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

The WTF Worst Films Extravaganza Presents: The Quick and the Undead (2006)

DIRECTED BY

Gerald Nott

STARRING

Clint Glenn Hummel - Ryn Baskin

Toar Campbell - Toar Zombie

Dion Day - Jackson

Erin McCarthy - Hunter Leah

Nicola Giacobbe - Hans Tubman

Parrish Randall - Blythe Remington

Jeff Swarthout - Walters

Genre: Horror/Western/Zombies

Running Time: 80 Minutes

PLOT

The movie takes place in the present, but in this universe, a plague has broken out and the infected have been transformed into zombies. No explanation is provided for the source of the plague, nor is it explained how the original victims were infected, since by the time the narrative begins the infection spreads by bite. Nevertheless, the action starts 80 years after the initial outbreak. The western United States has devolved into a disconnected series of ghost towns overrun by zombies, and the government is awarding bounties in exchange for the pinkies of the undead.

REVIEW

So I’ve been following a few movie lists out there in order to watch films I haven’t given much of a chance for whatever reason. This 2006 indie zombie-western was on one of the lists, which focuses on films that are either terrible or thought to be terrible. But sometimes, there are bad films out there that are genuinely entertaining for all the wrong reasons, making the viewing experience a fun one. Unfortunately, THE QUICK AND THE UNDEAD isn’t one of those films. In fact, I wish I had used my 80 minutes for something else because there’s really nothing to see or talk about here.

It’s rare for me to not have much to say about a film, but here we are. I guess I should get to the positives first, since that will be quick. I thought the look of the film was better than I was expecting for this quality of film - the budget was a bit over $100,000 I believe. Gerald Nott tried to add a bit of stylish shots whenever he could, which made the visual presentation a bit dynamic at times. The special effects were actually decent, with a nice use of squib shots and CGI [wonky at times but not the worst]. The zombie make up was alright, although some zombies looked more defined than others. And the cinematographer, Scott Peck, did his thing boosting the visual quality of the film way beyond than it probably deserved. For a really low budget flick, it looked like it had a higher one.

Also, the film is only 80 minutes. That means it won’t bore you for too long, which I appreciated. 

Some of the actors were okay as well. Parrish Randall was alright as main villain Blythe. The script didn’t do him or any of the actors any favors [I’ll get to that in a bit], but Randall made the most of the part and stood out as one of the better parts of the film. I also liked Erin McCarthy as Hunter [Get it? She’s a zombie hunter? Sigh.]. She gets her best scenes near the end and I thought she did as best as one could considering the weak script.

And boy, is this script terrible. The characters don’t have much depth. The plot holes are all over the place. And this film offers you more questions than answers. For example, the film never explains why this zombie apocalypse is going 80-plus years strong. The film never tells us why this world is still stuck in a Western instead of something more modern than that. The Western part is especially problemsome since the film never really embraces that aesthetic [no horses, no saloons, no gun duels] - unless you consider people wearing cowboy hats and attire a Western vibe.

There’s also this main plotline where bounty hunters are murdering zombies to collect their pinkies in exchange for currency. This would be kind of interesting if the script had elaborated more about it. I guess the government enforced this in order for people to kill the undead to maintain the zombie invasion? But considering the lopsided ratio of a hoard of zombies compared to the tiny amount of living humans left, either no one bothered or those who did ended up becoming zombies anyway. And who cares about any kind of currency during a zombie apocalypse? Are there vendors and stores really caring about getting paid while there’s a zombie invasion happening outside of their door? People would just steal and loot whatever they need in order to survive. It’s a really flawed idea that gets more convoluted as the film goes on. In fact, Blythe plans on infecting neighboring towns just to kill zombies and collect pinkies. Why? How does this benefit him or anyone in any way?

It also doesn’t help that our hero seems to be immune to zombie bites or even death, period. Why? Who in the hell knows? The film never bothers explaining it. We get an opening shot where he shoots himself up with a needle. Maybe he’s taking a drug that makes him immune? He compares zombie bites and death to chicken pox and I’m just… confused.

