ebeckstr-1

Brightwood combines elements of Groundhog Day (1993), Triangle (2009), and domestic drama in a taut, unpredictable story which defies expectations. The excellent script deftly moves from one set of genre elements and expectations to another, and it's unlikely you'll guess where it's going and where it will end. This script, combined with a few practical effects, good acting, and an atmospheric score, make for an underrated film, and one of the best wibbly wobbly, timey wimey movies in a while. Brightwood should be on everyone's time travel and sci-fi watch list. Now I guess I have to keep typing characters to meet the limit. There we go.

This episode suffers the same problem as every surviving episode of the series released on disc: It's a good 15 minutes longer than it needs to be. The entire series would have been better off in a 30 minute format. This particular episode is anemic and suffers even more than the others from the overly long format. There just is not enough story to sustain it. Once again in his historian's commentary, Gary Gerani strikes a perfect balance between offering background of the actors, arcane and insightful information about the production of the film, critical commentary on aspects like the score and cinematography, and the film's place in the history of horror genre, and in the television culture of the time. This is another great Kino Lorber presentation. Highly recommended for anyone interested in 1970s made for television horror or the history of American television production in general.

This movie just gets better with each viewing. It has heart and humor, the cast of kids is appealing and talented. I sometimes find Jack Black insufferable, but this movie is a perfect outlet for his personality and particular talent. He's perfect in this role. This movie just gets better with each viewing. It has heart and humor, the cast of kids is appealing and talented. I sometimes find Jack Black insufferable, but this movie is a perfect outlet for his personality and particular talent. He's perfect in this role. This movie just gets better with each viewing. It has heart and humor, the cast of kids is appealing and talented. I sometimes find Jack Black insufferable, but this movie is a perfect outlet for his personality and particular talent. He's perfect in this role.

I guess I see at least some of what Claire Deni is trying to achieve in this science fiction drama, but ultimately the movie is not successful.

I have no problem with methodically paced movies, but the pacing of this one is not contemplative, as I think it is supposed to be, it's just needlessly slow. Clocking in at just under 2 hours, it's also longer than it needs to be. I have no problem with long movies - I could have watched 5 hours of Blade Runner 2049 - but High Life could have achieved more by being a half hour shorter. In the first part, for instance, there's a pointless flashback to an interview between a journalist and a professor which serves no narrative purpose since the same information is conveyed elsewhere in the movie. In addition, shots and scenes on board the ship linger longer than necessary or effective.

I also found the movie's content around sex and reproduction to be obsessive rather than deft. It's potentially interesting, but ultimately not.

I haven't read a thing about this movie, but I'm assuming there's been a fair amount of conversation about the conclusion. For me, the last scene, which is clearly supposed to be pivotal, lands with a metaphysical thud. It has the exact opposite effect of 2001: A Space Odyssey's famous, metaphysical spacetime flourish.

For fans of serious-minded science fiction maybe it's worth watching this film just for the sake of getting it under your belt. I myself would never be able to sit through it a second time.

Let me apologize in advance for this rant. I tend to rant when I hate a movie as much as I hated this one.

In the Earth is a jaw-droppingly overrated, mind-numbingly pretentious movie with stupid people doing stupid things over and over and over. The movie is apparently supposed to be thought-provoking and mysterious. Instead, hallucinogenic visuals, electronic sounds, and nonsensical character behavior are substituted for story telling and as a stand-in for genuine mystery. (Incidentally, contrary to what a good many viewers seem to think, hallucinogenic visuals and sound are also no substitute for atmosphere. )

