31 by 31 Challenge #5: SLEEPY HOLLOW (1999)

Richly designed. Pervasive in atmosphere. Whimsical at turns and unrelenting at others, Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow has become a Halloween staple since its debut, and with good reason. It's a low-scare but high-gore horror film the likes of which could only be produced by the strange love affair between creator and star that's gone a little tepid over the years but here is still quite potent.

Sleepy Hollow (1999)
Released: November 19, 1999
Director: Tim Burton
Screenplay: Andrew Kevin Walker; based on the short story "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" by Washington Irving

Tagline: "Heads Will Roll"

Cast:
Johnny Depp as Ichabod Crane
Christina Ricci as Katrina Van Tassel
Miranda Richardson as Lady Van Tassel
Michael Gambon as Baltus Van Tassel
Casper Van Dien as Brom Van Brunt
Christopher Walken as The Headless Horseman

First Time View?: More like tenth-time view

New York City constable Ichabod Crane is sent to the small hamlet of Sleepy Hollow to investigate a series of mysterious deaths involving beheadings. The logical Crane searches for a human perpetrator, naturally, but is confounded when the locals insist that the culprit is none other than the ghost of the legendary Headless Horseman. A contemporary spin on the classic colonial tale, Burton's take on the story involves witchcraft, superstition, myth, history, and science all in one delicious cocktail.

This Gothic take on the well-known story stays true to the bones of the original while adding wit, life, charm, and that particular Burtonesque touch that makes his films so signature and standout. Together with his longtime muse and partner-in-weird Johnny Depp the two craft a refreshing take on old lore. Ichabod Crane is less flashy than some of Depp's other roles under Burton (or Disney, for that matter), but no less compelling. Depp plays off a deft balance between ironic squeamishness and overblown bravado in the character. His charisma brings lightness to the darkness of the narrative, themes, and tone of the film, which is spot-on October glee. 

Dank woods and dead leaves flank the period-appropriate set that's heightened by stylization but does not distract or displace the viewer. A never-ending mist hangs over everything and you can almost feel the cold seep from your screen as you watch. Color is brought out in eerie yet subtle magnitude--rich blood reds, stark chalk whites--contrasting the lingering gray and producing an almost mesmerizing effect. The costumes and props all evoke the tone and the era as well, making this one of the most beautifully visualized horror films you'll ever find.

"Off with their heads! Wait, that's the other one..."

Depp is perfect in the role and carries us through the plot breathlessly, but he's also aided by a spectacular cast including Christina Ricci, Michael Gambon, Miranda Richardson, Ian McDiarmid, Michael Gough (who came out of retirement to play the role of the notary), Richard Griffiths, Casper Van Dien, Jeffrey Jones, and Christopher Walker as the Hessian (later Headless) Horseman. PLUS a cameo from the legendary Christopher Lee.

The liberties taken in the story are all justified ones for the most. A few times the story is in danger of becoming too convoluted, but there's always enough time for plot points to breathe before the audience has to take the next sharp turn in the narrative. The backstories fashioned for both the Horseman and Ichabod are interesting and add depth. The spurts of violence and gore mingle well with the blustery, ghostly parts of the tale. 

Professional, high-powered performances, supremely rendered sets, shots, and landscapes, and a near-perfect narrative balance between dark and comic make Sleepy Hollow a wicked, delightful, and enveloping film. There's nothing like a New England October. Or a NEw England ghost story, and you can find both in spades with this film, filled with all sorts of newly imagined twists and turns. So have some fun, go for a ride. Just be careful not to lose your head.


Sleepy Hollow
5-Totally Terrifying
4-Crazy Creepy
3-Fairly Frightening
2-Slightly Scary
1-Hardly Horror

31 by 31 Challenge #4: WRONG TURN (2003)

Inbreeding. Deformed mutants. Cannibalism. Victims making the worst possible decision in any given scenario. That's right, it's time to take a bite out of Wrong Turn if you've got the stomach for it...

