179) Psycho (1960) - Starting off the Psycho Series

"She just goes a little mad sometimes. We all go a little mad sometimes." 

Director

Alfred Hitchcock

Cast

Janet Leigh - Marion Crane

Anthony Perkins - Norman Bates

John Gavin - Sam Loomis

Vera Miles - Lila Crane

Martin Balsam - Private Investigator Milton Arbogast
John McIntire - Deputy Sheriff Al Chambers
Simon Oakland - Dr. Richmond

Mort Mills - Highway Patrol Officer

Anyone who calls themselves a horror movie fan, or a movie fan in general, or is someone who simply enjoys a movie just as much as anyone else, should have seen the horror classic "Psycho," directed by horror icon Alfred Hitchcock, at least once in their lives. If anyone reading this has never seen "Psycho," you need to watch the movie first, and then come back to this post. It's one of the best and meticulously well-made films in cinematic history. And I've proudly placed it among my top 10...no, top five...favorite horror movies along with "Frankenstein," "The Shining," "The Exorcist," and "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari."  

Well, like all the best horror movies out there, "Psycho" not only managed to gain a few sequels, it also got a remake in 1998 starring Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates and Anne Heche as Marion Crane. It's practically a shot for shot remake with slight deviations here and there. 

Incidentally, I saw the remake at a friend's house on Halloween night about 20 years ago. I had no idea at the time that there was a remake until I saw it with my own eyes. We checked it out from a local Blockbuster Video, which I'm pretty sure was the last time I ever stepped foot into a Blockbuster. 

While I've seen "Psycho" before, I've never seen any of the sequels. I've heard from reliable critics that they're not all as bad as I might expect. So, my plan for the next several posts is to watch these "Psycho" sequels - "Psycho II" (1983), "Psycho III," (1986), the made-for-TV movie, "Bates Motel," (1987) and "Psycho IV: The Beginning" (1990).

I'm skipping the 2013 TV series, also titled "Bates Motel" mainly because of time. Maybe I'll get to that later. I don't know.

Based on the book of the same name by Robert Bloch, the original "Psycho" is a horror movie classic in the truest sense of the word. To say it's a ground breaking movie for American horror cinema seems like an understatement. It has withstood the test of time and is still discussed to this day. 

It scared audiences back then, and still makes some audiences apprehensive to get into a shower. 

I watched it for the first time in several years, and I already want to watch it again. It certainly made an impression on me when I first saw it years ago. But, I don't think I really appreciated it when I first saw it. 

Janet Leigh as Marion Crane in 'Psycho.'

Anyways, it seems superfluous to summarize the plot of "Psycho" as it's so ingrained into our pop culture psyche. But I'll do it anyways. 

Janet Leigh plays Marion Crane, a frustrated and tired, yet stunningly attractive real estate secretary. She's been having an affair with her married boyfriend, Sam Loomis (John Gavin). 

After meeting Sam in a Phoenix hotel room, she plans on secretly running off to his place out in Fairvale, California.

So, she steals $40,000 in cash from her employer, and then drives clear out to Fairvale. 

When she stops on the side of a California highway to sleep for a while, a highway patrol officer wakes her up. Suspicious, he follows her into town and watches as she hastily trades her car in for a new one at a dealership. 

Once that's done, she makes her way to Fairvale, and loses the cop. 

On her way, she gets caught in a heavy rainstorm hits forcing her to find a place to stay for the night.

Marion comes across the quiet and reclusive Bates Motel owned by the seemingly innocent Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), and checks in. 

Bates lives with his elderly mother in a large house overlooking the motel. 

Marion checks in under an alias, and Norman puts her in room one. 

In her room, she hides the stolen cash in a folded newspaper. 

Norman stops by to check on her and asks if she'd like some dinner, so he invites her to the main office to grab some food. 

During their meal, Norman runs up to his house to check on his mother. Marion overhears them arguing as his mother wants Marion off the motel property because she considers her bad clientele. 

When Norman returns, he apologizes, and talks about his interest in taxidermy, his mother's mental instability, and the things in people's lives that they want to escape from. 