Here's another way of putting it. Contrary to what a lot of viewers claim, there is nothing deep about this movie. The plot is truly simplistic in the literal sense of the word. If you were to watch this mess - but please don't waste your time - when the end-credits mercifully roll, if you don't understand what you just watched or don't get the ending it's not because you've missed something. It's because there's nothing to get. It because it's a stupid movie. The plot is exactly what it seems on the surface: a bunch of people go into the woods, breathe a bunch of hallucinogestic mushroom spores and drink hallucinogenic tea, and then they hallucinate and make one stupid choice and leave of logic after another. That's it. That's the plot. The scientists, including our protagonists, somehow come to believe that there is an "entity" in the forest. Part of that stems from ridiculous leaps of logic or assumptions, or just accepting things with absolutely no evidence. More than one reviewer has called the script brilliant. It is not. It is a stupid script. That's why it's a stupid movie. Using hallucinogens as the backbone and tissue of a story does not give the "writer" license to get away with whatever the hell they want and follow absolutely no internal logic. There are good ways to tell a story with characters who make bad decisions. There are ways to tell a story where a certain kind of incoherence or lack of logic is intentional and purposeful. Jackson Pollock can get away with whipping paint at a canvas. Ben Wheatley is no Jackson Pollock.

It's extremely rare for me to finish a movie and just be angry at the whole experience. I've given 0.5 stars (or 1 IMDb star) to perhaps 3 or 4 movies. This is one of them.

One of the most unusual adaptations of the novel, and almost certainly the most original version in decades - literally. Almost every single adaptation obsesses over the sexual subtext of the novel, bringing it to the surface so that it dominates the plot in ways that are almost never interesting and which are predictably shallow. That certainly includes the mystifyingly overrated Coppola adaptation. Everyone talks about that one when they should be talking about this one.

One advantage here is the total running time of around four and a half hours. It allows the creators to develop a full story around the central characters while pulling in core themes, story lines, and specific plot points from the novel. None of this is done in predictable fashion. It's adaptation in the true sense of the word. All of those elements are respectful of and clearly derived from the original, but are develops or conveyed in unique ways. And again, I mean unique in the literal sense, as in, never having been done before.

Any fan of the Dracula story should prioritize this viewing. It seems to really flown under the radar and deserves more attention than it has gotten. If you've seen the original Hammer Dracula, toward the end of this BBC production watch for a wonderful homage to the Hammer film and Peter Cushing in particular...

One of the great anthology episodes of that era. The ending is right up there with some of the best from One Step Beyond and The Twilight Zone. Throughout much of the episode it seems a bit by the numbers, though still entertaining, but the use of sound and camera movement during the climactic scene is perfection and elevates the whole episode. One of the great anthology episodes of that era. The ending is right up there with some of the best from One Step Beyond and The Twilight Zone. Throughout much of the episode it seems a bit by the numbers, though still entertaining, but the use of sound and camera movement during the climactic scene is perfection and elevates the whole episode.

While not on par with Lewis's very best (The Nutty Professor, The Ladies Man, The Bell Boy, Who's Minding the Store, the underrated The Family Jewels, and others), It's Only Money is entertaining for fans. It includes many instances of iconic Lewis linguistics and enough funny gags to sustain its 90 minutes. While not on par with Lewis's very best (The Nutty Professor, The Ladies Man, The Bell Boy, Who's Minding the Store, the underrated The Family Jewels, and others), It's Only Money is entertaining for fans. It includes many instances of iconic Lewis linguistics and enough funny gags to sustain its 90 minutes.

Ludacris 50s sci-fi Z movie, surely part of a double or triple feature meant to be gabbed through, necked through, and what not. In one sense it's a so bad it's good movie, if you're into that (I'm really not, so I suppose this movie has less appeal for me than it might for others), but it's also fascinating to watch it from the perspective of the drive-in teans it was made for. The stiff-walking, Gumby-shaped Moon rock monsters alone are worth the watch. I wish more discs like this had commentaries by or interviews with the people who made them, including the effects technicians. They're such a cool part of American cinematic history.