Wrong Turn (2003)
Released: May 30, 2003
Director: Rob Schmidt
Screenplay: Alan B. McElroy

Tagline: "It's the last one you'll ever take"

Cast:
Desmond Harrington as Chris Flynn
Eliza Dushku as Jessie Burlingame
Emmanuelle Chriqui as Carly
Julian Richings as Three Finger
Garry Robbins as Saw Tooth
Ted Clark as One Eye

First Time View?: If only

Brooding hero Chris is attempting to get home as fast as he can, winding away down the highways of West Virginia. When traffic screeches to a halt, he takes a detour through a mountain pass and ends up crashing into some fellow youths who popped a flat tire on their way to go camping and partake in assorted debaucheries. Now they're one big lost happy family and oh right, they're being hunted by three cannibals that have been warped physically and mentally by generations of inbreeding. 

The Wrong Turn series is a curious fixture in the world of horror. When it first came out it gained a reputation for being sick and slick, but if you compare it to other major studio horror releases from, say, 2000-2005, it's actually not quite up to par. This first entry feels very indie, in fact, though there are some decent gross-out scenes when the group stumbles upon the mountain men's homestead and finds out what's cooking. The makeup for the cannibals is definitely big budget too, and probably the movie's strongest feature. But the rest comes off very low-budget. 

That's not a bad thing by any means, but when you're production value doesn't match the very clearly studio mandated level of storytelling, it's somewhat jarring. Typically independent horror films offer something new or fresh to the genre. This is either because a studio won't take the risk of telling a darker, more complicated, or confusing story, or because budget and time constraints force independent filmmakers to get extra creative in how to tell their tale. But there's nothing new about the plot, characters, or setting of Wrong Turn. Teenagers get lost. Teenagers get hacked. Teenagers fight back. Setup to repeat in sequels ad nauseam. It's a mix of The Hills Have Eyes (1977), Deliverance (1972), and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1973) resulting in a somewhat bland milkshake. 

And a vanilla one, at that...

But a milkshake is still a milkshake, after all, and there are good points to bring up here. There are some great camera angles and shots that work perfectly for a backwoods horror film, the special effects are effective and fairly seamless, and the actors do a solid job with parts that are neither particularly challenging or interesting. The shortened 84-minute runtime also ensures that not a single frame is wasted. This is impressive given that the film actually takes its time in setting up the atmosphere before unleashing the cannibals on both the characters and the audience. They're often shielded from view or played in shadow until the most climactic moments, heightening the dread and the shock value when we finally get a glimpse of their monstrous faces.

Overall, Wrong Turn is a very paint-by-numbers horror film that still gets the job done and delivers on violence and visuals without overstaying its welcome and making you feel as though you've wasted your time. It's a perfect movie for the Halloween season when your brain just isn't up to something more cerebral or complex but you still want to watch a fright flick. It's a popcorn movie, is what I'm getting at. So grab a bowl and throw it on some time; you'll have fun. Just make sure you look down each time you grab a handful, or you never know what you'll end up eating...


Wrong Turn
5-Totally Terrifying
4-Crazy Creepy
3-Fairly Frightening
2-Slightly Scary
1-Hardly Horror

31 by 31 Challenge #3: WILLOW CREEK (2013)

The hunt for Bigfoot is on in this independent, low-budget found footage creature feature from Bobcat Goldthwait and the result...well, it's every bit as expected and strange as you would expect from such a combination.

Willow Creek (2013)
Released: June 6, 2014
Director: Bobcat Goldthwait
Screenplay: Bobcat Goldthwait

Tagline: "Existing Soon"

Cast:
Bryce Johnson as Jim
Alexie Gilmore as Kelly

First Time View?: Yessum

True Bigfoot believer Jim heads out to the Six Rivers National Forest with his longtime girlfriend Kelly in tow to shoot a documentary retracing the steps of the famous 1967 Patterson-Gimlin footage, which purportedly shows a Sasquatch tromping through the woods and looking back at the camera. Kelly, talented filmmaker and skeptic, agrees to humor Jim and considers the road trip his birthday present. Her real aspirations lie elsewhere in California, namely Hollywood.