After dinner, Marion has second thoughts about what she's doing and decides to head back to Arizona early the next morning. 

Before bed, she hops in the shower and...well...who hasn't seen what happens next. The scene is still just as uncomfortable and shocking as Hitchcock intended. 

When Norman realizes his mother has done something terrible, he checks on Marion and finds her dead on the bathroom floor. 

He cleans up the crime scene, takes Marion's remains and belongings including the newspaper, and tosses them in her car. He has no idea that the newspaper is hiding $40,000. 

Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates.

Norman then rolls the car into a nearby lake where it completely sinks into the murky water. 

Marion's sister Lila Crane (Vera Miles) goes looking for Marion, stopping to speak with Sam Loomis who's just as clueless as Lila as to where Marion is. 

The story shifts onto Norman as he becomes more and more tormented by his mother. 

Lila and investigators show up to the motel where Norman remains calm and apparently naïve. 

As Lila starts snooping around the Bates's house, she finds the shocking disturbing truth behind Norman and his mother. 

The biggest twist comes when the star of the movie, Janet Leigh, is killed early in the film. The story sets her up as the main subject of the story, only to have her die in the first act in one of the most, if not the most iconic horror movie scene in cinema history. 

Movie stars/ main characters don't normally die so soon in a movie. That was unheard of back when "Psycho" was released. It's a daring and bold move on Hitchcock's part. Yet the old man pulled it off. 

And the money Marion stole seems like it's going to be the focus of the movie as well. But nope! It's tossed out along with her remains. 

Hitchcock called this object the "McGuffin" - an object that serves as a trigger for the plot. 

The money Marion steals is what gets her on the road and ultimately to the motel. It gets the plot started. But once she dies, the McGuffin served its purpose. So, Norman cluelessly throws the cash away. Once he does, it's clear the story is really about Norman. He's the center of the plot. 

It's an ingenious method, and truly masterful writing on Hitchcock's part. 

No doubt Hitchcock was delighted to see audiences being misled by the abrupt turns in the movie. He was clearly meticulous with every solitary detail of his film - the expressions, the score, the camera angles, and the lightening. Everything is so delicately placed and balanced. 

Anthony Perkins's performance is amazing, to say the least. He doesn't look like he's acting. He comes across as just being Norman Bates. He's likeable, gentle, and friendly when he's introduced. 

Gradually he grows darker while still remaining a sympathetic character, even after we see him clean up the murder that took place in cabin one. Perkins is absolutely iconic. 

The idea of a split personality, which is Bates's condition, was so new to audiences at the time. So, the final scene in which Dr. Richmond (Simon Oakland) explains it was certainly necessary at the time. Now, the scene seems superfluous as that plot point wouldn't go over the heads of modern audiences. 

The movie doesn't waste time inducing dread among the audience. It begins with the soundtrack at the beginning of the film. It sets up the trepidation and fear right away.  

Hitchcock's previous movie, "North by Northwest" (1959) with Cary Grant was shot in glorious technicolor. And then "Psycho" was released in shadowy black and white mainly for the sake of the

budget. Still, it gives the film a unique style and feel matching the overall death motif. It takes nothing away from the movie. It makes it timeless, and as though this frightful scenario could really happen at anytime. 

"Psycho" is a horror movie that modern audiences should imagine themselves back in 1960 if they're watching it for the first time. 

It shocked audiences back then as it was a horror unlike anything else released up to 1960. 

Prior to the 1960s, horror went from Universal monsters like Frankenstein and Dracula to the atomic age of aliens and giant mutated monsters attacking entire cities. Audiences in 1960 were at the peak of that atomic age.

And then "Psycho" comes along and lays a foundation in the slasher genre which still wasn't a thing at the time. It's not a slasher in itself. But the slasher subgenre as some roots branching from "Psycho." 

It focuses on one serial killer who steals the show abruptly. For 1960, it was realistic. Too realistic. As far as today's knowledge of horror movies, "Psycho" was definitely ahead of its time. 

Hitchcock stood close to his masterpiece. He demanded theaters not allow anyone into the movie once it started. Theaters had signs and posters, and even audio recordings of Hitchcock requesting this, playing in the lobby and over the line of people waiting to get a ticket. 