Watch this one when you are fully awake and caffeinated. The intricate plot is packed with double and triple crosses, different stolen documents in play, and various quantities of money being passed around, stolen, and exchanged, that I had to pause more than once to get things straight. The cast is superb, too, and Soderberg's extreme wide-angle lens seems to be a visual play on words, poking fun at the audience for thinking at any given moment that they might actually be taking everything in, seeing the whole picture. Moments of ironic humor come unexpectedly in a plot that is actually darker than it might seem on the surface. This is a hugely entertaining flick.

(Side note: A massive continuity error towards the end caused me some confusion. Minus spoilers, I will just say there is a certain character with a very bruised face who suddenly has no bruises. I literally thought it was a different character for a few minutes, which momentarily made a complex movie downright confusing.)

Mike Flanagan described Possum as a tone poem, one which leaves the viewer feeling stained afterwards. This is an apt description of the mood, like black ichor, that is established from the very beginning and compounded in each and every frame thereafter, up until the closing minutes. It's obvious from the beginning that the protagonist is plagued, almost literally, by some kind of trauma which infuses his every waking and sleeping moment with PTSD flashbacks and the irresistible compulsion to flee and flee, like one of those nightmares where you can't get away from what's chasing you - not fight or flight, but just flight. The tone is further deepened through the superb score, stark cinematography, and Sean Harris's riveting, understated performance. (Incidentally, I don't know why IMDb has Possum tagged as "body horror." It isn't, not even broadly speaking.)

So why only 3 stars? Because instead of maintaining the compelling and thematically driven obliqueness of the story, the script falls to its knees and collapses in the last 4 minutes, from, I guess, director / writer Matthew Holness's lack of faith in his audience's ability to draw their own conclusions and be full participants in the storytelling. Either that or he decided that a "shock" denouement was the way to go. Either way, suddenly, in a flash, Holness thrusts The Explanation before us, draining Possum of its compelling, mysterious quality. The movie is well worth watching for its effectiveness up until it falls apart, but the disappointing conclusion knocks it down a significant notch.

This movie had quite an impact on me when I was a kid growing up in the 1970s, watching all those made for TV horror movies emblematic of American television of that period. Like a lot of people, adults and kids alike, I was obsessed with UFOa, ESP, and The Bermuda Triangle, our collective fascination with the latter having been stoked by Charles Berlitz's best-selling 1974 book of that title. It was a pseudo-journalistic, pseudo-historical, pseudo-scientific collection of exaggerated, easily debunked, and outright invented tales of lost ships, boats, and airplanes, and the missing people who had been aboard them. Despite being near absolute BS, Berlitz's writing and storytelling was undeniably compelling and entertaining, and the book utterly enthralling.

Enter movies like Satan's Triangle, during a period of fBermuda Triangle craze in which Berlitz's book sold tens of millions of copies. The movie scared me and and kept me as enraptured as Leonard Nimoy's speculative fringe series, In Search Of. (Tangent: Nimoy's hosting a bad series is one of the reasons is casting in JJ Abrams' Fringe was so brilliant. But I digress...)

Unfortunately, upon re-viewing, Satan's Triangle is 90% plodding and pedestrian, and 10% okay ending, which, with a few hours of half-hearted effort, a pen, and a notepad, could have been attached to a much better script. The director seems bored with the task of wrenching performances from his equally bored cast of B-listers and C-listers, who, to be fair, only have that dull script to work with. To make matters worse, the score is mostly uninspired an inappropriate to a horror movie, never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity to create suspense or creepiness. It's laden with that oh-so-'70s Muzaky, flute-cursed, made-to-be-ignored, light junk jazz which was often thrown into the background behind really boring scenes of sex/romance melodrama...just like the kind we are subjected to halfway through this movie. Another hallmark of the lower end of made for TV horror fair of that era is the use of padding to try to eke out a movie-length time slot. One of the most common and most boring forms of such padding was to repeat in slow motion scenes from earlier in a movie as a character is remembering, dreaming about, or recounting the event to another character. Naturally, we must sit through that in this movie as well.

