Late Night With The Devil (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Jack Delroy is a television host who courts controversy in the face of falling ratings. On Halloween, 1977, he invites a possessed girl onto the show in this found footage slice of horror gold.

LNWTD is utterly fascinating, from the opening credits all the way through to the closing you are on the edge of your seat, taking in every subtle nuance it throws at you. That’s the opening credits of the fictional television show Night Owls With Jack Delroy. The opening of the film itself? I found it kind of weak. It’s framed as a documentary investigating the original show, but this never comes up again outside of the opening. It’s alluded to that the documentary crew are the ones who uncovered the footage played from the commercial breaks. But that doesn’t really work because the black-and-white footage feels too modern and clean in the way it’s filmed, if anything that footage should be in WORSE condition than the stuff shown on television, it should feel hand-held and rough, like it was secretly filmed and kept in a loft. The documentary isn’t even needed for that to make sense, just have it as unseen stuff that happened. The other issue with the documentary-style opening is it doesn’t say much that’s not told in the film itself. And the stuff that’s not noted in the movie is alluded to or could have easily been said. If you’re a writer and you can’t figure out how to get characters to say information during a talk show, you’ve failed.

Like a portable timepiece that shouts out your sexual fantasies at random intervals; this is a deeply unsettling watch. A lot of effort has been put in to make it feel authentic to the time, from the way it is shot, to the audio cues, all the way through to the word choices. You completely buy into the fact that this is from the time. It’s helped that it’s a found footage movie that has a reason to exist. It doesn’t feel like it’s been edited together afterwards, it feels like someone just happened to record it onto a VHS when it was being shown.

The performances are all fantastic. David Dastmalchian is great as the nervous but genial host with a dark secret. I’ve only ever seen him as a supporting character, never really buying him as a lead, that’s changed. He’s perfect for this, his vocal performance, the way he carries himself, and his facial acting, wouldn’t work with a lesser actor. Personally, I thought the best performer was Ingrid Torelli. Her performance isn’t as good, but she shows more sides to her and is given more to do, I have to mention her now because in a few years, she could break out into something fantastic, and I just want it in writing I was there early.

In summary, if you’re a horror fan, you will love this. It’s a fresh gimmick based on something a lot of people will be familiar with. It’s clever, it’s well-made, and it’s very violent when it needs to be. Importantly, it actually closes. There’s no sequel hook, it’s all very self-contained, but with the possibility of literature to find out more. Definitely not enough to stretch out to a whole new film though. It won’t quite reach horror infamy, but it will be one fans of the genre will talk about.

Immaculate (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A naive nun joins a remote convent in Italy, discovering they’re harbouring a dark secret.

I have three horror reviews to write this week: this, Late Night With The Devil, and The First Omen. I was going to review Late Night With The Devil (LNWTD, pronounced La-new-ted) first, it’s the most critically acclaimed of the three, and I have the strongest opinions regarding it. But after seeing seeing Immaculate I have to do this first. Not because my feelings towards it are particularly strong, or because I have anything important to say. I’m just not sure how I can put this and The First Omen reviews next to each other, I haven’t seen TFO (Tee-foe) yet, but there is a definite worry that they will be treading similar grounds, and I don’t want to repeat myself. Plus, if I think of any jokes after posting this, I can just use them in the TFO review. The upside of repetition in cinema.

Now onto Immaculate itself. It’s received a lot of praise, particularly for Sydney Sweeney’s performance. I’m not entirely sure I agree. The final third, she is superb, a cinematic slice of delicious cheesecake. But for most of it? She appears kind of bored. Like I said, the final third where she has the hardest stuff to do, she’s great at. But the standard conversations with others? Doesn’t feel real, with one exception. Her interactions with Sister Gwen (played by Benetta Porcaroli) are incredibly sweet and I wish I could see more of them. Sadly, Gwen is killed relatively early on. Her body is discovered in the closing section and this is filmed like it’s supposed to be a surprise. Not entirely sure it is though. The last time we saw her she was being tortured, and then she didn’t appear again for (in film time) about 6 months, obviously she’s dead. It would be a bigger shock if she wasn’t.