He wanted each and every single ticket holder to see his movie from beginning to end. 

Everything about this movie is iconic - the soundtrack, the infamous shower scene, the house on top of the hill, the ending. It has been discussed, analyzed, mimicked, and parodied over the decades. 

"Psycho" skidded across the grain of its era in view of millions of cringing audiences, and it endures to this day. 

178) NEW HORROR RELEASES - The Exorcist: Believer (2023)

I'm not quoting this movie!

Director
David Gordon Green

Cast

Leslie Odom Jr. - Victor Fielding
Lidya Jewett - Angela Fielding
Olivia O’Neill - Katherine West
Jennifer Nettles - Miranda West
Norbert Leo Butz - Tony West
Ellen Burstyn - Chris MacNeil
Raphael Sbarge - Pastor Don Revans
Okwui Okpokwasili - Dr. Beehibe
Danny McCarthy - Stuart

E. J. Bonilla - Father Maddox

*Spoilers ahead*

Congratulations "Exorcist II: The Heretic!" You're no longer the worst movie in "The Exorcist" franchise. Oh, you're still a laughably terrible movie that shouldn't exist. That'll never change. But this new movie, "The Exorcist: Believer" has taken your dented crown as the worst of the bunch.  

Now, I normally don't like to quote another movie critic when writing my own review, but at the end of this movie, the words of Roger Ebert in reference to the 1994 movie "North" came to mind.
"I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it," he wrote. 

I certainly don't want to use his words to express my own thoughts about a particular movie. But in this case, it just fits so well. 

I'll certainly try to top that sentiment with my own words in regard to "The Exorcist: Believer."  

The 1977 movie "Exorcist II: The Heretic," a direct sequel to the 1973 movie "The Exorcist," is considered one of the worst movie sequels, and one of the worst horror movies in general, ever made. It almost sets a standard for bad horror movies. 

It certainly is...or was...the worst movie in the Exorcist series. Now, Hollywood has managed to vomit forth another flick for the franchise that's worse than part two. And it really is worse!

I hated this new movie. It's frustrating, lazy, uninteresting, banal, out-of-touch, and beyond stupid! I've seen dingy bath water leave a better film. 

The Plot

The story starts off in Haiti where photographer Victor Fielding (Leslie Odom Jr.) and his pregnant wife Sorenne (Tracey Graves) are honeymooning. 

During their trip. Sorenne has a voodoo priestess give a "blessing of protection" on her baby, Angela. 

Shortly afterwards, a massive earthquake hits Haiti. 

While Sorenne dies from injuries she sustained during the quake, their baby is able to be saved. Victor was forced to choose between his wife or his daughter. 

The story shifts to thirteen years later as Victor lives with his teenage daughter in Georgia. The loss of his wife shattered Victor's faith in God. 

Though she never met her mother, Angela thinks about her often. 

She and her friend Katherine (Olivia O’Neill), whose family is Baptist, venture into the woods after school one afternoon to hold a séance in an attempt for Angela to contact her deceased mother.

Both girls go missing for three days until they're found in some stranger's barn. 

Their conditions worsen over the days, and their behavior becomes stranger and more violent. 

Lidya Jewett and Olivia O’Neill in "The Exorcist: Believer."

Both families put the girls into the hospital, which doesn't help. 

Katherine's mother, Miranda (Jennifer Nettles), is convinced her daughter has become possessed by a demon as a result of whatever ritual she performed out in the woods. 

Victor isn't so convinced about his own daughter. Still, he doesn't know what her problem is. 

A nurse and former nun, Ann (Ann Dowd), gets involved and tries to convince Victor that Angela is also possessed by a demon. 

Ann had previously entered a Catholic novitiate to become a nun, but ended up becoming pregnant. On top of that, she ended up aborting her unborn baby in an attempt to make her life better, I guess. 

To help convince Victor, Ann gives him a memoir written by Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn) whose daughter, Regan (Linda Blair) was possessed by a demon when she was a young girl back in 1973. As seen in the first movie, Regan undergoes a Catholic exorcism which saves her.