They first sojourn in the town of Willow Creek, a small mountain village that has built an industry out of Bigfoot lore and merchandise--bookstores, museums, murals, statues, even restaurants serving Bigfoot burgers. Jim interviews a few locals who tell tales of their strange encounters with the great hairy beast, or who deny his existence altogether, and then they head off into the forest proper to find the forgotten Patterson-Gimlin campsite. Enter Harbinger of Doom character who chases them away. Follow-up with sequence of protagonists hiking into the forest through a secret backtrail, tenting it up for the night and then finding their evening disturbed by strange occurrences, odd sounds, and a threatening presence.

Guys, The Blair Witch Project this ain't. Which is such a shame because there is SO MUCH POTENTIAL for Bigfoot monster movies. Why is this not a larger subgenre of creature features?? I guess because, as this movie shows, it's easy to botch. Now in its defense, not every found footage movie has or should be BWP, but when you tread the same tropes as the ultimate FF king, the comparisons become obvious and inevitable. As such, there's nothing new here beyond typical found footage cliches and rote motions. It's all very horror-movie-paint-by-numbers. Which, I can ration off considering writer/director Bobcat Goldthwait has never really done straight-up horror before (maybe you could argue God Bless America?), so working inside a formula or a checklist could have been a comfort mechanism for him, but there's always room for at least a little bit of spice amidst these kinds of recyclings. 

"Did you hear that?" "Yeah, I think it was the beginning of 'Formation' " 

And I think that's the real crime of Willow Creek: it's boring. We spend so much time following this couple, watching them talk and talk and walk and talk and...sit quietly and listen I guess too? I mean it's a full hour before anything interesting even happens, and when your movie is only 80 minutes long, that's a problem. It makes the build-up seem extraneous, not tense. 

Both actors do a fine job, at least. Kelly is written well and Gilmore plays her very realistically and sympathetically. She's our lens to this strange adventure and the quirky eccentricities of boyfriend Jim, whose obsession with finding the elusive creature in the woods turns him into the "Heather Donahue" character. The character could come off as self-involved and vain with ease, but Johnson redeems him during a midnight proposal scene in the couple's tent that is sweet, honest, and tender. Unfortunately what follows is an 18-minute long take of the couple just being like "I heard something. Did you hear something?" back and forth until the Second Coming. 

The very, very, very final moments of the film show promise and an eye for tension and execution, but it's not enough to save the film proper. I'd be interested to see Goldthwait tackle horror proper. The found footage subgenre can be very tricky, and it's hard to pull off well. Even though Willow Creek tells a familiar story with new faces, the viewer still ends up feeling completely and utterly lost in the woods. And not in a fun way.


Willow Creek
5-Totally Terrifying
4-Crazy Creepy
3-Fairly Frightening
2-Slightly Scary
1-Hardly Horror

31 by 31 Challenge #2: mother! (2017)

The 31 by 31 Challenge continues with the much buzzed about and controversial mother!, Darren Aronofsky's latest surreal, visual dazzler. Pretentious tripe or cinematic genius? Well, it's been called both and everything else in between in the week since release. For my own thoughts, do please read on...

mother! (2017)
Released: September 15, 2017
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Screenplay: Darren Aronofsky

Tagline: "Seeing is believing"

Cast:
Jennifer Lawrence as mother
Javier Bardem as Him
Ed Harris as man
Michelle Pfeiffer as woman
Domhnall Gleeson as oldest son
Brian Gleeson as younger brother