Speaking of our main hero, the actor playing him - Clint Glenn Hummel - is pretty bland and dry to even be interesting or likable. I don’t know if it’s because the script isn’t great, or the fact that Hummel is doing a Clint “Man With No Name” Eastwood impersonation to the best of his ability that makes him kind of dull as a lead. He didn’t leave much of an impression on me and it’s unfortunate since he’s in the film for ninety-five percent of the time.

THE FINAL HOWL

THE QUICK AND THE UNDEAD is so dull, confusing and flawed that it will make you believe the last few seasons of The Walking Dead were television masterpieces in comparison. The screenplay is a mess - with shallow characters who don’t give the audience a reason to like them, plot holes that leave you asking why, and questionable subplots that aren’t explored at all for whatever reason. The acting is a mixed bag, leaning towards downwards due to a lead actor who is too busy doing a Clint Eastwood impersonation rather than breathing some sort of life to a hero worth rooting for. If it wasn’t for the cinematography, the decent make up and special effects compared to its low budget, some decent supporting actors and a short run time, this film would have been bottom of the barrel for me. For a zombie-western movie, it’s barely a western and the zombies only really appear every now and then for when people need to die. Don’t mistake this film for Sam Raimi’s 1995 underrated THE QUICK AND THE DEAD. One is great and the other one is - well this. Not worth collecting zombie pinkies over.

SCORE

1 Howl Outta 4

The Supernaturals (1986)

DIRECTED BY

Armand Mastroianni

STARRING

Maxwell Caulfield - Pvt. Ray Ellis

Nichelle Nichols - Sgt. Leona Hawkins

Talia Balsam - Pvt. Angela Lejune

Bradford Bancroft - Pvt. Tom Weir

LeVar Burton - Pvt. Michael Osgood

Bobby Di Cicco - Pvt. Tim Cort

Scott Jacoby - Pvt. Chris Mendez

Margaret Shendal - Melanie

Maurice Gibb - Union Soldier

Genre: Horror/Supernatural/Zombies

Running Time: 86 Minutes

PLOT

Nichelle Nichols is an army sergeant who leads her platoon into the woods of the deep south on a training exercise. Unfortunately, it is the site where a bunch of yankee soldiers murdered a town of confederates. The corpses of the dead soldiers rise up to wreak revenge.

REVIEW

With such an interesting cast of well-known actors, you’d expect 1986’s THE SUPERNATURALS to be more talked about in horror circles. But after watching it, I see why this zombie film has been pretty much forgotten - it’s a pretty dull affair that doesn’t get close to decent until it’s too late in the film’s run time. And having a military zombie film a year after DAY OF THE DEAD just shows how uninspired and lazy THE SUPERNATURALS unfortunately is.

THE SUPERNATURALS starts off well, with a prologue of Union soldiers capturing Confederates during the American Civil War. The Union plans on executing them, including a young boy named Jeremy who is wearing a Confederate uniform pretending to be a soldier. The thing is that Jeremy apparently has supernatural powers which involve reviving the dead and creating special energy around people to protect them. I found this all interesting because it was a refreshing way to explain why there are zombie soldiers later on without having to resort to the typical “government or military experimentation” trope most zombie films fall under. Plus, allowing a child to be a puppet master for the undead gives the film a TWO THOUSAND MANIACS! vibe that I can get into.

Unfortunately, most of the film is during the present day where we get a new group of soldiers who are more annoying than interesting. I mean, the film never really tells the audience how long this platoon has been together. This is important because they act like frat boys who prefer taking dares and goofing on each other rather than taking their roles seriously. Some of these soldiers seem more focused on getting laid, especially with the sole female soldier Angela. In fact, one of these soldiers [Cort] tries to force himself on Angela inside her tent while drunk - to which she responds with a blade to his genital region. That makes Angela more likable than most, but still… Why should I root for any of these people?