There is a distinct lack of surprise in Immaculate. You can pretty much plot what’s going to happen based on the synopsis, all the twists and turns are more like slight veers to the left to the left. Sorry, went a bit Beyonce there. The final third is batshit insane and I am all for it, but the lead there just isn’t that exciting. The people you expect to be shits turnout to be shits, turns out there is a massive conspiracy where the church is impregnating young nuns without their knowledge. Which is a bit stupid when you think about it, there must be millions of women who would willingly consent to that, so going after unwilling ones just seems like you’re setting yourself up to be the villain. I kind of wish that the blood they used for the procedure turned out to not be from Christ at all. There’s not a single moment where there’s any doubt that that is his blood. That’s a lot of faith. Biblical relics are not that well preserved and catalogued. There are 21 churches which claim to have the foreskin of Jesus, and that means at least 20 of them are wrong or lying unless he had 21 penises (which I think they would have mentioned in the book, but it would have meant they’d have to change the title from The Bible to The 21 Dicked Man, which won’t sell as well). So the odds that they would have the correct artifact are quite low. I do like that the film discusses how their methods are more likely to create the antichrist (and it’s implied that is what happens). But the scene where they discuss that does have someone say “If this is not the will of God, why does he not stop us?” and this is treated (even by TVTropes) as a “gotcha”. So if God allows something, this means he supports it? I think the residents of Germany in the late 1930s would have a few fucking things to say about that. As would the residents of cities hit by tsunamis and earthquakes, and people who had to watch Madame Web.

As I said, the final third is superb, and it has one of the strongest closing scenes I’ve seen since Knives Out. It’s a slow slog to get there, but it is overall worth it. This won’t end up being my favourite film of the year, not even close, but it is one I will tell people to watch if they are fans of the genre. It’s very low on jump scares, relying more on tension and atmosphere. It’s directly brilliantly (with some pretty good music choices), and I’m glad to see the horror is mostly from humanity rather than demons (which usually results in scares which are just “thing jumps at the screen but it turns out to not be real”). I do want to see a sweet friendship-based road trip dramedy starring Sydney Sweeney and Benetta Procaroli though, they bounce off each other very well and it would be a shame to waste that chemistry.

Totally Killer (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Thirty-five years after the shocking murders of three teens, an infamous killer returns on Halloween night to claim a fourth victim. When 17-year-old Jamie comes face-to-face with the masked maniac, she accidentally time-travels back to 1987 where she tries to stop the original murders, and come to terms with the idea that her mother was a complete bitch.

I went into this knowing only the title. I’m assuming I did read the concept at one point and thought it sounded interesting, but by the time I got around to watching it I had forgotten it. So I’m glad it set the tone early on, describing a murder in the 80’s. We see the murders through crime scene reconstructions (so figures and small models laid out in a model house) intercut with still shots of the actual bodies. This is a really simple way of doing a scene like that on a low budget and without coming off as cheap, so I was instantly sold that this would be creative and clever.

I then realised that this was essentially Back To The Future but as a slasher film, and I went all in. I love stuff like that. It’s been attempted before with Happy Death Day 2 U, which I absolutely loved. But I think I might prefer Totally Killer, HDD2U was good, but it didn’t play into the time travel aspect as much. This doesn’t just do a time travel slasher, it dissects the genre and approaches it from as many angles as possible. It would be really hard to do a sequel to this because it’s difficult to see what else they could do.

There’s a comment on the trailer for this that says something along the lines of “I miss the 80s, people were better back then”. Which makes me think they didn’t watch the movie. A lot of the people in this are dicks, but they’re entertaining dicks (like a penis telling jokes). Unlike something like Ferrari (spoilers for that review btw) where it’s hard to get emotionally involved since every character is a prick. In TK, the characters aren’t people you want to know in real life, but they’re funny and interesting. Plus, they’re teenagers in the 80s, so a small amount of assholeness is understandable because you know they’re not at their final form.