First Time View?: Oh yeah


mother! (intentionally stylized with the lower-case "m" and "!" because SYMBOLISM) is the latest film from head-trippy writer/director Darren Aronofsky, who is best known for Requiem for a Dream (2000), the most disturbing but successful anti-drug drama you'll ever find, and Black Swan (2010), the sinister ballet thriller that won over audiences and critics alike and earned Natalie Portman a Best Actress Oscar. Despite debates over categorization for these movies, I argue that all three are psychological horror films. They're designed to mess with your head, produce a sense of rising dread and unease, leaving a sense of pervasive devastation in their wake, and all mix in body horror and a few jump scares for safe measure. Watching an Aronofsky film often leaves one feeling battered, tearful, and scrambling to throw Family Guy up on Netflix.

mother! is no exception, and yet it is. We follow a married couple, Bardem, playing a once-famous poet, and Lawrence, home renovator and caretaker extraordinaire, as their peaceful lives in their grand, crumbling home in the middle of nowhere becomes disrupted by surprise guests, leading to a series of increasingly violent and bizarre events. Unlike its famous predecessors, mother! was marketed as the horror film that it is, but in a strange way, giving off a more straightforward home invasion or even a haunting vibe. Don't get me wrong, the horror is there, but not in the ways that the trailer leads you to believe. The intense push to connect the film to Rosemary's Baby (1968) was a little overdone, though there are obvious echoes in the film itself. The mother character is certainly framed by her husband, Him, to be paranoid and over-reactionary to potentially dangerous situations. The isolated mansion, which mother is slowly rebuilding into a "paradise" could be something straight out of a Gothic horror melodrama, and the unwelcome visitors (Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer) steer the film both into both home invasion and vampire flick territory. There are all sorts of things it could be, and that it even becomes at different points, all under the bent umbrella of psychological horror, and part of the point of the movie is to figure out what kind of story it is, something unusual in mainstream cinema. 

Therein lies the crux, though, because mother! is not mainstream cinema, it's arthouse cinema masquerading as having widespread appeal. That charade goes out the window in the third act when things go so topsy-turvy not even the most seasoned film analysts could predict the outcome. If you know a thing or two about literary subtext, however, you'll fare far better. Hell, if you ever went to Sunday school, you'll know exactly what Aronofsky is doing. Because, as Frodo would say, at the end of all things, mother! is an allegory. An allegory of biblical proportions. 

"Looking for my motivation..."

Metaphorical storytelling can work very, very well in the horror genre. Recent worthy examples would be It Follows (2014) and The Babadook (2014). In these sorts of films, the scenarios on the surface are just window dressing, familiar stories to engage the mainstream viewer while the real story plays out under the surface, hidden behind invisible entities and unknown dangers that stand in for ideas and concepts far grander. For It Follows, the dangers of modern hook-up culture, emotional and physical consequences of sex. For The Babadook, the manifestations of grief and depression. With mother!, there is not as clear of a one-on-one parallel. 

It's biblical allegory, most certainly. Javier Bardem's Him, the only character whose name is capitalized in the credits, functions as God, the great creator bathing in the worship of hordes of increasingly volatile fans, who even utters the line "I am I" at one point. Lawrence is mother, THE mother--Mother Earth--cultivating the idyllic Eden the two share with her gentle touch, always pictured barefoot and in soft, warm tones, whose fury is unleashed once she is pushed too far. Harris, Pfeiffer, and the Gleeson brothers play out the drama of Adam and Eve, and the tragedy of Cain and Abel. Gradually we move through early biblical stories--there's even a flood metaphor in the form of a burst pipe--until the house is swarming with crazed, cultic fans; overrun with violence and nonsensical, chaotic imagery all culminating in a tragic and grotesque climax that sets the world ablaze. Armageddon, if you will.

But of course, it is also about art. About the incubine relationship between artist and muse. It is about marriage and how women can be undercut, silenced, and trapped in abusive relationships with seemingly benign men. It's about Aronofsky himself, and his inability to put his loved ones before his work. It's about siphoning the emotions of others to fuel one's own ego. It's about the dangers of organized religion and how it can lend itself to radicalism and fanaticism. It's about the ecology, climate change, and nasty ways we treat our one home planet. It's about how the relationship between audience and art can be vicious and disturbing. It's about nightmares and claustrophobia and madness and love and obsession and passion and sacrifice. Sounds like it's about everything right? That it could stand in or mean all these different ideas, represent all these different concepts? Except, in the end, it's about nothing. Which is unfortunate.