Chris tells Victor she's knowledgeable in the field of exorcism, but she's not an exorcist.

First, Chris sees Angela in the hospital before heading to Katherine's home to visit with the girl.

Chris tries to perform some kind of "deliverance ritual" to drive out the demon from Katherine in the name of "Jesus and her daughter, Regan." As expected, it doesn't go well at all for Chris.
So, Victor, Miranda, Ann, and Katherine’s father Tony (Norbert Leo Butz) reach out to Fr. Maddox (E. J. Bonilla) to conduct an exorcism. Fr. Maddox must first get permission from his Bishop. 

Meanwhile, they also ask Miranda and Tony's family pastor, Stuart (Danny McCarthy), a Pentecostal preacher, Don Revans (Raphael Sbarge), and a spiritual healer, Dr. Beehibe (Okwui Okpokwasili) to assist in an exorcism. 

Unfortunately, the diocese won't grant Fr. Maddox permission to perform an exorcism under the reason that doing so would be "dangerous for him and for the Church." 

As this crew of miscellaneous people beg the priest to participate, he agrees in spite of the diocese's instructions. 

But his involvement is short lived. 

This crew clearly has no idea what they're doing. They just use holy objects like a crucifix and holy water at random, while reading from the Bible and the Catholic Roman Ritual of Exorcism with hopes that'll all work.

The demon, meanwhile, tells Victor he must choose which girl lives and which one dies. And to add insult to injury, the girl who dies will be dragged to Hell. 

My thoughts

It seems too many movies nowadays are seldom made to tell an entertaining story or for any artistic credibility. Most current movies like this one are made for political credibility, and to dump all over the past. 

To begin with, the movie isn't scary. I mean that sincerely. I wasn't scared nor even a little intrigued about what was happening. I'm not stating that to spite the movie. It just wasn't scary. 

The entire experience is remarkably underwhelming for a film with the word "Exorcist" in the title. At least "Exorcist II" was interesting enough to make me wonder what the hell I was watching.  

But my real gripe about this poor excuse for a horror flick and sequel to a great horror movie is the screwed-up message it throws up. 

This movie has absolutely no respect whatsoever for the source material. It stomps all over the original novel by William Peter Blatty, the original 1973 movie directed by William Friedkin, and the Catholic teachings about exorcism which is the foundation for the original story. 

It trashes everything that made this sequel possible, and everything that makes the source material good and thought provoking. 

The very beginning of the movie in Haiti starts out well, with the parents involving themselves in voodoo rituals. That never, never leads to anything good. The ritual leads the audience think this is what'll open the door to the demonic possession later in the movie.

Once the mother states her belief that this voodoo blessing is "the most beautiful blessing of protection for Angela," that's when the movie lost me and went downhill. I say that because this plays into the happy ending for their daughter, Angela. 

By the end of the movie, I seriously doubted the movie producer's understanding of Catholicism, exorcism, voodoo rituals, Christianity and religion in general, and the nature of demonic activity. Did they so much as bother to at least read the Wikipedia page about these topics? Or did they rely on what little information (if any) they may have heard here and there over the years? 

Despite whatever problems Christians, Catholic or otherwise, may have with the movie "The Exorcist" and its depictions, one thing is certain. The story involves two Roman Catholic priests who believe in Jesus Christ, and stand in for Jesus Christ as they use the power of Jesus Christ to conquer the devil in order to save a young girl. 

Leslie Odom Jr., as Victor and Ellen Burstyn who 
reprises her role as Chris MacNeil.

With this new movie, the writers go completely out of their own way, practically stumbling over their own screwed up "logic" to insist that conquering the devil is not merely a Catholic nor Christian thing. 

Stand-up comedian and Catholic, Jen Fulwiler, said it best in one of her routines. 

"Try to imagine an exorcist movie without the Catholic Church. It would be like 'We've been hearing evil voices from the basement. It's a demon! Quick, somebody call a non-denominational worship leader'," she jokes.

Yeah! No, that's not going to happen. 

I hate to sound preachy, but this is a story with a Catholic foundation. And I'm a practicing Catholic. So, there's a lot in this movie I can't ignore. 