This is really damn funny. I went through many options for my “favourite line” in my end-of-the-year round-up. Funny dialogue comes thicker and faster than a Grimace Milkshake Ejaculation.
“When I think of serial killers I think at least 3 people”. “let’s give it up for Angie who wishes there were more people killed”
“if she did do blow jobs, maybe she’d still be alive” “Yeah, let’s not make that the lesson”
“the machines don’t kill us all. They just rip apart the fabric of our society via dance videos on TikTok”

These lines are all perfectly delivered too. I didn’t watch The Chilling Adventures Of Sabrina; nothing against it, but I worked in a shopping centre when it came out so I had to see the poster for it hundreds of times a day. As such, I’m not that familiar with the work of Kiernan Shipka, but she nails it here. It helps that she’s given a good script.

It’s a script which is depressingly realistic in terms of how it approaches murder. The commercialisation of murder is too true to not sting a little bit. On the downside, the reveal of the killer doesn’t really work. It’s probably because it’s a character we haven’t seen that much of, so when they’re unmasked it feels more like “who?”. If the opening third had another 10 minutes it might have helped flesh him out.
In summary, this is on Amazon Prime, and that’s apt, as this is a prime cut of fresh horror.
Fuck that’s a terrible line, isn’t it? Ah well, go see this movie.

Thanksgiving (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: A year on from a black friday tragedy (that the town doesn’t really feel haunted by), an axe-wielding killer is killing people, sometimes with an axe.

It may not seem like it sometimes, but I do genuinely love horror movies, they’re often on my list of favourite films. But they’re also my least favourite. Horror is all about personal taste. To some people, a certain film may be the best film they’ve ever seen, to some, they just won’t like it no matter how many positive reviews they see; it’s just not their type. It’s a lot like comedy in that sense (or porn, actually, now I think about it).

I know that some people love this film, and I can see why. It’s gory, has some very creative kills, and is unique. But it’s all just so miserable and pretty much every single character is a prick. You don’t really want to see anybody survive. All you want is for someone to appear and beat everybody on-screen to death with a shit-covered hammer. This is a common problem in horror movies; characters are so unlikeable that you cheer when horrible things happen to them. But they’re also characters who we have to spend all our time with, and that 90% of time spent being annoyed isn’t worth the small catharsis.

I try not to go into spoilers too much in my reviews but I feel I have to do so here to demonstrate a logical issue I have with it. It’s mentioned early on that nobody involved in the riot at the start was prosecuted and the police couldn’t do anything. The killer turns out to be the local cop. Now call me crazy but I don’t think it would be that difficult for a small-town cop to invent a reason to arrest or kill someone. Literally, all he’d need to do is say “They were speeding, they got aggressive so I had to shoot them”. Yeah, it wouldn’t make the deaths echo as much as they did, and it wouldn’t be as cinematic, but it would be a lot more effective, and he wouldn’t need to wait a year to do it. He could even pull people over and say he needs to check their car for drugs etc, then subtly cut their brakes. I know I’m expecting too much from something dumb, but if something is dumb it can at least have the decency to not be so utterly miserable throughout.

From a technical standpoint, it’s all fine. The performances are standard for a horror film, with Patrick Dempsey being the only obvious standout. It’s not helped by how generic a lot of the characters are, to the point where a climactic final scene involving finding dead bodies left me trying to figure out who those people were.

In summary, I get why people would be into this. But for me, it was a case of “too bleak, stopped caring”. The closing credits were pretty fun though.

Slotherhouse (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: Emily (Lisa Ambalavanar) adopts a sloth as a mascot to win a school election against alpha mega bitch Brianna (Sydney Craven). So far, so Mean Girls. The sloth then starts killing everybody.