That guy just ate the last deviled egg!

There's too much going on in mother! All of these symbols and metaphors swirling around to play out this allegory don't have any real weight behind them. Just because your film is an allegory, doesn't  make it a good film. mother! says nothing new. The layers and interpretations of the allegory are too varied and too abstract. This leaves the movie meaning a lot, but without that meaning actually meaning anything...gosh, can I say "meaning" one more time?

My point being, we all know these messages that mother! is trying to convey. We know that we mistreat the earth and that religion can be dangerous and that artists can prioritize their work over loved ones. We get it. We know. And if we didn't know, the movie spells it out for us but without offering any real commentary on any of these subjects. There's no cohesive point to any of it. Not, I admit, that allegory has to have a point at all, but in the case of mother! it feels as though these empty symbols are just pandering to film studies students who get giddy over the fact that they "get it." We all get it, Scott. Doesn't mean that it's good.

Is it well made? Absolutely. It's a visual treat. Well-acted? Most definitely. Lawrence conveys a sad, confused and oblivious creature who has been abused and blind to that abuse for too long, while Bardem succeeds as the selfish and shallow misguided writer who tends to his talent in favor of his wife. But he's nowhere near as annoying as the Harris and Pfeiffer characters, draining, overreaching leeches that make you want to reach through the screen and slap them silly every time they open their mouths (this is a good thing by the way, it means Harris and Pfeiffer did their jobs). But the solid acting is inhibited by the great Allegory; everything is so shallow and stereotypical and overfilled with SYMBOL and METAPHOR that you can't form a real emotional attachment because you're just waiting for the next strange moment to decipher. 

"And I'm the exclamation point!"

So there was a lot I liked here. As I said,  it's beautiful to watch. The opening sequence in particular. mother wakes from a nightmare and stumbles through the entire house, giving us the grand tour of this lush, beautiful prison. She throws open the front door and we see the confinement juxtaposed with the isolation of the house itself--there are no driveways or roads anywhere in sight. Even if our conscious brain doesn't register this at first, our subconscious picks up on it, and we're unsettled. This world is a snow globe. Nothing exists beyond the house, and so the nightmare will never end. This is a hellish heaven, an infested garden. 

I don't think that mother! deserves the hate that it's getting from certain circles (i.e. that harsh "F' rating from CinemaScore), but I also don't think it's masterpiece either. I applaud Paramount for mainstreaming an art-house film and giving audiences an option outside of superhero schlock and repetitive remakes, I just think the intent and the messages behind Aronofsky's all-encompassing allegory were lost in translation here. And I think it leaves the film feeling pretentious, vapid, cold, clinical, nihilistic, and mean. Perhaps that was the intention, in which case I say bravo. But if he wanted to make a call to arms about the great issues that face our world, or to provide real social commentary and create dialogue about that commentary, I think the film could have used a bit more nurturing before he sent it out into the world.


mother!
5-Totally Terrifying
4-Crazy Creepy
3-Fairly Frightening
2-Slightly Scary
1-Hardly Horror 

31 by 31 Challenge #1: GIRLHOUSE (2015)

I'm kicking off the Halloween season early with my 31 by 31 Challenge--31 horror film reviews by October 31, and we'll begin with a foray into GIRLHOUSE--a sexy and slashery little film that turned out to be a lot of fun and proved that you don't have to reinvent the genre to still put out an entertaining movie.

GirlHouse (2015)
Released: February 13, 2015
Director: Trevor Matthews
Screenplay: Nick Gordon

Tagline: "Enjoy the show"

Cast:
Ali Corbin as Kylie Atkins
Slaine as LoverBoy
Adam DiMarco as Ben Stanley
Alyson Bath as Devon
Alice Hunter as Kat
James Thomas as Gary Preston

First Time View?: YES!