The only other characters of real note are Ellis, a handsome soldier who seems to be connected to the events of the past. Melanie, Jeremy’s mom, lurks around the area mesmerized by Ellis’ presence - and vice-versa - making you wonder whether he’s a reincarnation of Jeremy, a descendent, or someone else entirely. The answer is kind of lame, but at least there’s a level of intrigue presented. The best character is probably Sergeant Hawkins, a hard-nosed and domineering soldier who takes no crap from her platoon and tries to set them straight as much as she can. She’s likable because she’s one of the few people in this film that has a personality and feels the same disappointed way about her soldiers as I’m sure most of the audience will. 

As for the zombies themselves, they’re alright. But I’m not sure what they are exactly. Were they raised from the dead out of their graves? Are they demonic ghosts wanting revenge for what happened in the past? What is exactly Jeremy’s power and how is he still alive for over 100 years? And why does his mother look the same while he and the zombies look much older? And how are these zombie ghosts setting up Civil War traps and still managing to show their military training like nothing has changed without the present day soldiers realizing it? If you’re expecting this film to answer these questions, you’ll be waiting for a long time.

Honestly, there’s not much with the narrative that one would expect with that cool poster and interesting premise. There’s not a whole lot of character development. The action is kept to the first ten minutes and the final act, as the rest of the runtime involves the soldiers goofing off and exploring the area where the soldiers execution took place. It doesn’t help that DAY OF THE DEAD was released the year prior and did the military zombie narrative 100x better. 

Armand Mastroianni, probably best known for directing the 1980 slasher HE KNOWS YOU’RE ALONE, does an okay job with the material. While the scenes with the soldiers [not involving zombies] drags more than it should, the zombie scenes are well paced and edited to hide the TV movie budget the film has to offer. There’s a lot of mist and a nice use of blue lights to create a moody atmosphere, even though the film isn’t close to being scary. Mastroianni doesn’t show the zombies in full view all that often, but they do look pretty okay considering the budget. And the death scenes are nothing really graphic, besides a cool looking ripped throat scene near the end. Other than that, the film isn’t all that stylish and the presentation isn’t all that memorable to be honest. But the direction does what it needs to do, I guess.

The acting is probably the best part of THE SUPERNATURALS. Maxwell Caulfield does alright as Ellis, the soldier who seems to have a connection with the past storyline. Even though he gets first billing, he doesn’t get a whole lot to do besides stare, look confused and finally be the hero at the end of the film. Talia Balsam does what she can with the role of Angela, bringing some sympathy to a token role. Bobby Di Cicco played a good annoying drunk and misogynist as Cort. And THE SUPERNATURALS may be best known for having two Star Trek alumni from different shows acting together in the same movie. Scott Jacoby had some nice heroic moments but wasn’t given much to do. Nichelle Nichols is probably the best actor here as Hawkins, playing a convincing drill sergeant with sass and attitude that made her endearing. Given the lousy material, Nichols makes the most of it and comes out of it looking cool. As for LeVar Burton, he’s pretty much wasted in this film by being given nothing to do of note. That’s pretty strange considering he was popular even before starring on Star Trek: The Next Generation or hosting Reading Rainbow, due to his role on the 70s miniseries ROOTS. And Maurice Gibb of the Bee Gees has a cameo. It was very odd seeing him. Good cast that needed better material to really stand out.

THE FINAL HOWL

THE SUPERNATURALS is a mostly dull and disappointing zombie ghost movie that’s probably still remembered due to its interesting cast of actors. While the supernatural and zombie aspects are worth watching and investing in, the rest of the film following unlikable and silly characters walking around and pulling pranks on each other drags to the point where you just want the undead to show up and have their way with them. Also, it’s never really explained if these are actual zombies or just ghosts who look dead - as well as why certain characters look younger when they should be older due to the film’s timeline. The direction by Armand Mastroianni is nothing special, but he sometimes captures some mood and atmosphere with a nice use of fog and blue lighting that keeps the zombies in the shadows. The zombie make up looks pretty good, considering the film’s low budget. And the actors are fine, in particular Nichelle Nichols of Star Trek fame as a sassy army sergeant. But some of them, in particular LeVar Burton [another Star Trek alumni], doesn’t get a whole lot to do and feels wasted. If you need to see a military film involving zombies, I’d stick with DAY OF THE DEAD or even 2018’s OVERLORD. Otherwise, it’s totally natural to skip this non-super movie.