A lot of people are attached to this movie out of nostalgia, which I completely understand. I myself am attached to other movies made for American television during that time, such as The Night Stalker, The Norliss Tapes, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, Sole Survivor, Dark Night of Scarecrow (from early the next decade), and even The Horror at 37,000 Feet. These movies and a host of others are in a completely different class and much more worth your time than Satan's Triangle.

When the Cat Comes (AKA The Cassandra Cat, at least on the Criterion Channel) is sweet and gentle, beautiful, and musical, whimsical and childlike. I don't know much about the cross pollination of American and European cinema expressionism, or the cross influencing of those styles even within European cinema; but this movie reminded me a lot of the musicals of Stanley Donon and Vincent Minnelli - particularly the fantasy and ballettic elements of An American in Paris - and the gentle, yet sometimes barbed, comedy of Jacques Tati, in addition to his own balletic miming. This is quite a wonderful little flick and I'm glad I stumbled across it on Criterion.

Godzilla Minus One is virtually perfect, just as good as everyone is saying it is.

Minus One is essentially a remake of the original Godzilla. Even the science fantasy plan to destroy the monster is a variation on the plan from the original, albeit somewhat less silly. Also like the original, a thematic focus of Minus One is the collective trauma which immediately follows a catastrophe. Interestingly, rather than staging the atomic bombs as the backdrop of that trauma, as in the original Godzilla, the trauma here, and in fact the physical setting in the first part of the movie, is Tokyo after the notorious fire bombing by the United States.

Into the collective and immediate trauma, Minus One folds the post-traumatic trauma of its main protagonist, while also playing on the theme of redemption. The motivation behind this character's trauma is the conflict between that expectation of fulfilling one's duty that is so particular to Japanese culture, particularly WWII military culture, and specifically the duty to die expected of kamikaze pilots.

If all of that seems rather intense for a "mere" monster movie, well, there is nothing "mere" about this flick. All of that depth is perfectly delivered through excellent acting from top to bottom (I teared up twice during this movie, something I have never done watching a kaiju), genuine character development, even among secondary characters, and impeccable direction. The choice of camera distance from characters, camera placement and angles, and the judicious use of slow motion, all contribute to that depth, too. Regarding slow motion: I generally hate it because it is so rarely used effectively and so often used in a cheesy, eye rolling way. As much as I love the Lord of the Rings trilogy, there are only one or two moments across all 11 and 1/2 hours that were made more effective through slow motion. The rest of those slow mo moments are the weakest shots in the entire trilogy. The exact opposite is the case here. Somehow, director Takashi Yamazaki uses slow motion several times with each moment being effective and affecting. One particularly brilliant use of slow motion combines it with screen silence. Yamazaki pulls out all the stops.

The score is equally compelling. During some sequences, it's almost creepy, certainly atmospheric in a very non-action movie kind of way. It lends those moments a gravitas completely lacking in the blaring, heavy-handed scores of every American Godzilla movie. Composer Naoki Sato even works in Akira Ifukube's famous, doomy leitmotif, but does so sparingly. His score is as impeccable as Yamazaki's directing.

Finally, the special effects. Unlike the cartoonish, glowy, neon CG of the American Godzilla movies of the last 10 years or so, Minus One's monster is naturalistic. It looks like an animal be it a horrifying, almost supernatural one. Similarly, the buildings and their destruction is less spectacle and more catastrophic devastation, more appropriately reflecting the damage done by the fire bombing and the atomic bombs.

I don't often write such long reviews, but this movie knocked my socks off. I will buy it when it's available on disc, also not something I often do with newer movies.