After the death of her father, college student Kylie is left strapped for cash, and in an effort to unburden her mother decides to move into GirlHouse, a secluded mansion outfitted with dozens of cameras, Big Brother-style, that streams its residents to an X-rated website. When a deranged fan hacks into the site's code to determine the heavily guarded house's address, Kylie and the rest of the girls find themselves in a fight for their lives.

Now, I know what you're thinking: not an entirely original premise, right? It's just a slasher disguised behind some contemporary internet trappings. But the thing is, that doesn't matter. It doesn't have to be entirely original in premise, because it's great in execution, and I applaud the filmmakers, whose previous forays into horror include the masterful throwback creature feature Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer (2007) and the underrated creepfest The Shrine (2010), for approaching the slasher subgenre in the way that they did with this movie. 

There's a lot working here. The opening sequence is highly disturbing in the boundaries that it pushes to establish the background and the mental framework of our eventual slasher, "LoverBoy," so nicknamed for the handle he uses when accessing the GirlHouse website. He's a great villain, visually drawn in the tradition of Leatherface or Otis while operating like Michael Myers; the whole film is structurally modeled after Halloween (1978), and what makes LoverBoy so sinister is that he, like the Shape before him, stalks his prey before coming in for the kill. Kills which are, it should be mentioned, savage and brutal in a way that I was not expecting. But it's the hunt that's somehow much worse. Because LoverBoy knows this house. He knows these girls. He's watched and obsessed over them, and so when he tracks them down, he turns their safe space, where they felt empowered controlling what they did and who could watch, against them in the worst possible way.

Not exactly the bathtub fantasy *I* have, but...

And yet, for all of that viciousness embodied in LoverBoy, his murder spree, the victims, and the nature of their work, nothing here is exploitative. The camera doesn't linger on the carnal or the carnage, but we always see enough to know exactly what's going on, whether it's some lust-fueled thrusting or some...well, lust-fueled thrusting of a different kind, let's say. There's great use of the camera throughout, in fact, including in the world of the film. We see that, because of these dozens of cameras, LoverBoy feels that he knows these women. That's part of the allure. To watch them at all moments of the day, not just when they're spanking themselves or inviting gentlemen callers over. It's the ultimate voyeuristic fantasy. But living too long in a fantasy can breed obsession, and that's where the tension arises.

And you know, it's not an overly preachy movie either, which always kills a good slice-and-dice film. There's certainly an obvious commentary about the dangers of over-sharing on social media and the societal attitude towards pornography--the film opens with a quote by Ted Bundy in which he cites pornographic content as a motivator for violence against women-- but you're not beat over the head with these observations. None of the characters, including LoverBoy, are cartoonish despite fitting into necessary slasher archetypes. Kylie is the playgirl-next-door who builds her entire act around "the tease," Ben her loving boyfriend supporting her and refusing to pass judgment on her new job, LoverBoy the quiet loner with a sympathetic and traumatic past who eventually snaps, and the other women of the house fill the roles (and the holes? OH SNAP) that the script needs them to fill.

All in all, GirlHouse is a great throwback for slasher enthusiasts. It sticks to genre formulas without being boring, and it throws in enough flavor to make it fresh and fun without being highbrow and pretentious. The score is great, the villain is menacing, fast, smart, and filled with rage, and the script finds ways to up the tension in believable ways (i.e. the police can't find the house when concerned viewers start witnessing the carnage and phone in because the address is kept secret in order to protect the girls from stalkers, thus delaying the arrival of the cavalry). If you're looking for a clever, entertaining slasher that doesn't talk down to you, it might just be time for you to log in. 

A very different version of doing it from behind...

GirlHouse
5-Totally Terrifying
4-Crazy Creepy
3-Fairly Frightening
2-Slightly Scary
1-Hardly Horror

Alien: Covenant

Surprising no one, Alien: Covenant is not a return to the revered horror roots of the original 1979 film, despite being directed by franchise creator Ridley Scott, but it is still leaps and bounds better than it's predecessor, Prometheus (2012). Although I guess, that doesn't say much, considering how worthless that movie was and the fact that it was also helmed by Scott. Covenant is by no means a bad film--I found it quite fun--but the main thing you take away from it is how good the first Alien film is, and that we've sort of been slowly drifting from that greatness ever since.