SCORE

1.5 Howls Outta 4

Stepfather III (1992)

DIRECTED BY

Guy Magar

STARRING

Robert Wightman - Gene Clifford/ Keith Grant

Priscilla Barnes - Christine Davis

Season Hubley - Jennifer Ashley

David Tom - Andy Davis

John Ingle - Father Ernest Thomas Brennan

Jay Acovone - Steve Davis

Christa Miller - Beth Davis

Mario Roccuzzo - Plastic Surgeon

Brenda Strong - Lauren Sutliffe

Genre - Horror/ Thriller/ Slasher

Running Time - 110 Minutes

PLOT

That psycho stepfather (Robert Wightman) has escaped from the insane asylum and had his face surgically altered. Now he's married again, this time to a woman (Priscilla Barnes) with a child (David Tom) in a wheelchair. He goes on a killing spree once again.

REVIEW

Considering it’s Father’s Day and I’ve already reviewed the rest of the series [the 1987 original, the 1989 sequel and the 2009 remake], I figured it was time to sit down and rewatch 1992’s STEPFATHER III - a TV movie sequel that went straight-to-video after losing the franchise’s star Terry O’Quinn, who refused to return for a third time. Instead of just doing an entire do-over with different characters and a new scenario, we have a straight continuation of the story after STEPFATHER II: MAKE ROOM FOR DADDY with new actors and the same template that helped the first two films gain a cult following over the years. While it’s better than the remake that was released almost two decades after it, STEPFATHER III is definitely the lesser of the three original films, even if it does have its moments here and there.

I’ll give the producers credit - having the Stepfather get plastic surgery right from the start of the film is pretty clever in explaining why our main actor is different. Most films wouldn’t even bother with that step, as they’ll just recast a role without any sort of explanation. But it actually adds something to the film and gives a couple of characters something to do in the last half of the movie when some detective work comes into play. The scene itself is directed in a very weird, but memorable, way. There’s a blue tint throughout for some reason, why real footage of plastic surgery is shown. But at least there’s an attempt to bring something new to the table despite it being a cheap TV movie sequel.

Also something new - the Stepfather having to juggle two families at once, as he tries to play daddy for two different mothers with sons. He marries into one family, but his stepson Andy doesn’t like him and finds the Stepfather slightly off. With ex-boyfriends and even baby daddies interfering with his plans, the Stepfather begins to slowly lose interest and focuses on another mother and son duo who seem to actually appreciate him and enjoy his company. Things get complicated when this new potential wife wants to move on quickly with the Stepfather, inviting him to move in with her and her son so they can quickly get married. Intent on murdering the family he married into, he’s surprised when his wife and stepson decide to give him another chance. Now he has to get rid of the other mother and son duo to maintain his happy life. Watching him go back and forth between the two families and try to keep his wife from not figuring it out is pretty fun to watch at times, especially when the two women get close due to their sons going to the same school [where the Stepfather’s wife works at]. It’s not something we’ve seen the character deal with onscreen, so it creates new drama and gives him more of a reason to start losing it. Obviously, we know it’s going to go terribly for everyone involved. But it’s still quite amusing to see.

I also appreciated the attempt to swerve the audience in making viewers confused as to who might be the Stepfather at first, even though it wasn’t successful at all. And wheelchair bound Andy has an interesting character arc. His disability is more psychosomatic than physical, due to a bad accident that traumatized him. And his obsession with solving mysteries actually plays an important role in giving the Stepfather a lot of trouble within his own household. The use of 90s computer technology in scanning things was pretty funny though.