As I settled down to watch this, I had one thought in my mind “When will that dickhead outside stop revving his car?” he eventually stopped and not because his car mysteriously exploded, and I had another thought “I hope this isn’t too serious”. The concept for this, a killer sloth, is ridiculous, and there was a slight concern that it would take itself too seriously. If they don’t lean into the inherent silliness of the concept, then it’s doomed. Thankfully, the film seems aware that it’s kind of dumb, even lampooning its own title by having a character say it out loud and being met with an awkward silence.

Sometimes the stupidity works against it. Yes, it is a stupid premise, but there are moments where the characters are treating it as such. Airplane worked because the characters took it seriously, it doesn’t seem like they are in this. The death of Mayflower (a character, not the ship populated by colonists whose ancestors would then complain about immigration) in particular goes on way too long due to the characters not taking it seriously. They make jokes, insult the soon-to-be dying, and just generally seem like they’re having fun.

Another downside is that some of the side characters are seriously one-dimensional. This really hurts the death scenes that take place in the montage because you’re not entirely sure who these people are. There is also an issue of “how exactly is the sloth hiding all these bodies?” I’m more forgiving of certain things in films like this. I’ll allow certain cheap looks or plot mistakes purely because it’s not meant to be taken seriously, that being said, the montage massacre doesn’t really acknowledge the sheer amount of deaths. You get a few “where the fuck is [character]?” messages but there’s no fear or consequences. Nobody is panicking about the missing characters. This is particularly strange as one of the main plot points is a leadership vote going on, so you’d think if a character is obsessed with making sure they get all the votes possible, they’d notice if their friends suddenly went missing.

Now onto the upside; it’s very fun. You may be dumbfounded, but you won’t be bored. I mentioned how underwhelming some of the side characters are, but the ones we do get a decent look at are amazing. I do have to commend how characters are introduced: by their social media splash pages, so you INSTANTLY know everybody’s personalities. It’s unsubtle as hell, but it suits the film style so it doesn’t look out of place. It would help if we were given their real names instead of user names, so we know how to actually refer to these people. But I do appreciate how smart the splash page stuff is. It’s fun, it’s inventive, and it suits the social media age that we’re now living in.

I also appreciate how real the sloth looks. I can’t say for certain but it looks like it was mostly in camera effects, so puppetry/animatronics instead of post-production CGI. It looks kind of goofy, but it does work. The sloth attacks have some actual weight to them and feel real. There are moments where it’s kind of unsloth-like in its movements, but it mostly just looks right. I also appreciate how it is a new idea rather than just another f*cking sequel or reboot. It also closes the film in a way that is definitive so it doesn’t NEED a sequel, but keeps it open-ended enough that there COULD be one, maybe sloths in space? Doing things that astronauts do (but doing it real slowly because they’re sloths).

Another highlight; is the performances. It is a weirdly British cast for a concept that is SO American, but at no point do their accents fail. To the point where I was going to point out how Tiff Stevenson is far too English to be in such an American film, then looked into the cast and turns out pretty much all of the leads are English. The best performer is without a doubt Bianca Beckles-Rose, who doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page at the time of writing. I can tell her performance is good because the character is essentially a stoner, and they can sometimes be the most annoying characters in horror movies because how they’re only used for stupidity. Beckles-Rose injects Zenny with enough realism that she feels like a fully fleshed-out character. This is the only thing I’ve seen her in but I would love to see her lead a rom-com or YA action franchise. I loved every single second she was on screen and I’m looking forward to see what she does next.

So in summary; watch this if you’ve got Paramount+, it’s worth a stream, and I think originality should always be rewarded. You might not think of it as the best film of the year, but if you get some friends around, get some drinks and some pizzas in, and watch it whilst being fully aware of how ridiculous it is, you’ll have a good time.

Five Nights At Freddy’s (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Mike (Josh Hutcherson) gets a job as a night security guard at an abandoned family entertainment centre with animals are that animatronic, sociopathic, hydromatic, why they’re greased lightning! Wait, not greased lightning, murderers, I’m always getting those two mixed up.