Alien: Covenant (2017)
Released: May 19, 2017
Director: Ridley Scott
Screenplay: John Logan & Dante Harper

Tagline: "Run. Hide. Scream"

Cast:
Michael Fassbender as David 8/Walter
Katherine Waterston as Daniels "Dany" Branson
Billy Crudup as Christopher Oram
Danny McBride as Tennessee
Demian Bichir as Sergeant Lope

Most of Covenant is a thematic retread of territories explored in Prometheus, both literal and figurative. The idea of creation, what it means to be human, and the search for answers in the depths of the cosmos all return as motifs, making Covenant tip further towards a Prometheus sequel rather than an Alien prequel; though with Scott's recent revelation that he has plans for two, possibly three, more films to fully connect the Prometheus story to Ripley's, I guess that's okay. The real question is just, is it interesting?

Covenant bends so much of the story around the question of where the xenomorphs came from, and the how and why of their seemingly superior evolutionary state, but I found myself asking, "does anyone even care?" And I don't mean that in a negative way. I mean that the xenomorphs, this "perfect organism" as described by Ash in the original film, were simply vicious space bugs with an uncanny knack for adaptation and intuition. The perfection that Ash admires in them comes across as the same type of perfection a marine biologist might say is embodied in a great white shark--an apex predator that hasn't had the need to evolve in millions of years because it is that effective. Covenant fleshes out this idea of perfection to the point where it borders on unnecessarily convoluted and confusing. 

I think that part of this confusion arises from the fact that Scott stated he wished for Covenant to return the franchise to the winning form of the original Alien film, and while you can see that playing out in the film's first half it loses focus midway through the second act, almost as if Scott couldn't resist delving into the metaphysical aspects of sci-fi horror overplayed in Prometheus. 

"Do you think that ship is bringing new GoT episodes?"

I know that officially both Prometheus and Covenant take place in the same universe as the tales of Ripley, Newt, and Dallas, but it's really hard to reconcile that here. For example, we've got our crew of heroes, escorting a ship of colonists to an earth-like world, Origae-6, some seven and a half light years away, but then they abandon that mission to check out a new, similar Earth-like planet that pops on their radar without any real testing of the biosphere. And they charge right in without any real defensive gear, i.e. goggles, gloves, or masks, and act like Zeus himself bitch-slapped them when two of them get sick and start spewing black chunks. Like what? That would never happen if Ripley were around.

There is a very interesting and unique moment in Covenant, however, that you won't find mirrored in other films in the Alien franchise. It concerns the ending and, without giving any spoilers, gives the viewer a very clear direction of where the story is headed, what the next installment will concern itself with, and even what exactly the conflict will revolve around. It's an interesting move to make, as it sets a course (har har) but also limits imagination for the viewer as well. 

It's a fun movie, I don't want you to think otherwise, and the special effects involving the gore and kill scenes will be acceptable for us horror hounds, but it just doesn't deliver on everything that was promised. I think Covenant is very much one of those movies, one that balances both horror and sci-fi, that will become beloved by one camp and shrugged at by the other. Those who wanted the sheer terror of the original Alien will be disappointed, while those delighted by the cerebral colonization lore of Prometheus will be delighted. For me, I wanted a few more scares but I'm willing to admit that maybe those scares are lying in wait for us in future installments of the franchise, anticipating the proper moment to hatch.

Alien: Covenant

5-Totally Terrifying

4-Crazy Creepy

3-Fairly Frightening

2-Slightly Scary

1-Hardly Horror

Get Out

If you've ever wondered what Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967) would be like as a horror film, then head to the theaters right now because Jordan Peele, of the comic duo Key & Peele, has your answer in his directorial debut Get Out.