Other than that, the narrative is pretty much the same as the previous two films for better or worse. It’s a good thing to keep the similar premise going because it worked for the previous films and that’s what the franchise is known for. But at the same time, despite some attempts to change things up a bit, the structure is a bit tired by this point. It’s one thing to watch Jason Voorhees kill camp counselors in every film because characters change, the kill sequences get more elaborate and elements are added in each film to make them feel different from the others. This franchise has this serial killer, who is a giant dork, score with these lonely women for whatever reason as if divorcees are desperate to marry anyone with a penis between their legs. And in a mix of the previous films, one son loves the Stepfather while the other one is quickly suspicious of him and thinks he could be a serial killer. But if you’ve watched one STEPFATHER movie, you’ve watched them all. 

STEPFATHER III is just the Lifetime or ID version of what you’ve seen before. This is further exhibited by director Guy Magar's visual presentation. There’s nothing real flashy or stylish about the film, nor does it attempt to even build tension or suspense when it comes to the Stepfather character. I feel like Magar forgot he was making a horror movie, instead focusing more on the drama and soap opera aspect of the story, treating the film as such as it plays out like your typical TV movie. Even the death scenes are pretty tame compared to the previous two films, even though you get a couple of throat slits and stabbings. It’s too bad the film doesn’t really show the effects, kind of showing the aftermath in a PG way. The only real memorable death scene involves a wood chipper - not because you see anyone getting chopped up but because it’s the only time the film wants to be a slasher movie. We also get that strange blue tint in the first part of the film, as well as a car explosion. But otherwise, there’s not much to Magar’s direction. It’s a point-and-shoot affair that tells the tale as safely as possible.

Having not seen the film in decades, I kept thinking the acting in this film was really bad. But honestly, it’s the opposite as STEPFATHER III actually has decent actors giving it their all considering the bland material. Robert Wightman is no Terry O’Quinn, but he has a certain goofy charm about him that makes the character feel similar to the previous movies. Watching him play out the same scenarios the character did in the other films just made me appreciate O’Quinn more in the role, but Wightman brings an unintentionally funny portrayal to them that I ended up being amused by. Three’s Company’s Priscilla Barnes is better as the woman he marries, Christine. Of the three women the Stepfather got in a relationship with onscreen, Barnes felt like the strongest as she got to play multiple beats in terms of love, fear, suspicion, and fighter by the end of the movie. She elevated the film, in my opinion. David Tom is a mixed bag for me as Andy. He has moments where he’s really likable, especially during scenes with his mom, dad, his priest and while doing detective work. But then he has moments where he’s whiny and bratty that made me stop caring. He’s probably the weakest of the children characters in the franchise, but I enjoyed his character arc. And John Ingle was cool as Father Brennan, providing a sort of father figure to Andy. Nowadays, it’s kind of weird to see this young boy and priest be this close and consider the other as a best friend. But their friendship works within the narrative, as they play partners-in-crime in trying to figure out what the Stepfather is really up to. We also get a cameo from Christa Miller, of The Drew Carey Show and Scrubs fame. Not a bad cast.

THE FINAL HOWL

While the lesser of the original three STEPFATHER films, STEPFATHER III is still better than the 2009 remake by having some memorable moments and being unintentionally funny at times. The narrative of The Stepfather having to juggle two families at once is a fun time, as well as having a wannabe detective for a stepson that keeps the villain on his toes. Otherwise, this film does nothing new with its familiar premise - the only difference is a weaker script with lesser actors. And the film does wear a bit of its welcome by being twenty minutes too long. The direction by Guy Magar is what one would expect from a TV movie thriller, with no real style and shying away from any gore that could have elevated this sequel. And while the actors aren’t as memorable as those in the previous two films, they still do a good job - in particular Priscilla Barnes [of Three’s Company fame] and John Ingle as a friendly priest who gets too involved with the mystery. Robert Wightman is no Terry O’Quinn, but he has a goofy charm about him that makes him amusing to watch. While not a great film or sequel, STEPFATHER III is a better film than I had remembered it - even if it’ll make you long for the two O’Quinn cult classics.

