The Dead Don't Die (2019)

DIRECTED BY

Jim Jarmusch

STARRING

Bill Murray - Chief Cliff Robertson

Adam Driver - Officer Ronnie Peterson

Tilda Swinton - Zelda Winston

Chloe Sevigny - Officer Mindy Morrison

Steve Buscemi - Farmer Frank Miller

Danny Glover - Hank Thompson

Caleb Landry Jones - Bobby Wiggins

Rosie Perez - Posie Juarez

Iggy Pop - Male Coffee Zombie

Larry Fessenden - Danny Perkins

Tom Waits - Hermit Bob

Selena Gomez - Zoe

RZA - Dean

Carol Kane - Mallory O'Brien

Sara Driver - Female Coffee Zombie

Genre: Horror/Comedy/Zombies

Running Time: 104 Minutes

PLOT

In a small peaceful town, zombies suddenly rise to terrorize the town. Now three bespectacled police officers and a strange Scottish morgue expert must band together to defeat the undead.

REVIEW

2019’s THE DEAD DON’T DIE was a film I had been eager to watch for the past two years since I watched the trailer in theaters. The vibe of the trailer reminded me of a quirkier version of ZOMBIELAND, just with a mega all-star cast that only made me anticipate the project more. However when the reviews started coming out, it was a really mixed bag leading towards more negative than power. After that, I sort of put the film in my mental queue to watch it whenever I had the chance. With the film leaving HBO Max, I decided to finally check it out and see if it was worth the wait. While the film has its moments and is well made, I unfortunately couldn’t help but feel disappointed by this zombie-comedy overall.

As a fan of Jim Jarmusch’s 2013 vampire flick ONLY LOVERS LEFT ALIVE, I was kind of expecting that kind of storytelling but with zombies. Instead, I got a film loaded with social and political commentary told through meta-jokes that felt like random skits tied together by a zombie subplot. Having commentary in a zombie movie is nothing new. And zombie comedies have been around for a long time with varied success. But the way THE DEAD DON’T DIE presented it was head scratching because the social commentary didn’t land as hard as it should have. Plus, the film was at times amusing but never really laugh-out funny. And sometimes the jokes would land but then keep going with lesser impact for whatever reason. 

For example, there’s this scene where the first zombie victims are found by the local police. The sheriff enters first to see the corpse and has a bad reaction to what he sees. Then his deputy shows up, looks at the body and makes a dry comment about how disgusting it is. Then their female partner enters last and pretty much gags at the sight. Why not just have them all see the body at the same time and react to it the same way at the same time? The impact loses its power after each time. A lot of the jokes tend to do that in this film, as if to fill time rather than tell a story.

Another example is Sturgill Simpson’s “The Dead Don’t Die” theme song. I’m not sure how many times the film plays the song, but it’s so many times that I ended up disliking the song by the time the film was over. It works the first time it’s played because the song is extremely meta. But then characters continue to play it as if it’s the only song in existence and loses all of its power. Not sure what Jarmusch was thinking here.

We also have zombies who rise from their graves and utter random words, like “wifi”, “free cable”, “coffee” and “Xanax”. This is an obvious social commentary on how we, as a society, are totally reliant on technology or any time of pill or drink that will keep us functioning. The first time the zombies say these things, it’s cute. But it continues and it’s like - I get it. You can stop now and just tell a narrative that will make me want to keep watching. This commentary on our materialism isn’t new anyway. George A. Romero did it better in 1978’s DAWN OF THE DEAD because it was subtle. The zombies, in that film, roamed back towards the local mall because they wanted to be in a familiar place from their living years. The characters have like a five minute conversation about it and move on. Romero didn’t try to hammer it into our skulls because he let the story explore it in an organic way. THE DEAD DON’T DIE doesn’t have any of that.

Same goes with political commentary, which is a wasted opportunity in so many ways. One of the characters wears a red cap that reads “Keep America White Again” - obviously a jab towards the past few years of Trumpism. But nothing is really done with this aspect because the character is never given an opportunity to. He’s best friends with a black person, which I guess is supposed to be ironic and hypocritical. And then later on, a black zombie invades his home and this character blows his head off with a shotgun, commenting on how weird that was. It’s like, what’s the point of this red cap deal if you’re not going to go all the way with it. Yes, it’s an uncomfortable topic and it will definitely piss off half the audience. But it’s barely a gag and not even a real character trait. It left me wondering what was the point of it all. 

That being said, I thought some of the meta jokes were pretty funny. Adam Driver’s character having a STAR WARS keychain is cute, due to how that franchise made his career. Adam Driver constantly telling everyone that “It’s not going to end well,” is funny because he later reveals he read the script while clueless Bill Murray, not knowing how the film would end, gets upset that Jim Jarmusch wouldn’t let him know despite their long working history together. Plus, having Tilda Swinton play a weird character is meta in itself since that seems to be something some audiences and critics criticize her for. So when the jokes work, they really work. Unfortunately, the film seems too up its ass to hit a home run each time.