Catholicism professes belief in one God, the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ who is God's only son, and our Lord. The Rite of Exorcism is a Catholic ritual as Christ instructed His apostles to cast out demons in His name. And that continues to this day.  

If Christ gave His Catholic Church the power to cast out demons in His name, and if He is the Son of God, who tells us He is "the way, the truth, and the life" then non-Christian religions simply don't have the power to do that no matter how fuzzy and warm the idea of unity among all religions make the writers feel. The first movie got that correct as Christ defeats the devil through the two priests who performed the exorcism over the possessed girl. "The power of Christ compels you," they recite over and over again, over Regan in part one. 

In this new segment, the devil kills the one priest involved and ends up victorious over God. 

They save one of the girls not by invoking God, but by invoking her love for her deceased mother. They do this by using one of her mother's scarves to incite that love she has. It has pagan ancestral ritual written all over it. 

Meanwhile, the devil is practically permitted to kill the other girl and drag her to hell with no chance of forgiveness through Christ's redemption, which was the demon's ultimate goal. Typical of misguided and out-of-touch Hollywood!  

In the scene where Chris MacNeil tries to exorcise the demon by herself, she expresses bitterness towards to the Church for not witnessing the actual exorcism of her daughter because, as she puts it, "I'm not a member of the damn patriarchy." Few words summarize modern society better than the word "ungrateful." 

When she tries to expel the demon, it doesn't go particularly well for her which didn't surprise me. Again, Chris initially claims she's not an exorcist. Anyways, que the complete disrespect for the source material. 

In the original movie, Chris MacNeil seeks help for a problem that no one can help her with - the demonic possession of her young daughter. 

So, as a last resort, she turns to an institution, the Catholic Church, which she otherwise has no involvement in or understanding of. Regardless, she puts her trust in this institution which offers her help that no one else can offer. 

The Church sends Fr. Merrin (Max von Sydow) and Fr. Karras (Jason Miller) who save her daughter when no one else could, even at the cost of their lives.

Now, this new movie gives its source material the woke middle finger and blames "the patriarchy" for not allowing Chris in the same room as the priests go up against the powers of hell to drive the demon out of her daughter. Did she forget about the instances before the exorcism where she was in Regan's room and ended up physically beaten up and shocked at the sight of what her possessed daughter was doing and saying? 

The writers have Chris criticize the Church and the men who died saving her daughter, all while negating the power of the Church and of Jesus Christ which is how these priests saved her daughter in the first place. The movie claims that, well, anyone can expel demons. The Church is nothing special. 

It's no surprise that the one Catholic priest in "The Exorcist: Believer" is portrayed as an incompetent, weak man per usual Hollywood standards. 

When he goes to his Bishop and local authorities to seek permission to perform an exorcism, he's told it's too dangerous for him and for the Church. 

If the writers had a spec of knowledge and understanding about how things operate in the Church, they'd know Christ instructed the Church to cast out demons in His name. That hasn't changed just because it's 2023. 

Exorcisms are routinely performed in various rituals in the church. At Baptism, the priest recites three prayers of exorcism over the person being baptized. 

And "exorcist" is one of the minor orders of a priest before he's ordained. 

Every diocese has an exorcist. Exorcisms are still performed! Our fight against Hell is a major reason the Catholic Church continues to exist!

So, why is it dangerous for the Church to perform an exorcism right now, as the Bishop in the story claims? It shows how lazy and misguided the writing behind this movie is.  

And I just cannot believe that a woman (Ann the nurse and former nun) who was pious enough to enter a novitiate in order to be a nun, only to become pregnant, would then kill her unborn baby. C'mon! What Catholic, devout enough to pursue the religious life as a sister but unfortunately succumbed to temptation and became pregnant as a result (It happens - we're all fallen creatures) would then quickly turn to killing her unborn baby in order to "make things right?" How unbelievably unrealistic and just plain ignorant! Then this same weirdo ex-nun suddenly has power over the demon possessing these girls. Oh, please! 

Never underestimate Hollywood's ability to outdo itself in producing movies worse than the crap produced before.