SCORE

2 Howls Outta 4

The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It (2021)

DIRECTED BY

Michael Chaves

STARRING

Patrick Wilson - Ed Warren

Vera Farmiga - Lorraine Warren

Sterling Jerins - Judy Warren

Ruairi O’Connor - Arne Cheyenne Johnson 

Sarah Catherine Hook - Debbie Glatzel

Jillian Hilliard - David Glatzel

Steve Coulter - Father Gordon

John Noble - Father Kastner

Eugenie Bondurant - The Occultist

Ronnie Gene Blevins - Bruno Sauls

Genre - Horror/Mystery/Thriller/Supernatural/Possession

Running Time - 112 Minutes

PLOT

Paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson & Vera Farmiga) encounter what would become one of the most sensational cases from their files. The fight for the soul of a young boy (Jillian Hilliard) takes them beyond anything they’d ever seen before, to mark the first time in U.S. history that a murder suspect (Ruairi O’Connor) would claim demonic possession as a defense.

REVIEW

One of my most anticipated films of 2020 [before it was moved to 2021 due to the pandemic], THE CONJURING: THE DEVIL MADE ME DO - which I will call THE CONJURING 3 from now on - was a film I had on my radar the moment it was announced. While I haven’t watched any of the spin-offs yet due to mixed responses from friends, I’ll always have love for the first two films in the main series. They’re not everyone’s cup of tea in terms of modern horror, but I dig their throwback haunted house narratives. Plus, the duo of Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga classes up these movies due to their chemistry and genuine passion for these projects.

However, I knew THE CONJURING 3 wouldn’t compare to the first two films due to director James Wan not returning and just sticking to a producer and writer role. Instead, Wan handed the duties to Michael Chaves - the man who directed what many call the worst spin-off in the series, 2019’s THE CURSE OF LA LLORONA. I also heard things about the film focusing more as a detective and courtroom story, like something you’d see on Law & Order, and I became a bit concerned. I didn’t mind a new direction for the series [as it honestly could have used it], but it made me less excited for the film even though I still wanted to see it.

Unfortunately, THE CONJURING 3 proved my worries right. The direction isn’t as good. The narrative seems confused. And probably the worst thing about it - it’s freakin’ boring as hell. How did this happen??

The screenplay for this movie shouldn’t have been this poor, considering the story the film is based on was a media sensation during the early 1980s. The Trial of Arne Cheyenne Johnson, also known as “The Devil Made Me Do It” Case, was the first U.S. trial in which the defendant pleaded “not guilty” due to demonic possession. Apparently, Johnson ended up murdering his landlord months after being possessed by a Satanic force that had once possessed his girlfriend’s little brother - this after Johnson pleaded for the demon to spare the little boy and to take him. Realistically, a court can’t really prove that this even happened, which made the case such a juicy story for news outlets and tabloids. The real-life Warrens were even involved with this case, supposedly there to see the possession of the young boy and act as witnesses for Johnson. Lorraine Warren was even part of a book that was released in 1983 called The Devil in Connecticut, which created more buzz that The Warrens were hoaxes and just trying to scam people for fame and fortune. 

Now if the actual film focused more on these aspects, it would have been an interesting movie. THE CONJURING 2 already had moments where The Warrens are called out for being fakes and con artists. THE CONJURING 3 could have expanded on that, showing how the people outside of their circle view them as The Warrens try to prove that they’re truly legit - even if they can’t get the court system to acknowledge the supernatural truth as physical evidence. Instead of portraying the couple as mythological superheroes [which this film does way too much of], it would be nice to make them vulnerable to some real world opinions and situations. Hell, seeing them testify in an actual courtroom could have been cool too, as they could have been put on trial for their supernatural adventures that most people probably believe is B.S. anyway.