Jim Jarmusch is a good director for the most part and he visualizes THE DEAD DON’T DIE in a pleasing way. The film is paced well and the edits and transitions between characters dealing with their own zombie crisis is done nicely. The zombies are shot really well, looking pretty cool and similar to The Walking Dead. The death scenes and special effects are also well done. We get the usual flesh eating, a shotgun point blank to the head that creates a cool explosion and a bunch of decapitations via blades or swords. The cool smoky-ash effect after the zombies are taken care of is a nice detail that I haven’t seen done in a zombie movie before. I wish the script was stronger because visually, the film is pretty damn good.

The actors also keep this film afloat. Unfortunately, there’s so many of them that most don’t get a whole lot to do in the movie. It’s nice to see Selena Gomez in a movie, sure. But she doesn’t have anything to do besides be the subject of a slightly racist joke and part of the film’s body count. I can say that about a lot of the cast. As for the standouts, Bill Murray does his normal schtick and it works as the film’s sheriff, while Driver gets to have more fun as the dry deputy who has strange reactions to everything around him. Chloe Savigny is a mixed bag for me, as she seemed to be a hybrid of both the Murray and Driver characters but without the charm or delivery. I thought Tilda Swinton was an oddly charming delight as a Scottish mortician who can handle a samurai sword like no one’s business. And Steve Bucsemi, Danny Glover and Caleb Landry Jones get their moments to shine when they do appear. And it was definitely cool to spot cameos like Iggy Pop and Carol Kane as zombies. It’s definitely an awesome cast of actors and singers, but most of them are glorified cameos more than anything else. 

THE FINAL HOWL

I was pretty disappointed with THE DEAD DON’T DIE - which I entirely blame on the marketing due to it portraying the film as a ZOMBIELAND type of comedy when it’s anything but. It also doesn’t help that the screenplay feels like a bunch of loosely connected skits that are trying too hard to be funny, only hitting the mark only some of the time. Some of the meta jokes work, especially in the last half of the film. And some of the dialogue and events in the film are genuinely chuckle worthy. But sometimes the jokes run way too long, making them lose all impact. And the social and political commentary is expected, but it was expressed a lot better in George A. Romero films and other popular zombie films that understood how to balance the message within the actual narrative. THE DEAD DON’T DIE has something to say, but does it in the laziest manner possible, which is disappointing.

Besides that, I felt the direction by Jim Jarmusch was mostly well done as the film flowed pretty well and looked pretty polished. The zombie make up looked alright and the gore effects were nicely done and added a much needed punch towards the end of the film. And the acting is great, especially by Bill Murray, Adam Driver and Tilda Swinton. But with so many celebrities in one film, it’s hard for everyone to get a chance to shine. Felt like a marketing ploy to have all these stars in one movie, which worked since that was one of the reasons I wanted to see this. But I’d just stick with RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD or even SHAUN OF THE DEAD for your zombie-comedy needs, unless you’re a Jim Jarmusch fan and want to see his take on a zombie flick. Unfortunately, he made a product that felt as lifeless as the zombies themselves for the most part.

SCORE

2 Howls Outta 4

[Mother's Day Double Feature] Ma (2019) & Mother's Boys (1994)

Directed by: Tate Taylor

Starring: Octavia Spencer, Diana Silvers, Juliette Lewis, McKaley Miller, Allison Janney, Luke Evans, Corey Fogelmanis, Tanyell Waivers, Heather Marie Pate, Missi Pyle

Genre: Thriller/Horror

Running Time: 99 Minutes

Plot: Sue Ann (Octavia Spencer) is a loner who keeps to herself in her quiet Ohio town. One day, she is asked by Maggie (Diana Silvers), a new teenager in town, to buy some booze for her and her friends, and Sue Ann sees the chance to make some unsuspecting, if younger, friends of her own.

Review: 

2019’s MA is a film I’ve been wanting to watch since I had seen the trailers two years ago, especially since I found it very interesting to see Academy Award winner Octavia Spencer act in what appeared to be a B-movie horror-thriller. It wasn’t a film I felt deserved my theater attention, since other films at the time felt like major events. But I knew I would definitely put it on my watchlist and wait for its eventual ship to streaming to enjoy in my own home.

I’m glad I caught MA before it expired on HBO Max at the end of April because I wanted to write something for Mother’s Day. And I made the right call in skipping it in theaters since the film has flaws that can’t be overlooked. But it’s perfectly acceptable as a film to watch at home due to its charm and wacky fun provided by a very game Spencer in the title role.

MA is a pretty predictable revenge-thriller that actually takes it time to provide details to why main antagonist Sue Ann behaves the way she does, making our villain more sympathetic than she probably should be in this story. Sue Ann was bullied in high school by her high school crush and his friends, damaging her psychologically. This has caused her issues of abandonment and has given her a desperation to be loved and accepted. When she meets neighborhood teens who want to drink and party and accept her invitation to hang in her basement, she becomes a teenager again and tries to relive the good times she never had. Unfortunately, she starts becoming that clingy friend people want space from, making her upset and gives her reason to lash out at anyone against her. The funny, or coincidental, part is that these teens are the children of her bullies, giving her extra incentive to keep them close. While Sue Ann’s methods are cruel and mostly unfair to the main group of teens, the film gives the audience a reason to feel bad for the villain. While it’s always good to have fleshed out characters, whether they’re good people or bad ones, it hurts a film when the villain has more depth than the actual protagonists we’re meant to care for. And that’s where MA really falters in terms of its storytelling.