Director David Gordon Green wrote and directed the last three "Halloween" movies which are a trio of disappointment. So, I'm not surprised his involvement in "The Exorcist" series is also a disappointment. 

Evidently, "The Exorcist: Believer" is supposed to be the first in a three part series, with the next movie to be called "Exorcist: Deceiver." I can't say I'm looking forward to it. 

According to a Hollywood Reporter article, Green expressed doubt about participating in that next movie based on the results of this nonsense. Please, don't get involved! Just walk away.  

"Exorcist II: The Heretic" is bad because it lacks consistency, confuses audiences, and is weird in the worst way possible thanks to its lazy writing. 

It deviates far from part one into some trippy psychological storyline. It tries to be its own separate experience from the first movie. But to its credit, though, "Exorcist II: The Heretic" doesn't have some modern political ideology it tries to beat audiences over the head with. This new movie does precisely that. And it still gets the source material wrong all while trying to subtly apologize for the first movie.   

The writers want us to think that political ideologies like religious equality and positive vibes, man, is what drives the devil away. It's a notion based on absolutely nothing.

These dumbasses in the movie have no idea what they're up against. But it doesn't matter because they "believe." Hence, the title. It's immensely frustrating to watch. 

"The Exorcist: Believer" is another attempt by Hollywood to take a classic franchise and make it a socio-political device with a story based on meaningless platitudes and weak flaky ideas that might sound good on a bumper sticker. 

It wags its finger about "the terrible patriarchy" while preaching "all religions are equal." 

All religions can't be equal because they all make different claims. Either Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life as He claimed, or He's not. And the Catholic Church is the church He founded, or it's not. Someone's belief doesn't negate nor make something true. 

With this movie, the message is a sugary saccharin sweet nonsensical one about the goodness behind being good because good people are good, and goodness makes us feel good because any god (who cares which one) is good for wanting us to feel good... and that's good! 

Hollywood's perception of Catholicism, and of most religions generally speaking, is insanely erroneous and meaningless. 

The characters in this movie toss around holy buzz words like "believe" and "faith" and "goodness" as though that's enough for these Hollywood hack writers to sound like they know what their talking about. It's insulting to audiences. 

This whole mess ends with a meaningless boring speech from this useless ex-nun about people's hopes, dreams, pursuits, and desires to be happy, while the devil just wants us to give up and be unhappy. 

And that all "God...any god, or any good person" wants from us is to just keep going and be happy. The word "banal" is not a big enough word. Now I feel like throwing up!

This movie is a limp and useless waste of time. It's an insult to rational audiences, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. I'm simply grateful I chose not to see this movie in a theater, and waste money on the price of admission.

"The Exorcist: Believer" is arrogant anti-Catholic nonsense with absolutely nothing to support it other than bitterness and maybe some daddy issues.  

If nobody has done so yet, I wish to apologize to the late William Peter Blatty and the late William Friedkin for this detestable stain of a film that's unfortunately now permanently attached to their intellectual property. 

Check out my review of "The Exorcist III" - a far better sequel!

177) The Mean One (2022)

"This town cannot go through another Christmas killer thing."

Director
Steven LaMorte

Cast
David Howard Thornton - The Mean One
Krystle Martin - Cindy
Chase Mullins - Detective Burke
John Bigham - Doc Zeus
Erik Baker - Sheriff Hooper
Flip Kobler - Lou
Amy Schumacher - Mayor McBean

* Minor Spoilers ahead *

After trailers for the 2022 slasher film "Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey," a horror reimagining of A.A. Milne's classic Winnie the Pooh story were released, rumors of a horror reimagining of Dr. Seuss's "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" slunked around. 

I thought it was all a joke to poke fun at the concept of turning children's stories into slasher flicks. 

There was even a teaser for this Grinch horror movie.  

Well, it's real. And it was released theatrically. Either I missed it, or it didn't play at a theater near me, Anyways, I found a copy of this horror movie simply called "The Mean One."

The story is a realistic modern retelling of Dr. Seuss's story. The Grinch character, simply referred to as "the Mean One," (David Howard Thornton) is the green, furry, Christmas hating creature from the story. However, he's certainly more maniacal and deadly.