Instead, THE CONJURING 3 would rather turn Lorraine and Ed Warren into the Benson and Stabler of paranormal investigations, focusing more on their detective skills rather than the actual Johnson case itself. While it’s respectable that James Wan and crew wanted to get away from the haunted house setting and go in a different direction, it just doesn’t work well here. The strength of the first two films is that The Warrens became personally connected to the victims being haunted. It not only fleshed out the victims, but it also gave depth to the couple through connecting their experiences to those they were helping. There was an organic bond between all the characters and it was through that the villains were always beaten.

We don’t get any of that here because Johnson and his core group are segregated from The Warrens for ninety-percent of the film because Lorraine and Ed are busy trying to find evidence to prove Johnson was possessed, while battling this evil entity who seems to be targeting them for getting into their business. I barely knew anything about the victims because they’re not given enough time to really develop, giving more of the film’s focus to the characters we already know. Arne Johnson seemed like a nice guy, but we barely get any of that because he’s quickly struggling with a possession. And it doesn’t help that his girlfriend and her little brother [who was the first one possessed] just feel like they’re there to prop Arne up, rather than being actual people we want to root for. I understand Arne’s girlfriend was a witness to her brother’s possession and believes Arne was suffering through the same ordeal. But couldn’t there have been a moment of doubt that maybe Arne had a moment of weakness and murdered his landlord without some Satanic force tricking him? It would have added some much needed depth to their relationship.

It doesn’t help that the investigation part isn’t all that interesting. While certain moments do work really well within the detective work, it felt like I was watching someone play a video game - but rather than doing the main mission to advance the story, they were more focused on doing side quests to fill the time. It became less about finding proof about the possession and more about helping people deal with their own cold cases in order to get back to their actual mission. By the time we started learning the truth about the villain, I stopped caring about what was going on. It also didn’t help that the villain is probably the weakest of the main series [maybe for even the spin-offs, I don’t know]. There’s no real character development and while they can do threatening things, they’re not all that threatening themselves. Or memorable. And supposedly there’s a twist as to who the identity of the villain is, but it’s pretty easy to figure out if you pay attention enough. It’s as if they wanted to stick to this narrative of The Warrens battling this malevolent figure like in the previous films, rather than focusing on the more interesting aspect of the story, which was Arne Johnson’s situation and his trial [which you barely get scenes of anyway]. 

I also have an issue with this storytelling when it comes to The Warrens. I get that they’re beloved and they’re the reason audiences watch these films to begin with. But ever since the first film, stories have come out about the couple that muddies up this perfect interpretation of Ed and Lorraine - at least for me. Regardless if you think they were con artists or not, I feel like these films have gotten to a point where the characters are being depicted as these perfect superheroes who can take out any demonic force and live happily ever after because they’re Christians. At times, THE CONJURING 3 feels like a Christian propaganda piece more than a horror film, with God giving Ed and Lorraine superpowers in order to battle evil. In fact, Lorraine Warren is flat out Jean Grey in this movie, having psychic visions and then acting them out. While these scenes visually are great, it’s implausible to take real life people and turn them into X-Men. It worked in the previous films because it was done in a subtle way. But THE CONJURING 3 takes it to a whole new level. And I found these scenes more laughable than impressive. I get the film is embracing the Satanic Panic of the time, but it doesn't totally work here.

That being said, I still enjoy the portrayal of The Warrens as a couple who care and love each other, no matter what. Ed takes a bit of a backseat in the film due to having a heart attack, but Lorraine’s love and support for him is really nice to see. And while Ed plays Robin to Lorraine’s Batman in this film, I always enjoy their scenes together even if the superhero dynamic that’s been added is a bit over the top. Whether or not these were this dynamic as a couple in real life is beside the point. I just enjoy The Warrens being the glue that keeps these stories together.

Also, some of the action scenes are pretty great. While director Michael Chaves never comes close to being as visually stylish and dynamic as James Wan, he does craft several scenes that are highlights within this series. I thought the opening ten minutes during David Glatzel’s possession were presented really well. Yes, it rips off THE EXORCIST way too much at times, but it honestly was the only moment in the film where the film actually tries to be scary. Watching a child contort himself and cause chaos is pretty thrilling, with pretty good CGI and atmospheric lighting making the scene stand out. I wish the rest of the film had kept this energy.