Let’s be honest - besides the main protagonist, Maggie, the rest of these teens are either idiots or annoying to the point where you’re not surprised by the plans Sue Ann has for any of them. I guess one could make the excuse that they’re just acting their age and being rebellious teenagers who will take any opportunity to drink, do drugs and party away from parental supervision. But only Maggie feels it’s odd that this random woman who bought them booze wants them to constantly have them hang inside of her basement [while forbidding they ever go upstairs - no red flags at all]. It’s only when Sue Ann gets their phone numbers and their social media info that the warning signs flash, which shows how oblivious these teens are. 

It doesn’t help, either, that Maggie’s friends are nothing but predictable archetypes. Andy is the lovestruck gullible boyfriend type. Haley is the kinda-mean girl who wants to be wild and popular. Chaz is the jock. And Darrell is… just there. Even the parents, besides Maggie’s mom Erica, don’t seem that concerned with their kids until they realize Sue Ann is involved [due to them bullying her when they were all younger]. And besides Erica, they all act like jerks. Maggie and Erica aren’t all that developed either, but at least they seem a bit more proactive and smarter than the rest. So they’re somewhat likable as they, especially Maggie, try to get out of this dangerous situation. But really, how is anyone supposed to root against the villain?

Scotty Landes and director/writer Tate Taylor also have trouble balancing the film’s tone. The first hour seems like a drama-thriller that seems to send a message of how bullying can harm one’s psyche and create a repeat of events for a newer generation as a sort of revenge. Sue Ann’s behavior stems from PTSD from her high school years, making it clear that her befriending these cool teens is her way of redoing the past to get over her trauma. The teens treat Sue Ann well for the most part until Sue Ann starts becoming obsessive and needy, turning them off. This leads to the last half hour of the film, which suddenly turns into a “torture porn” flick, with Sue Ann sewing lips shut, burning teens with an iron, and even torturing some by chaining them and abusing them. I’m not saying these elements aren’t watchable or entertaining on some level to an audience. After all, they’re still making SAW movies after all these years since they do well. But the transition isn’t there and it can be jarring since the first two acts seem like Lifetime while the final act seems like Eli Roth had a role in producing. They work separately, which is why the film still manages to be entertaining. But together, it’s kind of a mess.

The direction by Taylor is fine, as nothing about it really stands out in any way. The film is kind of creepy at times, but it’s never scary. But some of the jump scares do work better than they ought to. And some of the cinematography allows certain scenes to have this uneasy feeling about them, building to a predictable conclusion for Sue Ann and her victims. And Taylor does  embrace the campiness that Octavia Spencer infuses into her role as Sue Ann. He’s lucky she was the lead because I think MA would have failed otherwise.

Speaking of Spencer, she’s the best part about MA. No matter the quality of the film, my rating always goes up when I see actors having fun playing their respective roles. Spencer is having the time of her life here, just hamming it up and portraying Sue Ann in many different emotional layers. At times, we feel sorry for her. At other times, we want her to get her comeuppance. But Spencer gives it her all and really makes the role fun to watch. Sometimes an Academy Award winner would think they’re above this kind of material, but Spencer kills it in this role.

The other actors are okay. But of the teen actors, Diana Silvers shines as Maggie. She’s given the most to do and handles it well, making her the easiest protagonist to relate to as an audience member. I bought her confusion, reluctance and eventual heroism. Juliette Lewis and Luke Evans do enough to be passable as the parents and get some good scenes in, especially Evans in the film’s final [naked] act. It’s not a bad cast, but they’re super overshadowed by Octavia Spencer.

And I have to praise the film’s soundtrack, which is full of 80s tunes that I really enjoyed. A great soundtrack will make me a happy viewer, and MA definitely did that in the music department. Loved it.

The Final Howl:

MA is a revenge-thriller that seems a bit muddled in its storytelling, yet still manages to be a fun time due to a game performance by Octavia Spencer as Sue Ann. The transition of a character study for a woman emotionally and mentally damaged by past bullying into a “torture porn” final act is a bit jarring, especially when the character stuff is more appealing than the violent aspects at the end. It also doesn’t help the film when we’re totally rooting for Sue Ann [a.k.a. “Ma”] since she has more depth over the so-called teen protagonists who are nothing but archetypes and do dumb teenage things that will make many wish Sue Ann would have taken them out sooner. However, the flawed narrative still manages to be kind of fun due to Tate Taylor directing some decent jump scares, creepy tension at times and embracing the campiness Spencer brings to her role. Honestly without the Oscar winner, MA would probably be your typical Saturday night Lifetime movie. But she and some of the cast [Diana Silvers, Juliette Lewis and Luke Evans] do help elevate the material to make it worth a look. Definitely a popcorn and beer kind of flick, but don’t make Sue Ann drink alone. It wouldn’t be good for anybody.