Should start this review of Five Nights At Freddy’s (FNAF, pronounced Fon-arf) pointing out that I really don’t give a shit about youtube culture. I watch Dead Meat and History Buffs etc, but the whole “hey guys, it’s your boy here” bullshit accompanied by atrocious camera cuts, overacting reactions to everything like “So I was playing Mario and OMG you guys, OMG you guys, I found a coin”. As such, I’m not really a part of what seemed to be a huge selling point for this movie; that it featured popular YouTubers. It is based on a famous franchise, but when I had conversations with the intended target audience the things they mentioned were the potential cameos. I’m glad that they didn’t cast them as main characters, but the fact that cameos are the main features of a film is a bad sign.

I’ll admit, I’m not that familiar with the franchise, but that shouldn’t matter. I’ve seen some comments about the negative review FNAF has got, basically saying “A lot of the negative reviews are from people who haven’t played the games”. Well, yeah. It has to be good enough to stand up on its own merits, it’s not a sequel, it’s a separate iteration, and the games should be irrelevant. You shouldn’t need to be a fan of the games to enjoy this film.

Thankfully, it’s a pretty easy film to follow, there are no moments where you feel you had to be a fan of the franchise to understand what was going on. There’s no doubt that it would improve things, though. Because there’s still a level of excitement for seeing characters and references on the big screen. I’m assuming that’s why fans of the game like the film anyway, as there’s not really anything else going on. It’s a horror movie without gore, without suspense, and without scares. The performances are good though, mostly. There’s one moment where Josh Hutcherson is a little too OTT and it feels like he’s “acting” rather than being, but when he’s a scared and withdrawn adult haunted by his demons, he nails it. Matthew Lillard is great as always, but his being seemingly cast as a throw-away character almost feels like a spoiler as to who he really is. Piper Rubio outshines all of them though. She’s only 8 years old but never misses a beat, even when she has to express some relatively complex concepts. I haven’t seen a child perform this well since McKenna Grace in Gifted. Her relationship with her brother, and her need for social acceptance, is a core part of the narrative of FNAF. The moments where it dwells on that are the strongest parts of the film (that and the animatronic work which is sublime).

A big issue is that you’re constantly reminded of better films. Willy’s Wonderland explored similar concepts a few years ago, so whilst watching FNAF my brain was like a politician who just voted to criminalise homosexuality, I just couldn’t stop thinking about Willy. I’m not sure if that joke works outside of the UK as I’m not certain “willy” is slang for penis in the US etc, but I’m sure now that I’ve explained the joke, that’s only made it funnier.

Like I said, when it’s not a horror movie, when it’s a family drama dealing with loss, that’s when it’s at its best. The horror aspects just don’t work. Probably because of the rating, it’s incredibly bloodless, with obvious camera cutaways obscuring what you want to see. This would be fine if there was an air of menace, but there’s not. The lack of menace isn’t helped by how it feels too written, there’s no grounding it in reality. I don’t mean in terms of “well this would never happen, robots wouldn’t be that sophisticated”, I mean it in a “these characters only exist in this film”, you don’t get the feeling anything has happened before the film starts. Put it this way; if you lived in a small town and there was a family restaurant that has been abandoned for years, you’d notice wouldn’t you? And if a bunch of kids went missing and the owner of the restaurant was accused, you’d notice, wouldn’t you? And if the owner of that restaurant then got a government job helping unemployed people back to work, that would be a story, wouldn’t it? But the main character has never heard of the restaurant before he starts working there, isn’t aware of children being kidnapped, and didn’t link it to his brothers’ disappearance. He also doesn’t seem to have done anything about the dead bodies that pile up, one of which is in his house and is a woman he’s had an intense legal battle with. But nope, nothing indicating he’s been accused of killing her, no indication about what he did with the body, we didn’t see the aftermath, so there is no aftermath. It’s lazy, and it’s an issue that could be easily dealt with if the screenwriters were paying attention. But who needs rewrites, right?

Saw X (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Bullshit medical charlatans con cancer patients out of their life savings, one of whom is the Jigsaw killer, smart move.