While there are other “scary” moments that are pretty standard with THE CONJURING series, with none of them really making much of a mark for me, there are a couple of more scenes that do work. The murder of Arne Johnson’s landlord is actually visualized pretty damn well, with Arne seeing his landlord as a demonic force. It also uses “Call Me” by Blondie, slowing it down like most modern horror films try to do to make an upbeat song sound creepy. While an overdone trope, it’s used effectively here as the slowdown matches the demonic state Arne is in. The other standout scene involves Lorraine using her powers to locate a missing girl for a police officer who may have a lead towards helping Arne’s case. She’s overwhelmed by the events of the girl’s disappearance that she ends up almost falling off a cliff due to a demonic hand grabbing and pulling her down, until Ed saves her. It’s a really well shot and well acted scene. It’s too bad the rest of the film is plodding because it could have used more energy like this.

As for Graves’ overall direction, it’s okay. While the film has some nice set pieces and the CGI is more than well handled, his pacing isn’t that great since I almost fell asleep watching this - especially in the second half of the film. The lighting was way too dark at times, which I guess was to make the film seem older, grittier and scarier? I thought it hurt a lot of the visual choices the cinematographer had created. And the film is never scary and can be way too dramatic for its own good. I feel like there was a tonal conflict going on somewhere because I was never sure if the film wanted to be a horror film or a procedural drama. I’ve heard this is an improvement for Graves in terms of it being better directed than THE CURSE OF LA LLORONA, so good for the guy for having better material to work with.

The acting is very good, as one would expect from these films. The heart of THE CONJURING films will always be Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga as Ed and Lorraine Warren. I think the way the characters are written are becoming almost caricatures at this point. But Wilson and Farmiga still have amazing chemistry and seem to enjoy working off of each other, even though they both seemed kind of bored at times. Farmiga seems to be more of the focus point this time around as she gets a lot more to do than Wilson does. But they still complement each other well.

The rest of the actors are fine but don’t get a whole lot to do. Ruairi O’Connor is good as Arne, especially when he struggles with the demon possessing him. Sarah Catherine Hook tries to make a one-note character like Debbie Glatzel into something worthwhile, but she’s just your archetypical girlfriend. Jillian Hilliard gets the creepier moments as young David Glatzel, involving a possession and a waterbed. Nice seeing John Noble as a former priest, but he’s honestly wasted in his role. And while Eugenie Bondurant has a presence as the film’s villain, she doesn’t get a whole lot to do in order to shine. But she had a character without any meat on her bones. Good cast, but I wish a lot of their roles were written better.

THE FINAL HOWL

THE CONJURING: THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT is unfortunately not worth the year wait, as it’s less creepy and more boring than its predecessors. Turning Ed and Lorraine Warren into the supernatural Benson and Stabler is an interesting idea that doesn’t work out all that well, especially when the couple are portrayed as superheroes that stretch beyond the suspension of disbelief. For a film about a famous court case dealing with the idea of possession as a defense to murder, there isn’t a whole lot of focus on the defendant and his trial, making the film feel disjointed as a narrative. It also doesn’t allow The Warrens to connect with the other characters on a personal level, losing a big factor on what made the previous two films great. And with a very weak villain who is not memorable at all, the story is lacking in almost every way.

That being said, some of the direction by THE CURSE OF LA LLORONA director Michael Chaves does work - in particular the opening exorcism scene, the scene where Arne Johnson murders his landlord and a scene involving The Warrens searching for a missing murder victim in the woods. And the acting, especially by Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga maintaining their organic chemistry, is good. But overall, a pretty disappointing sequel that probably shows how tired this series has become despite an attempt to take it outside a haunted house setting to mixed results. Fans of this franchise will probably check this out regardless, but I’ll watch X-Files if I want to watch some supernatural investigative stories that won’t put me to sleep.

SCORE

2 Howls Outta 4