SCORE:

2.5 Howls Outta 4

Directed by: Yves Simoneau

Starring: Jamie Lee Curtis, Peter Gallagher, Joanne Whalley, Vanessa Redgrave, Luke Edwards

Genre: Drama/Thriller

Running Time: 96 Minutes

Plot: Sexy but unstable wife and mother Jude (Jamie Lee Curtis) walked out on her family three years ago. Now, just as suddenly, she is back. But her husband, Robert (Peter Gallagher), has fallen in love with Callie (Joanne Whalley), an assistant principal at his sons’ school. He asks Jude for a divorce. She responds by trying to turn her three boys against Callie, then by slashing herself and blaming her rival and finally by drawing her 12-year-old, Kes (Luke Edwards), into a murderous plot.

Review:

1994’s MOTHER’S BOYS is a lesser talked about thriller that probably would have ended up on Lifetime or maybe a network “Movie of the Week” deal if not for lead star Jamie Lee Curtis. I hadn’t watched this film since my VHS days in the mid-90s, not remembering much about the movie at all really. So checking it out again after decades was an interesting experience, especially since I’ve seen so many films since that have used a similar template to tell the same kind of story. And to be honest with you, if it wasn’t for Jamie Lee Curtis really going all out in her performance here, MOTHER’S BOYS probably doesn’t even deserve to be on your radar.

Based on a novel by Bernard Taylor, the premise is basically 1977’s Academy Award winning film KRAMER VS. KRAMER, but done as a thriller instead. The mother abandons her family for three years due to mental instability, only to return realizing that her family has moved on without her - in particular her husband who is planning to remarry his kids’ school Assistant Principal. He wants a divorce. She wants to divorce the fiancee out of the picture by mentally and emotionally poisoning her oldest son and making sure to eliminate the potential stepmom by any means necessary. There’s name calling. The villain injures herself to blame her opposition and make them look bad. We have multiple attempts at murder. We have sex and seduction. We even have creepy moments where the film implies an incestuous vibe between mother and son. Like I mentioned before, all tropes of a popular weekend Lifetime Movie that would get decent ratings. 

The only reason this film even got a theatrical release is because of the strong cast because otherwise, there’s nothing here that audiences haven’t seen before. The thrills aren’t so thrilling because the story never really allows it for things to get that far. It’s not really a sexy film, despite Jamie Lee Curtis looking amazing here, because it’s presented as something disturbing rather than arousing. And considering how psychotic Jude is supposed to be, and even shows visible signs of it in the last half of the film, her portrayal never gets to the point where an audience would feel genuine terror for the character nor fear for any of the characters opposing her. 

The film predictably follows a template that’s been done to death by even 1994 standards, never allowing the story to breathe and present genuine surprises and scares [besides a few annoying jump scares where the volume is so loud, you’ll have no choice but to jump] that would make MOTHER’S BOYS stand out. Hell, this isn’t even the best Jamie Lee Curtis performance of 1994, as TRUE LIES was released a few weeks after this film and ends up being a more thrilling experience than this thriller. It’s a shame the screenplay isn’t better because the film has opportunities to take chances that would have elevated the film. But it plays things too safe, as you’ll clearly be able to map out every story beat along the way without much problem.

The direction by Yves Simoneau does what it needs to do and nothing more. The film looks like a 90s thriller, in the vein of THE GOOD SON and THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE. Simoneau uses lights and shadows very well and presents things in a matter-of-fact way that you won’t be missing anything visually that you need to see. The use of jump scares gets pretty annoying by the third one, but at least it’s an attempt to jolt the audience. But like I mentioned, Simoneau doesn’t really try a whole lot to scare or even give the film that tension and suspense it needs to really be captivating. The film is fine visually, but it never pops with any kind of style to make it memorable.

What keeps MOTHER’S BOYS afloat is the cast who is game to make this thriller worth something. Without a shadow of a doubt, this film belongs to Jamie Lee Curtis - who rarely gets to play a villain in a film and seems to be having a lot of fun getting the chance to. She’s super sexy and seductive, while at the same time dangerous and not in her right mind. Curtis starts out subtle but troubled and slowly gets more crazy as the film goes on, as if she’s a timebomb ready to blow. A lesser actress would have made a joke out of this role, but Curtis takes it seriously and becomes the sole reason to watch. Peter Gallagher plays the clueless husband, which is usually his forte, and does it well as usual. Joanne Whalley plays the bland fiancee that gets outclassed by Curtis in every scene they’re in together. With what little she’s given, she handles it well. THE WIZARD’s Luke Edwards plays the confused and angry teenage son well, pulling off a nice uneasy creepiness that felt natural rather than forced. And Vanessa Redgrave plays the grandma with a cane, so you know what’s going to happen to her in this film. Good cast, but only Curtis gets the meat to chew on while the other actors have to fight for leftovers and make them work somehow.