I have a complicated history with the Saw franchise (see my review for Spiral), I have all of them on Blu-ray except for Jigsaw which I have on DVD, I’ve seen 4 of them at the cinema, and I even liveblogged the (at the time) complete franchise a few years ago for Halloween. Yet if you were to ask me what my favourite 50 horror films are, outside of possibly the first one I don’t think any of them would feature. If I was to mention some of my least favourite moments in cinema, and another list of my favourite moments, the Saw franchise would feature a lot more in the first list than the second. It’s a franchise of wasted potential. I’ve insulted them a lot, but if I was asked to write and make a new film in any horror franchise, it would definitely be a Saw one.

Saw X (pronounced how a person from Boston would say “socks”) is probably the best Saw film yet. By which I don’t mean the most enjoyable, or with the best deaths/motives etc. I mean it’s the one that feels the most mature. When it comes to horror movies, people tend to use “mature” as a shortcut for “lots of blood, swearing, and nudity”, but to me, true maturity is in restraint (not restraints, that’s a different kind of mature content). It’s in trusting that the audience is with you, so you don’t need to resort to constant deaths and shock. I know a lot of people watch this specifically for the traps, but for people who are willing to wait and show a little patience, it’s the most rewarding one yet.

Saw X is also helped by how independent it is from the other entries in the franchise. Amanda Young being in it does mean that if you’ve watched the first three then you’d have a better understanding, but I don’t think it’s essential. It provides you with the very basic necessary details so even newcomers won’t be lost. The post-credits scene probably does require some background knowledge, but in a post-credits that’s allowed.

Now onto the bad; the ending is somewhat underwhelming in terms of catharsis. Saw has never decided to not take an opportunity to be cruel to those it feels deserve it (and in the case of Joyce in Saw 3D, those who don’t deserve it), so the fact that we are given one of the most despicable humans in cinema history should mean we are given a hugely satisfying scene, but it never really comes. If anybody deserves to be put through hell it’s some of the characters in this, but we’re denied it for some reason.

It’s also not helped by how utterly pointless it feels. There’s a moment where John Kramers’s life is in danger, yet we’ve seen him die in another film so we know he survives. This entry doesn’t add to the mythos, doesn’t change anything we thought was true etc. It just exists, like it was written without the knowledge of what’s to come. It feels like it’s just plugging in gaps which weren’t there to begin with. It feels more like a cheap comic book that would be released between movies than an actual movie which is a shame. It also has the same problem most of these have had; it feels very insular. You don’t get the feeling that this is a world in the grips of a mysterious serial killer. There are almost no indication that Jigsaw is being hunted by the police, no moments where he has to escape possible prosecution etc.

Really, this whole franchise was f*cked by the decision to kill John Kramer so decisively in the third film, it’s been spinning its wheels since then and it knows it. This brings me to my next point; they don’t really refer to him as Jigsaw that much in this. They do refer to him as Kramer quite a lot, and as someone who has been watching a lot of Seinfeld lately, it’s difficult to get past.

Talk To Me (2022) Review

Quick Synopsis: When a group of friends discovers how to conjure spirits by using an embalmed hand, they become hooked on the new thrill — until one of them unleashes terrifying supernatural forces.

Talk To Me has a rotten tomatoes score of 95%, and the lone negative user review on Metacritic is from someone complaining about how it’s “too woke” and not representative of current American racial demographics. This is a stupid criticism of a film that’s set in Australia.

So other than that dickhead, most reviews are highly positive from both critics and audiences. But I have to say; I don’t get it. I mean, it’s good. Everybody involved is clearly talented, especially Sophie Wilde as the lead Mia (side note; Mia is the name of my cat. So every time someone said “Mia! No!” my brain automatically added “stop pissing there, go outside”). Joe Bird comes off as a multiverse version of Barry Keoghan, and I mean that in a positive way. The Philippou Brothers (best known as RackaRacka on youtube) are obviously talented directors. It’s not that I didn’t like the film; I just felt it could and should have been a lot better.