Curse of the Black Widow is one of Dan Curtis's less famous, and in many respect, lesser, contributions (as producer or director) to the 1970s cycle of American made for TV horror flicks. Black Widow includes many of the tropes most commonly used in Curtis productions: "The bodies were all completely drained of blood!"; old, dilapidated structures; a plot centered around a supernatural mystery; a stalwart professional investigator. Unfortunately, it lacks the pacing and suspense of the best projects Curtis was involved with, such as The Night Stalker, (naturally) the Dead of Night anthology (that third segment, wow!), and The Norliss. Tapes (underrated). It outright stalls during an eye-rolling, needles sex subplot halfway through. Still, while Tony Franciosa doesn't have much to work with, he's always a welcome presence, and Rozz Kelly is truly the highlight of the movie. Her confident, sardonic, and intelligent turn as Franciosa's Girl Friday is wonderful by any standard. And the bonkers last 25 minutes of the movie have to be seen to be believed. That alone makes Widow worth watching. It's especially worth watching for fans of Curtis's work or of that particular cycle of 70s horror, even if it's not among the best of either.

Rough around the edges, especially during the first 1/3, which is hampered by a lack of finesse with the editing, directing, and pacing. The lack of finesse with the directing shows up periodically throughout the rest of the film as well. There is also a hollowness to some of the sound, which you sometimes experience in low budget movies where they may be using not the best equipment, or maybe there's not the best use of good equipment, or perhaps issues with onset sound recording or automatic dialogue replacement. The script is also rough around the edges.

I myself and not a fan of home invasion movies, which in some respects this one is, but that's ultimately not where the plot lands. There's enough raw energy, especially with respect to Lulu Wilson's performance, to make this something to watch if you are a fan of revenge flicks.

While IMDb reviewers get it more right for a change compared with their Letterboxd peers, Reptile is nonetheless woefully underrated. There must be some truth to the seemingly stale criticism that today's audiences have a short attention span. The number of people complaining that this movie is too long... Well, these are folks who don't understand how to enjoy a slow burn, tension-filled movie. I was literally on the edge of my seat off and on throughout. The score perfectly companions the pacing and the editing. Reptile is a triumph of suspense. The acting is superb, and it's really great to see del Toro in a role like this, given how easy it is to cast him as the weird guy or the psycho. The script is deft, the story is compelling, and the conclusion is satisfying. Even the title is thought-provoking. There are a number of allusions to molting and other things reptilian. I'm still thinking on that. It is so rare these days to find a true suspense movie, let alone one that succeeds as well as this one does.

Season 1, fantastic. Season 2, has its moments but is ultimately pretty silly and disappointing. Season 2 scripts are far less tightly written, with ridiculous, comic book action sequences that lead to pivotal moments that are rendered ludicrous because of how those moments were gotten to. Season 3, fantastic. Beautifully written, at least as well acted as the first season and maybe even better. A tour de force of storytelling and writing. There is a bit of an eye rolling moment with the resolution of the mystery, but it is followed by a beautifully written and acted conclusion. Season 3 final episode, final shot, gorgeous and heart-rending. S3 cross cuts between three different time. With the same main characters. It is never confusing because the aging makeup and the way the characters act in that makeup is utterly convincing. The more I think about it the more I think season 3 is actually the best of the first three. A lot of people think it's season 1, which is understandable. Three has a far greater range of emotional and thematic impact. There are in a way a few different relationships/emotion resolution moments in the final episode, and they are all just gorgeous and poetic.

Ever watch a movie and are baffled as to why it's so underrated? Runaway Bride is one of the very best American romcoms. Period. It cleverly weaves together all the classic romcom elements while doing something different with its story. The movie is perfectly cast and perfectly acted, with wonderful chemistry between all of the characters, including primary and supporting cast, and even the tertiary characters. It is chalk full of hilarious one-liners, moments of physical comedy, and reaction shots. It also has heart, and something the very best romcoms have: genuine character development, including a few moments where you might tear up in between the laughs. People need to give this one another chance. Ignore the low IMDb and Letterboxd scores.

This episode features more effects than most, kind of cool, and some sound effects we haven't heard before. However, it is slowly paced, including a long, slow motion sequence that is ostensibly to build suspense, but more obviously there to pad the less-eventful-than-usual script. It's not a bad episode, just not on par with most. This episode features more effects than most, kind of cool, and some sound effects we haven't heard before. However, it is slowly paced, including a long, slow motion sequence that is ostensibly to build suspense, but more obviously there to pad the less-eventful-than-usual script.