The Final Howl:

MOTHER’S BOYS is a pretty average thriller that would be ready made for Lifetime if it weren’t for the casting of Jamie Lee Curtis in the lead role. And quite honestly, Curtis is pretty much the main reason to even check out this film as the story doesn’t take any risks or even try to add in a surprise or two to make the movie remotely memorable outside of Curtis’ performance as a sociopathic wife and mother doing whatever it takes to get back the family she abandoned. It’s more disappointing when there’s some actual intrigue that arrives with the dialogue and interactions between Curtis and son Luke Edwards that’s layered with an Oedipus kind-of-twist that unfortunately never meets its full emotional potential. Instead, the film ends with a typical action sequence [kind of like THE GOOD SON] that shows how not suspenseful the conclusion is. But fans of 90s drama-thrillers will get something out of this, I guess, and Curtis brings the crazy in entertaining spurts that make me wish she were in a better movie. Jamie Lee Curtis fans should check out MOTHER’S BOYS strictly for her scene-chewing performance as a woman on the edge of sanity. Otherwise, not a whole lot else to see here.

SCORE:

2 Howls Outta 4

Black Christmas (2019)

DIRECTED BY

Sophia Takal

STARRING

Imogen Poots - Riley Stone

Aleyse Shannon - Kris Waterson

Lily Donoghue - Marty Coolidge

Brittany O’Grady - Jesse Donovan

Caleb Eberhardt - Landon

Cary Elwes - Professor Gelson

Madeleine Adams - Helena Rittenhouse

Genre - Mystery/Horror/Thriller/Slasher

Running Time - 92 Minutes

PLOT

Hawthorne College is winding down for the holidays, yet one by one, sorority girls are being picked off. Riley Stone (Imogen Poots), a girl dealing with her own trauma, begins to notice and tries to save her friends before they too are picked off.

REVIEW

2019’s remake [if only by title] of the 1974 Bob Clark slasher classic BLACK CHRISTMAS is a film I had been avoiding since the announcement of its existence was made last year by Blumhouse. While another remake after the not-so-great 2006 version didn’t make me excited, most of my disinterest came from the trailer that pretty much revealed the entire film from beginning to end. Why would I want to pay fifteen dollars for a movie ticket for something I pretty much watched in two minutes for free? The negative reviews once it was released didn’t help interest either, as many disapproved of the film’s use of its feminist themes while criticizing the lack of horror throughout the movie. 

Yet, I knew I was eventually going to watch this remake because I’m the kind of person who likes to see how much the premise of a 1970s movie is changed to remain relevant for a 2019 audience. I got a free digital code for BLACK CHRISTMAS earlier this year, but waited until the holiday season since it felt fitting. And while I don’t think this version of BLACK CHRISTMAS is the worst thing ever [like so many had claimed it was], it’s definitely a film I probably don’t plan on watching again due to its extremely flawed presentation in terms of narrative and even visually as a so-called horror movie.

Let me just get the good stuff out of the way since it’ll take the least time to put it all into words. I think the best thing about 2019’s BLACK CHRISTMAS is its cast. A lot of the actors don’t get a whole lot to do besides play archetypes and recite language to spread a message that I’ll get more into later. But the actors do give it their all and I appreciated that. Best actor is, without a doubt, Imogen Poots as Riley - a sorority sister who, after three years, is still struggling with being sexually assaulted by a frat brother who a lot of the college looks up to. Poots plays with the seriousness of this vicious act believably. She struggles with enjoying the activities her friends get up to because she’s still fractured. Poots convincingly shows fear and insecurity whenever she sees her attacker, struggling to find that inner strength to gain back her power and move on while making everyone know what a scumbag this one dude is. And she’s the only one really aware that there are strange things going on at her college, using all the knowledge she’s attained to make things happen and stop things from escalating to a point of no return. I really enjoyed Poots’ performance and while she had some choice dialogue I wasn’t a fan of, especially in the last act, she carried the film with her easy presence. She made you like her character enough to make you want Riley to get that justice. Aleyse Shannon had a sassy performance that I enjoyed whenever she appeared as Riley’s best friend, Kris. I’ll get more into her character in a bit, but I thought she acted it out in a believable way. And if there’s another actor that I liked, it was Cary Elwes as misogynist professor Gelson. He’s not in the film a whole lot, but his proper English accent reciting a bunch of sexist stuff was kind of a hoot. Elwes seemed to be having a blast playing a creep perpetuating what was going on at the school. It’s a nice cast that elevates this remake.

I also thought some of the visual shots by Sophia Takal were quite nice. The film looks polished. Some scenes do have a bit of much-needed tension. And there was one extreme long shot with a character returning to the dorm and looking for her cat [nice homage to the original film] where there’s action going on but the camera never moves. I thought that was a nice touch to build some suspense, knowing you’re watching something off. It also concludes with a scene that’s pretty much taken from a classic moment from 1990’s EXORCIST III, which I thought was cute.

As for the film’s message on feminism, female empowerment, the #metoo movement and so on - I respect the hell out of BLACK CHRISTMAS for focusing on these topical themes in a horror film like this. I’ve seen some reviews knocking the film for even presenting these issues, wishing that the filmmakers would keep social issues and politics out of their horror movies and just focus on scares and blood. Real horror fans wouldn’t even be saying these things because the genre has always been a hub for social and political topics. The film definitely wears its message on its sleeve. And while I may have issues with how it’s executed for the most part, at least this remake is about something. And I can definitely respect the filmmakers for wanting to make some sort of social statement about our current society and how it treats men different than women, especially in terms of power and status. I wouldn’t mind more films doing more of this, as long as they’re told the right way.