The gap between the potential and the reality is huge. I can’t exactly pinpoint why. I think part of it is there are some scenes that feel like filler. The first two parties where the characters interact with the hand (and then it gets out of……hand in the second party) could have been combined into one. There also could have been more done with the guy from the opening; who appears in the opening scene, gets stabbed by his brother, and then is completely absent until one scene later on where he provides information that could have come from anyone, then disappears again. If you removed him from it then the only noticeable hole in the script would be that you don’t have an opening.

I also feel the possession scenes could have been done better. The characters describe it as almost euphoric, like it’s akin to certain drugs. But the film doesn’t really let us FEEL that. If you turn the sound off and watch it, you’d have no idea that the characters are experiencing an intense positive rush.

It’s a shame as with a few tweaks this could have been among my favourite films of the year. But I sense that everything could have been better. This must have been how Metallica fans felt after listening to St. Anger

Pearl (2022) Review

Quick synopsis: Trapped on an isolated farm, Pearl must tend to her ailing father under the watch of her mother. Lusting for the glamorous life she’s seen in movies, Pearl’s temptations and repressions collide and she starts killing people, one of which she leaves near the entrance of her house, literally sending her to the Pearl-ey gates.

I actually wasn’t a fan of X, it just didn’t vibe with me. So I went into this with slight apprehension, worried that I might end up being bored very early on. The good news is, I didn’t dislike it for a long time of it. The downside, the longer Pearl went on, the less love I had for it. I loved the stylistic choices, and the performances are incredible. I just, I dunno, at some point I just stopped caring. Once I got past the Wizard Of Oz feel, I wasn’t that engrossed by it. It’s not helped that I didn’t like any of the characters. The titular Pearl is a sociopath, her mother is unbearably cruel, and the projectionist seems a little too date-rapey. Also, they’re not quite despicable enough to be villains. Pearl is driven mainly by her ambition and desires to leave her farm (which anybody who has seen X will know she never does), Pearls’ mother recognises that Pearl is capable of great evil, so she is trying to protect the world from her. So you can’t really truly despise them either. In a film full of colours, all the characters are too morally grey to feel too strongly about.

I think I need to watch more Ti West, as it is possible I just don’t like his writing style. Others do, and I can see why. He writes like a 70s horror writer, so you know that no matter what, it won’t be stupid, and it will take its time. His stuff mainly seems to be very slow burns, which normally I like, but I feel it didn’t really lead to much this time. It’s like watching a car slowly roll down a hill, you expect it to crash at the end, but instead, it just slows down gradually and comes to a stop.

Everybody involved is obviously talented, Mia Goth gives an incredible performance, one scene, in particular, is a master class in acting where she just gives an unbroken monologue to her friend. Tandi Wright is also great as the mother of Pearl, I wouldn’t trade her for another girl. That’s a reference to this song btw, I haven’t just decided on a really weird sentence structure.

Matthew Sunderland gives a weirdly good performance considering his character can’t move, but his eye work is tremendous. There is a definite love for the art here, the fact that Ti West, when he needed an illicit film, didn’t just invent one, or find a random one, he actually showed A Free Ride, which is seen as the earliest American porn movie that is still available for viewing today. It’s obvious he knows his shit, it’s just not for me.

If this was a short film, I’d have loved it. If it actually did more with the concept than the “we have an idea”, I’d have liked it. But as a feature? For a film which features genuine pornography, there’s surprisingly little meat. Also, it’s weird this received a US cinema release in September last year, and a Blu-ray/DVD release in November, yet didn’t come out here until March. Wtf is up with that?