In the mountain town of Newville, a little girl introduced by the narrator as "Cindy You-Know-Who" 

catches who she thinks is Santa stealing all the family's Christmas stuff. 

"Why, Santa?" she asks. 

Then her mother walks in and screams in terror. She starts beating up this "monster" in the house. And little Cindy witnesses this monster kill her mom, or so we think. 

The story transitions to twenty-years later. Cindy (Krystle Martin) returns to Newville with her dad at the suggestion of her therapist to help cope with the Christmas day tragedy she witnessed years ago. 

This green monster, who's never referred to as "Grinch" continues to terrorize Newville every Christmas season. 

Anyone who dares put up even one Christmas decoration, or show any outward sign of Christmas spirit, will meet their death at the hands of the Mean One. After witnessing the Mean One kill her father for daring to celebrate Christmas, Cindy goes to Sheriff Hooper (Erik Baker), who helped her when her mom died. He's reluctant to believe her claims about what she saw. 

Police Detective Burke (Chase Mullins) however wants to help. Of course, he has the hots for Cindy, and he's Jewish, so that might work in his favor. 

Newville's Mayor McBean (Amy Schumacher) wants Cindy out of town and is pressuring the sheriff to make that happen. She doesn't want any attention to this so-called "Mean One" lingering around Newville. 

But one person believes Cindy. A local named Mathias Zeus (John Bigham) lost his wife to the Mean One as she was taking presents from her car to the house. Everyone refers to him as Doc Zeus. Get it? Dr. Zeus!

David Howard Thornton as the "Mean One."

Anyways, he wants revenge just as much as Cindy. 

When the Mean One starts murdering holiday campers up near hiking trails in the nearby mountains, and other visitors in Newville, Cindy decides her mission is to kill the Mean One so the folks of Newville can celebrate Christmas without fear. Burke, Zeus, and Cindy create a plan to take him down.

It has a hint of satire as it puts the idea of the Grinch and his hatred for Christmas into a real-life scenario. The "Mean One" isn't a person in a mask terrorizing a town. It really is the Grinch, green fur and all.

What's unclear is whether he has some sort of supernatural power or not. He disappears quickly, and then reappears just as fast. 

And he seems to know, even from miles away, when someone in Newville so much as listens to a Christmas carol, or carries wrapped gifts from their car to their house, or jingles a sleigh bell. When anything Christmas related happens, he shows up right away to kill whoever dares celebrate in his general radius. 

Thorton, who's no stranger to horror, is decent in the role as far as actions and mannerisms go but has no lines. He's well known for portraying Art the Clown in the "Terrifier" movies, who also didn't speak.

It's an ambitious take, and just interesting enough to see how it all plays out. The story is pretty much the same up to the end, but with the premise that Cindy is going to take down the Mean One once and for all. 

Otherwise, the whole movie completely relies on the reimagined homicidal Grinch and the comical carnage he inflicts. Nothing is scary. Just gory and immensely predictable. Everything else, like the production value, acting, Grinch makeup, soundtrack, and just the overall quality are poor. Who would expect anything more? 

It's like a film project for a college film class. A lot of the jokes didn't get a laugh out of me. They just fell down dead. 

Of course, the story works in references to Dr. Seuss's story, such as Cindy building herself up to kill by exclaiming, "Let's roast this beast." 

Earlier, she's thinking about the Mean One while staring at a rendering of the creature Zeus drew up. 

"Maybe its shoes are too tight," she says. "Maybe his heart is two sizes too small." 

It's another hack n' slash flick that takes place around the most joyous time of the year, which is supposed to make the death all the more terrible. And it takes its inspiration from the 2000 movie adaptation starring Jim Carrey.  

There's potential for such an outlandish premise as far as comical satire goes, but this movie grazed that potential. Still, it has its fun moments - one or two of them. I wouldn't expect the little fun it produced to return in a second viewing. I think it was a one-time thing. By the end, the audience gets nothing about who this creature is or where it came from. Oh, well. It's just another failed experiment, I guess.