And that’s where BLACK CHRISTMAS fails - it’s so heavy handed with its message that it quickly loses its way towards the finale. It tries too hard to hammer its social themes to the point where it starts getting a bit preachy and annoying. The idea of feminism isn’t bad at all. The original 1974 film was pretty feminist in its own way when it came to its female characters. They were strong, opinionated, proactive and stood up for themselves when they weren’t being surprised by a crazed shadowy killer. When it came to the topic of abortion [even a more controversial issue in the 1970s], Jess was all about “my body, my choice” even when her strange boyfriend Peter was against it even when he was nowhere ready for a responsibility like that. Barb was a character who was open with her sexuality, alcoholism and even stood up to a crank caller tossing nasty slurs at her. And when a sorority sister goes missing, the women are the ones who force the male police officers to do something about it, even when they wrongfully suspect it’s just a situation where a desperate girl runs away with her boyfriend. These were independent women who had to defend for themselves, which is empowering. But unlike this new version, the women weren’t men haters and brought it up any chance they got.

And that’s really a major narrative flaw with 2019’s BLACK CHRISTMAS. I’m all for strong, female characters who don’t need a man to run their lives and defend them. I actually love female characters who can take care of the situation themselves. But the way these female characters are written, I’m surprised anyone would want to root for them. I get that the men in this film are creeps and they, more than likely, probably did some sort of damage to them. But it’s as if the screenwriters are using the social topics of today to generalize the entire male gender as this evil half of society who want nothing more than to keep women in their supposed place and enjoy physically and mentally abusing them as a way to maintain power. Riley, as a rape victim, is more sympathetic in the way she’s afraid of this fraternity and how nonchalant they are about how they treat the opposite gender. She has more of a right to be negative towards these guys. But Kris hates men because she’s written as the token “angry black woman” who wants a professor fired because he’s teaching what’s been always been taught and not something more diverse that caters to her own personal wants. Why doesn’t she just take a different class that caters more to diversity? Or actually work with the school to make change happen rather than trying to fire someone for doing the job he’s assigned to do? There are actual people, both male and female, who are like this and their unwillingness to compromise and change things for everyone instead of themselves makes them pretty unlikable. Kris is also pretty pushy, especially during a dance number where she annoys Riley to the point of singing about her rape in front of the person who did it. Hey, I’m glad the character stands up for herself, but the empowering moment gets a bit lost when she’s pushed to do it to satisfy her “friend” - same friend who films and uploads the clip on the internet, not expecting any sort of push back and legalities from it. Riley deserves better as a struggling character. Hell, Kris deserves better to be nothing but a stereotype when she could just be written as a normal person with thoughts and opinions that push the message of “girl power” in a positive way rather than a way that will push both genders away.

And then we have the male characters in this film. Man, all of them are pretty pathetic in how they’re presented compared to the women. Most of them are jerks and deserve whatever is coming to them. One seems like a cool friend to the girls until he rightfully lashes out at them for all their man-hating and thinking he would just be okay with their generalization of his gender, which ends up pushing him away from the group. And we have another male character who is super nice and supportive, but is treated as beneath the women in terms of power and status. So instead of having a male character be as equal to the women, the men are either evil or weaker compared to the female characters. This is how people write when they don’t know what feminism really is. Toxic masculinity is a thing and more films should address and criticize it. But doing it in a one-sided way isn’t helping the situation and just comes across as sexist towards men, especially those who support strong women and want them to have equal benefits as they do.

The message gets murky during the film’s third act, when BLACK CHRISTMAS decides it wants to stop being a slasher and more of a supernatural feature where this black tar is turning all the men into women-hating jerks. Apparently, the villains use this substance to brainwash men into bringing back the old days where women were the weaker sex and were obedient to men in every way. They’ll leave obedient women alone, while target and kill women who stand up for themselves. So what is this film trying to tell me? Are men bad as a nature or nurture thing? Or are men bad because some alien goo is brainwashing them in wanting to keep strong women in line? I think a feminist horror film is a great idea. I think having a redo of the whole “pod people” concept is a great idea. But if you can balance the narrative and express either one correctly, you just a failure of a story. If you have a message you want to say to people, say it with confidence and take whatever praise or criticism comes your way. Adding a supernatural element to lessen the blow to make audiences possibly like the [now] convoluted message is a cop out. The supernatural aspect only takes the supposed evil men off the hook because we have no idea how they would have acted otherwise. It’s a script that wants it both ways without earning either one.

And while I liked the look and some of the shots by Sophia Takal, I think her handling of a PG horror film is really lacking here. I’m not sure if this was her doing, or if Blumhouse wanted her to tone it down for a bigger audience, but BLACK CHRISTMAS plays out more like a Freeform network drama and less of a scary movie that will be remembered for all the right reasons for years to come. People die, but we don’t see any of it play out on screen. We barely get a cool aftermath at times, which is a shame for a slasher. I think the moments leading to the kills in this movie are pretty well structured and have some level of momentum. And the action in the final confrontation has enough horror violence to please some people. But this film honestly feels like an edited television version of a violent horror film, saving all the nasty stuff for an unrated home release that never came. Considering how serious [maybe too serious for its own good] story is, the film could have really used more visible slasher and horror elements to boost the fun factor that’s seriously lacking.