A clever zombie premise and some funny moments can't compensate for or justify two moments of semi-sexual assault "humor," other unfunny genitalia "humor," and cliched, obnoxious teen male sex obsession. I'm no shrinking violet, but this movie is just full on offensive. It's trying to be a Superbad-type flick, but it's not in the same league.

Even beyond all that, it's just weirdly paced and strangely edited. Lots of movies of this kind alternate between horror moments and moments where the pacing slows down, the characters have a brief respite with a little bit of character development, some bonding, some conversation. Here, little 1 minute moments are inserted at the weirdest times, like right in the middle of zombie attacks. This doesn't seem to be done with a meta purpose, like satirizing those moments in more straight horror movies. It really seem does to come down to idiotic directing and scripting. There are also a bunch of moments when characters leave weapons behind for absolutely no reason. Again, this is not any sort of meta something or other. It's just dumb scripting. It's too bad a good (but all white - come on, people) cast is mired in such a fail. Just because something is over the top doesn't mean it's well made or should become some kind of cult flick, as this one seems to be.

Mostly anemic, but interesting in that it was written and directed by women. Aside from the ending sequence, with its boldly ludicrous psych 101 phallic emphasis, the killer is bland. Interestingly, different from Carpenter's Halloween, from which the flick takes a page or two, we see the maniac's face right from the beginning, which gives the movie a very different feel from Carpenter's endeavor. This is (literally) not the faceless Shape or the unidentifiable, perhaps otherworldly, evil. It's just a crazy dude with a battery operated power drill which never seems to run out of juice. There are a couple of clever moments along the way, but it's the ending that sets this movie somewhat apart from other slasher flicks of that era. It emphasizes trauma differently from its counterparts (not including Halloween, which is, ultimately, all about trauma). The ending is also quite humorous with its continuation of the over-the-top, on the nose phallic imagery.

Starts out slow, seemingly methodical and intriguing; continues slow and somewhat intriguing, with the slowness becoming less methodical and more suspiciously like just slow; keeps being slow, now clearly without any method to the slowness; never recovers and gets very stupid toward the end. Beyond the Black Rainbow is visually arresting for a time, the needlessly glacialbut pace, which is not thematic or atmospheric, just glacial, combines with the movie ultimately being less than the sum of its parts, makes for a disappointing and unsatisfying viewing experience. Some might call it pretentious, but at the very least it's not something I will watch a second time.

Slow burn, often effective, documentary-style ghostish story. No doubt some viewers will find it slow going, but I found it suspenseful, with an effective unfolding of the central mystery. The acting and dialogue are excellent and it's extremely well-edited. It also makes effective, clever use of the graininess, blurryness, and dim lighting of found footage. (I'm generally not a fan of found footage, which has become an eye rolling conceit rarely used as effectively as it was in the original Blair Witch Project; but it works in Lake Mungo.) The flick is marred by what I think is a needlessly sordid and tropey revelation part way through, but, bringing in a plot element from early 20th century classical ghost fiction, it comes to a satisfying, unexpectedly complex, and surprisingly poignant conclusion. Holds up to repeated viewing.

A great cast, an often laugh out loud script, and a lot of heart make this low-stakes comedy (what used to be called "feel-good comedy") worthy of repeat viewing. A great cast, an often laugh out loud script, and a lot of heart make this low-stakes comedy (what used to be called "feel-good comedy") worthy of repeat viewing. A great cast, an often laugh out loud script, and a lot of heart make this low-stakes comedy (what used to be called "feel-good comedy") worthy of repeat viewing. A great cast, an often laugh out loud script, and a lot of heart make this low-stakes comedy (what used to be called "feel-good comedy") worthy of repeat viewing.