether it’s in a good or a bad way, that’s up to the viewer. But I friggin’ had a blast at the cheesy dialogue, the silly action sequences, the better-than-expected special effects [Venom and the symbiotes looked cool], and the hammy acting by everyone involved. It felt like a B-movie from a different era and I was more than okay with that. Sometimes I don’t want to think while watching a film, and VENOM allows that in spades.

VENOM is nowhere close to perfect though. The story itself is totally contrived and cliche, the dialogue is ridiculous a lot of the time, and the villain is stereotypical as hell [the idea to recreate the world in his own image like a God] even though he starts off more interesting than he how he ends off. Things just randomly happen without explanation, leaving one feel that there was more to this film but was edited off for some reason. As I later learned, over 40 minutes of footage was cut - I guess to save later for a blu-ray release. You can really tell, since VENOM does feel disjointed every now and then, making for a strange pace that still kind of works for some reason. And the final act is pretty weak to be honest, even if the action element was pretty okay.

I also thought some of the actors, especially Michelle Williams, seemed to be forcing her performance. I didn’t really buy her all that much and seemed to try too hard. She didn’t feel like a real character to me, but rather an archetype of the love interest that had to be inserted to give Eddie Brock some motivation. She’s definitely a better actress than what she portrays in VENOM, as she seems to having trouble trying to keep up with the comedy and with Tom Hardy. Maybe it was the material she was given. Maybe she just did the film for a paycheck. Either way, she stood out a bit because I don’t think she took the role seriously enough for most of the movie. Some of the other actors had a similar issue to varying degrees, but Williams was the most high profile.

Even with its issues, VENOM turned out better than it had any right to be. Yes, it’s not a good movie. Yes, the story is cliche, predictable, and really dumb. The obvious edits create some pacing issues and most of the actors seem to be forcing it and trying too hard. And it’s weird not having Spider-Man be part of the character’s origin, as he should be honestly. However, VENOM still manages to be an entertaining film that never bores you, regardless of its problems. And Tom Hardy is excellent as Eddie Brock, finally giving the character the portrayal we all wanted since 2007. It looks and feels like a B-movie and I had fun with it. And with the $200 million-plus worldwide gross the film has already received, we’re definitely getting more of this universe - with a long anticipated villain that will hopefully be done justice to. Not the superhero film of the year, but still worth a watch if you want something silly and dumb for two hours.

2.5 Howls Outta 4

Related Posts with Thumbnails