THE FINAL HOWL

While 2019’s reboot of BLACK CHRISTMAS isn’t the “worst horror film ever made” that many claimed it to be last year, it’s still a troubled film that has its flawed heart in the right place. The actors are good. Some of the shots by director Sophia Takal are inspired at times. And I respect the film for trying to express is themes of feminism, toxic masculinity and female empowerment, considering these are topics that should be addressed in our modern society. The film is definitely about something important, which should be commended for a horror film. 

But the film handles it all wrong, being way too heavy-handed for its own good and never having fun just being a horror movie. Films should have strong female characters, but not to the point where they’re unlikable and annoying because the script is more focused on the message rather than developing sympathetic characters we can stand with. It doesn’t help that the male characters are either evil, or just presented as weaker and more submissive than the women, presenting an antagonistic view towards half of the audience without really earning it. It doesn’t help when the film turns supernatural, pretty much destroying the message anyway, making BLACK CHRISTMAS almost moot in terms of what it wants to tell its audience. And honestly, the film just isn’t fun to watch since it takes itself so seriously as a college drama rather than a fun, slasher flick with an important message audiences can think about during and after the film is over. It’s sad because there’s a good film in here somewhere, but either the filmmakers or Blumhouse watered it down to please everyone- pretty much doing the opposite in the process. Stick with the original 1974 classic as it still holds up. And while I’m not the biggest fan on the 2006 remake, at least it’s a fun watch. This remake [in name only] is a missed opportunity for strong storytelling as both a social commentary and a horror film.

SCORE

1.5 Howls Outta 4

Into the Dark: Culture Shock (2019)

DIRECTED BY

Gigi Saul Guerrero

STARRING

Martha Higareda - Marisol

Richard Cabral - Santo

Barbara Crampton - Betty

Felipe de Lara - Oscar Molina

Creed Bratton - Attwood

Shawn Ashmore - Thomas

Genre: Horror/Thriller/Science Fiction

Running Time: 91 Minutes

PLOT

This thriller follows a young Mexican woman (Martha Higareda) in pursuit of the American Dream, who crosses illegally into the United States, only to find herself in an American nightmare.

REVIEW

Since I'm pretty much ending the Lunar Cycle posts for the time being, I figured it was time that even the Hulu Into the Dark reviews would get their own posts. And besides the post for GOOD BOY, which was an Animal Summer 2020 themed review to begin with, I’m kind of glad that CULTURE SHOCK gets its own spotlight since I consider it the best Into the Dark installment that I’ve watched so far since I started last October. Is it perfect? No. But it does have something important to say, even if it loses it’s way somewhat by the film’s end.

CULTURE SHOCK is one of the more relevant entries in the anthology’s history so far, as it deals with xenophobia, illegal immigration, and a look at the American Dream and how real it is to achieve it. I know a lot of people are tired of politics and how it has divided a lot of us unfortunately, but it’s still a topic that should be discussed if done in the proper, open-minded way. The last few years, especially, have put a spotlight on the immigration debate and what’s the right way to handle the situation. 

So I appreciated CULTURE SHOCK in tackling the topic from an immigrant’s point of view. While not a horror film in terms of jump scares, I’m sure it’s a terrifying situation for anyone put in that position, wondering if America will help them achieve their dreams or just disillusion them to the point where regrets will be felt. The film takes the topic and approaches it as a STEPFORD WIVES and GET OUT sort of tale, taking away one’s former identity and culture and turning it into the “American Way” where people have to act a certain and dress a certain way in order to fit in. The world of CULTURE SHOCK tells us that the American Dream is one of conformity, where one misstep will give you the wrong kind of attention and make you feel treated as an outcast. We live our lives in a pattern. We wake up, drink coffee, go to work. come home, eat dinner, watch television and then go to sleep to repeat the cycle all over again. Only those who break that rhythm manage to get ahead of the others. But only the white folk in this movie seem to have the power, with jobs in politics and education, while the illegal immigrants are the workers who build the towns and help set up the Fourth of July celebration. The main character, Marisol, realizes that her old life in Mexico would grant her the same opportunities that it would in America. She’s the only character who sees the class and color difference in this American utopia created for the film. That’s makes her a threat to be eliminated.

I think the best part of CULTURE SHOCK is that it doesn’t let the political angle overshadow the story itself. Yes, it’s the driving force of the film, but the filmmakers never hammer you in the head with it. The film is subtle and slowly unveils the message and what’s really going on with Marisol and the rest of the Mexicans who were captured at the border who are suddenly acting like pod people. It takes that common idea of people thinking immigrants needing to learn the language and embracing the new culture and norms of the country they’ve tried so hard to enter into, wondering what the point is if they don’t bother. We watch this PLEASANTVILLE scenario where people have assimilated by dressing the same, greeting each other the same, and even eating pizza and hamburgers like gluttons the same. Instead of freedom, it just feels like a programmed assembly line of what some believe America to be. It’s so manufactured, it’s accepted because it’s the easiest way to conform with the least drama.