Get Out (2017)
Released: February 24, 2017
Director: Jordan Peele
Screenplay: Jordan Peele

Tagline: "Just because you're invited doesn't mean you're welcome"

Cast:
Daniel Kaluuya as Chris Washington
Allison Williams as Rose Armitage
Bradley Whitford as Dean Armitage
Catherine Keener as Missy Armitage
Lil Rel Howery as Rod Williams
Caleb Landry Jones as Jeremy Armitage

Chris and his girlfriend Rose have been dating for five months and it's come to the reliably awkward "meet the parents" phase of their relationship. They head upstate to spend a weekend at Rose's parents' place in the country. At first, Chris takes Missy and Dean's overly accommodating and friendly attitudes as well-meaning but nervous attempts to deal with their daughter's interracial relationship. Yet as the weekend progresses, a series of increasingly disturbing incidents force Chris to realize that the situation he's found himself in is not even close to well-intentioned. 

You might not think that a seasoned comedian would do well dabbling in terror, but Jordan Peele has used his first film to show that he has quite a handle on fear. Race is tricky to discuss in horror. It's been handled with aplomb in the past as much as it's been handled dismally. Here, the ideology and the message that Peele wishes to convey are front and center, as makes sense. It's a film written and directed by an African American man, focusing on an African American man who is out of his element in a predominantly white society. And yet nothing here is heavy-handed. The film encourages conversations about race in our present culture, but it doesn't demand them.

This is an interesting move to make, and difficult to pull off. But Peele is in total control of his film from minute one until the credits roll, even if he wobbles a bit in those final few frames. The film achieves that miracle status that so many horror comedies strive for and only a golden handful pull off, being laugh-out-loud funny and genuinely scary at times, occasionally within the same scene. The tension builds to a white-knuckle climax, though the climax itself is cliche and doesn't reflect the daring premise of the narrative itself. The film asks tough questions, but it sort of takes the easy way out in the end.

"Oh my god you farted!"   "Bitch watch the road"

Still, Peele's a natural filmmaker and it shows in each aspect of his final product. Meeting the parents of your partner is a dreaded situation for anyone. The implicit fear of not being liked or being outright rejected for any number of reasons (political differences, educational gaps, socioeconomic disparities, sexual orientation, and yes, race) makes for a sympathetic and relatable situation for audiences of all colors, creeds, and proclivities. It's also a tale about coming to grips with your past, and the psychological baggage that such a confrontation entails. Our pasts, like our skin colors, are something we can't escape. If we deny this fact, we're led only to pain and potential self-loathing. 

The phenomenal cast also brings everything in Peele's screenplay to life. Daniel Kaluuya emotes fear, rage, and anguish in a way specific to his character and to his identity as a young, African American man in America and that yet somehow transcend all of that to speak in the universal language of film. Bradley Whitford and Catherine Keener as girlfriend Rose's seemingly well-meaning parents are also spot on in delivering their crooning lines with just the right touch of unsettling insinuation. Allison Williams as girlfriend Rose never falters while her brother, played by ginger-haired beast Caleb Landry Jones is spot on aggressively chaotic WASPish dickhole. But the true scene-stealer is Lil Rel Howery as Chris's friend Rod, whose loyalty to his friend is endearing and natural, and played with comic perfection. We all want a friend like Rod.

You could make the argument that the film has pacing issues, but I think when it slows down it's really just to highlight the drama. To encourage viewers to take notice of the seeds that Peele is planting for the ultimate revelation at the climax. Which, again, is nothing earth-shattering, but still satisfying. All in all, while Get Out might wear its political and social principles on its sleeves, it's still compelling and engrossing and, most importantly, not preachy. It's that infrequent horror film who scares you not with blood or bodies, but with big ideas.

"Game of Thrones doesn't start til WHEN??"

Get Out (2017)

5-Totally Terrifying

4-Crazy Creepy

3-Fairly Frightening

2-Slightly Scary

1-Hardly Horror