Scream VI (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: People from Woodsboro get stabbed, this time in New York

I am a massive fan of the Scream franchise (despite only managing to catch one of them at the cinema), so a new one is always welcome. They don’t just work as slasher horrors, but also as murder mysteries, you watch them and look for clues to work out who the killers is, and why. The duel genre nature of the franchise is one I’ve always been a fan of, so I was looking forward to this. Scream movies have always started well, and have always been unexpected. The first one killed off Drew Barrymore, the third one killed off returning character Cotton Weary, the fourth was….well it was very weird, the fifth one started with the person who was attacked surviving, and this? This started with someone being brutally murdered, and the killer unmasking himself. It’s a shockingly different way to start the film off, and I love it. I’ll say this now, it’s genius. It subverts expectations twice, and both times it blew my mind and got me very excited.

The ending? Not so much. Scream 3 gets a lot of shit for the killer reveal, but it was still a lot better than this. In the third one, there was still some ambiguity about who the killer could be and what their motives were, we were presented with numerous possibilities, but enough clues so that we could possibly figure it out (but maybe not the “why”). Scream VI does the opposite, it’s blindingly obvious who the killers are. When you have a character say they “had” a son, and also have them talk about swearing revenge on those who hurt his family, it’s not difficult to figure out that they’re the killer, and the motive. Related to this, if a character in a slasher movie dies off-screen and you don’t see the body properly, they didn’t die. This is incredibly obvious to everybody who has seen a movie before. It’s an incredibly disappointing reveal, even more so because it starts wonderfully.

The rest of Scream VI is fun to watch, well, as fun as watching people get brutally murdered can be. The kills are disgustingly brutal, it gets really specific with where the knife goes. Someone being stabbed directly in the throat will always be a manner of murder that stands out more than just stabs in the back or chest. That being said, there is a scene where someone gets stabbed in the chest repeatedly and the sheer violence of it is shocking, so there is a way to do something as simple as that in a way that makes it stand out.

Usually, “[killer name] in Big City” is a sign a horror franchise has gone off the rails, second only to “in space” as a sign that the movie is going to be shit. I actually like the way they use the location here. New York is loud, so it is conceivable that somebody can be stabbed in an alleyway and nobody will notice. I will respect this for not doing the obvious scenes in Times Square etc. It is in New York, but it’s not a tour of the landmarks. Instead, it is a way to introduce different horror set pieces, the scene on the subway system is incredible, although it was ruined in the previews (as was the scene in the bodega). There are moments where it does get a bit too “You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us!” Spider-Man-like.

The big story leading up to the release was the absence of Neve Campbell, who refused to make an appearance due to Paramount deciding not to pay her enough because they’re bastards. I have to be honest though, I’m not sure what she would have done in this. There’s not really a Sidney Prescott-shaped hole in this story. If there’s a sequel then there will have to be a discussion about bringing her back, but the story they’re telling here? She would have seemed superfluous. They do explain her absence, and it’s a way that makes sense. Without Neve, Scream VI focuses more on the characters introduced in last year’s Scream. The only legacy character to return is Gale Weathers, but Courtney Cox only appears in roughly 4 scenes. Her character seems to have reverted to her Scream 1 persona, in a character development that doesn’t make much sense. Her scenes do feature a nice reference to how she and Ghostface have never really spoken much, but aside from that, Gale’s scenes seem a bit superfluous.

Not quite established enough to be a legacy character, but also returning from this is Hayden Panettiere’s Kirby Reed, who was last seen (and introduced) in Scream 4,or to give it proper (a.k.a, stupid) title: Scre4m (pronounced Screfourm, obviously). It is nice to see her back, not just in this franchise, but in Hollywood in general, with this being Hayden’s first film appearance since Custody in 2016. Kirby’s character arc is a great examination of how characters react to events like this, although I would like to see her explored more in the future.

The rest of the cast is great too, Melissa Barrera keeps her upward trajectory, but I feel this does slightly stall the momentum Jenna Ortega is on from Wednesday. Not due to the quality of the script, but there are moments near the start where her performance seems a little bit weak. Not “OMG this is terrible” level, but it feels like she’s operating at a slightly lower level than everybody else. In a film full of Lennon and McCartney, she’s a George Harrison; still very good, but overshadowed.

So in summary; go see this. It’s very good, although you may get a headache from how many times the “How did they survive that?” alarm in your head goes off.