And it wouldn’t be an Into the Dark feature without some sort of horror/sci-fi tinged aspect. There’s a reason why all these immigrants are all acting the same way, as they’re stuck in an experimental simulation in some underground bunker at the U.S.-Mexico border by a xenophobic scientist believing he’s solving the issue of illegal immigration. So there are moments where it feels like GROUNDHOG DAY, where days repeat for Marisol with different scenarios playing out depending on what she does. And we see occasional glitches and even a force field that makes Marisol realize she’s living in a bubble rather than the real world. It shows that even when a world is perfect [maybe too perfect], there’s still something missing. A lot of people believe that style is everything, but a lot of us prefer to have that substance along with it. The American Dream is a great idea, but if you have to act like everyone else to achieve it, is it worth it?

The film isn’t perfect though. While the first act is interesting with its setup to leave Mexico for a better life in America at the border and the second act is inviting with its false Americana portrayal, the more science fiction third act doesn’t feel as thrilling or as satisfying as it should really. The escape from the lab seems a bit too easy, as it feels clumsy and a bit forced because Into the Dark is a horror anthology and horror aspects need to be implemented to fit the series. It’s definitely ambitious though, with some decent action and character moments. And I really liked the last couple of minutes of CULTURE SHOCK. But considering what Marisol and the others went through, I was expecting more of a punch. It’s fine for what it is, but the first two acts are so strong, the final act kind of pales in comparison and feels old-hat. I found the political stuff more interesting than the horror aspect, but maybe someone else will feel differently.

What doesn’t feel old-hat is Gigi Saul Guerrero’s direction. As a co-screenwriter for the film, Guerrero knows actually where she wants to take CULTURE SHOCK, expressing her opinion of the whole immigration and American Dream issues that have taken over society for the last few years in a big way. Her direction is very confident and very subtle as well, never showing off too much to be flashy, but leading the audience in a visual direction that feels natural and captivating enough to keep us invested. 

I think what I liked the most about Guerrero’s direction is how each act looks and feels different from the other. The first act in Mexico has this sepia tone that shows how drab Marisol believes her life there is. It’s also shot hand-held style, which added a bit of grittiness to this part of the film, which added to the tense situation of hiring people to help Marisol out of the country and towards the border where the characters not only have to deal with Border Police, but the Mexican Cartel as well messing things up for them. The second act is the more Technicolor portion of Marisol’s “American Dream”, with bright colors and this creepy characterization of what Apple Pie America was portrayed for many decades in the media until the late 1960s changed all that. Instead of being hand-held, the shots are all static and filmed like an old TV family sitcom. The third act is back to the hand-held, gritty style but with a splash of color here and there. It also has some decent gore moments with people getting stabbed to death and even a bullet to the head moment. It’s also shot with a quicker pace to accentuate the tension of the lab escape and having the characters decide whether going to America is still the plan or not. I definitely want to see more of Guerrero’s stuff because she definitely has a vision and a voice that we could use more in any genre.

The acting is really great as well - probably the best acting I’ve seen in the first season of Into the Dark. Martha Higareda carries the film with super confidence as Marisol, our eyes and ears to this whole ordeal.  She plays every emotional beat naturally and believably. Marisol deals with a lot of traumatic stuff during the entire film and Higareda handles it really well. She also has this strength from the start that just grows. It’s really nice to see and it helps us root for her. It helps that she’s aided by a wonderful supporting cast - including horror legend Barbara Crampton playing a Stepford Wife type with cold, stunning eyes, Shawn Ashmore playing the Mayor of the American utopia with an underlying edge that slowly gets revealed and American Crime’s Richard Cabral as a bad boy immigrant who befriends Marisol and helps her to escape the entire situation. All actors are committed and I bought the entire thing.

THE FINAL HOWL

I’ve been kind of on a roll with these Into the Dark installments lately, as CULTURE SHOCK may be the best of the lot that I’ve seen so far. While more of a political allegory than a standard horror/sci-fi movie, the themes presented here about illegal immigration, and this idea of the “American Dream” and how it may not be achievable by everyone who lives in America, are presented in a subtle, interesting way that had me invested from beginning to end. The use of taking elements from other films, like PLEASANTVILLE, GET OUT and THE STEPFORD WIVES, adds to this theme that sometimes a dream is just that and reality hits us in the face so hard that we start to realize that things aren’t usually what they seem at all. And CULTURE SHOCK works that well, thanks to director and co-writer Gigi Saul Guerrero’s voice and vision. The actors - especially Martha Higareda, Barbara Crampton, Shawn Ashmore and Richard Cabral - carry the film strongly on their shoulders and help elevate a controversial theme and make it accessible and understandable to those on both sides of the issue. The final act brings the film down a bit due to the horror and science fiction aspects feeling a bit forced [it’s an Into the Dark installment, after all]. But overall, CULTURE SHOCK is a really good socio-political thriller that has something to say for an audience with a hopefully open mind.

SCORE

3 Howls Outta 4