(+JMJ+) Commentary on horror/ thriller movies you forgot about, wanted to forget about, or just haven't heard of...yet. Thousands of them (eventually).
As "Creature Feature" host Bob Wilkins said, "Watch horror movies... Keep America strong!"
(Also, be sure to check out my other movie commentaries at 1000daysofscifi.blogspot.com and at dontfastforward.blogspot.com)
Anthony Perkins - Norman Bates Diana Scarwid - Maureen Coyle Jeff Fahey - Duane Duke
Hugh Gillin - Sheriff John Hunt Roberta Maxwell - Tracy Venable
Robert Alan Browne - Ralph Statler Gary Bayer - Fr. Brian
Lee Garlington - Myrna Donovan Scott - Kyle
I was surprised with the previous "Psycho II" being a decent enough sequel to Alfred Hitchcock's classic horror movie "Psycho." It wasn't great, but it passes.
I didn't hold as much hope that "Psycho III" would even be a passable movie. Generally, that's not how sequels work, especially when it comes to third movie installments.
What else could writers possibly do with Norman Bates's story? You can only make the same movie so many times before audiences start growing bored.
In this third movie, Anthony Perkins portrays a much more torn Norman Bates. He clearly wants to lead a normal life with someone. This is a logical place to put Bates. However, he's not free from his demons. Rather, he's still tormented by his mother.
Speaking of his mother, this third movie continues where the second one left off.
Bates killed Emma Spool in part two - his coworker at the diner who told him she was his real mother. Now, he's preserved her corpse and keeps her in his mother's bedroom.
Meanwhile, a mentally unstable Catholic nun, Maureen Coyle (Diana Scarwid) attempts suicide by threatening to jump from the convent's bell tower. Maureen is blamed when another nun tries to save her only to accidentally fall to her death from the tower.
Maureen is booted from the convent, and hikes through the desert to nearby Fairvale. On the way, she's picked up by a young drifter named Duane Duke (Jeff Fahey).
The ride isn't too bad, though Maureen is really uncomfortable. When a rainstorm breaks out, Duke stops his car to wait it out. He then tries to take advantage of Maureen but she refuses his advances.
So, he kicks her out of the car, forcing her to continue walking to Fairvale in the rain.
Back in Fairvale, Spool has been missing for a month.
Norman Bates's former employer, Ralph Statler (Robert Alan Browne) along with the police are searching for her.
Duke arrives at the Bates Motel and asks Norman to hire him, which he does.
Maureen also arrives in town, exhausted and hungry. She walks into the diner where Norman works. He's taken aback as she resembles Marion Crane, whom he murdered in the first movie. He also notices her initials on her suitcase - M.C. This makes Norman panic.
Meanwhile, Tracy Venable (Roberta Maxwell), a journalist from Los Angeles, is in town to do a story about serial killers being released from prison. So, she wants to interview Bates.
Maureen checks in to the Bates Motel but panics when she finds Duke working there.
Having Maureen at his hotel causes Bates to succumb to the urge to be his mother once again.
Later, dressed in his mother's clothes, he enters Maureen's room and finds her in the bathtub attempting suicide.
Maureen, delirious from the loss of blood, hallucinates and thinks Norman dressed as mother holding a knife is the Virgin Mary holding a crucifix.
Bates, however, snaps back into his right frame of mind.
He rescues Maureen by taking her to the hospital.
After Maureen is released, she and Norman start to get romantic.
Later that night, Duke picks up a one-night stand named Red (Juliette Cummins), only to kick her out of his room after they're...you know...done.
Angry and dejected, Red goes to a payphone to call a cab. But a person dressed as Norman's mother stabs her in the phone booth.
The next day, a bunch of tourists show up at the motel for some big football game. Most of these tourists party hard and get drunk, except one guest named Patsy Boyle. While in the bathroom, she's also murdered by mother.
That night, Norman finds Patsy's body and doesn't know what to do. So, he hides her body in the motel ice chest. Sheriff Hunt and Deputy Leo show up the next morning looking for Patsy.
Meanwhile, Tracy snoops around Emma Spool's apartment where she finds the motel's number scribbled on a magazine.
She talks to Maureen, and tells her about Norman's past, which freaks her out.
So, Maureen goes to speak with her priest, Fr. Brian (Gary Baye), who it seems to me just blows her off.
Having dodged a huge bullet with the sheriff and deputy not finding Patsy's corpse in the ice box, Bates panics when he finds Emma Spool's corpse is missing. Whoever took her body left a note.
He goes to see Duke who attempts to blackmail him with threats that he'll report Norman to the cops.
When Duke isn't looking, Norman clubs him with an ashtray, and then beats him with a guitar.
He then drags Duke's and Patsy's corpses into a car, just like he did with Marion's body in the first "Psycho," and intends to drive the car into the swamp behind the motel.
But Duke wakes up as Norman is driving and attacks him. Norman loses control of the car, which still submerges into the swamp.
Norman barely escapes, but Duke goes down with the car.
Maureen realizes she really loves Norman, and returns to the motel to be with him.
They have a romantic moment at the top of the staircase inside the house, before mother shouts at Norman, startling him.
This causes Norman to lose his grip on Maureen. She falls down the stairs and dies as a result.
Tracy walks in and sees Maureen's dead body at the bottom of the stairs as Norman, dressed as mother, stands at the top of the steps holding a knife.
As he as nowhere to go, Tracy explains the truth about Emma Spool and his real mother.
What happens next is Norman's way to free himself from his mother's influence.
The movie maintains an unsettling creepy factor throughout the entire experience.
Anthony Perkins and Diana Scarwid in "Psycho III."
There's an apparent effort to make this another decent and intriguing follow-up to Alfred Hitchcock's original movie. And Anthony Perkins makes his directorial debut here. He clearly respects the source material, trying to make this a good movie to any degree. And he succeeds in being a good director.
Despite Perkins sitting in the director's chair, there's not enough in this movie to make it good. It's an attempt to make something new and terrifying but ends up doing the same thing as before all over again.
For instance, the movie tries to recreate the famous shower scene from the first "Psycho" with Maureen attempting suicide in the tub. It's a lame scene, with Maureen thinking she's having a vision of the Blessed Virgin Mary. And then Norman saves her. The movie just falls flat despite some interesting decisions here in there.
I have no idea why this movie exists other than being a cash grab. It's a disjointed mess full of weird scenes and pointless plot points. I took nothing away from this movie that would enhance or add something new to the series.
Maureen is a completely useless character. As she and Norman become romantic, especially as he initially thinks she resembles Marion Crane, I was genuinely curious how this romantic involvement would effect Norman. Would it change him? Would he stand up to mother? Would it "cure" him?
The answer is...there is no answer. It doesn't do anything for Norman. She adds nothing to the story in the end, other than being another accident to give someone the false premise that he hasn't changed nor can change.
Bates is more neurotic than in previous movies. That is, Perkins plays it up much more than before.
The whole premise with Emma Spool, starting at the end of part two, feels convoluted. She didn't have to thrown in the premise of claiming to be Norman's real mother. She could have simply resembled his mother which would have caused him to kill her the same way and set her up as his mother.
After all, Maureen Coyle resembling Marion Crane from the first movie ignites old feelings within Bates.
This movie picks up one month later after the events of "Psycho II."
However, the sheriff says that Bates came out of incarceration after serving 22 years rather than being out of a mental hospital after that same amount of time as stated in the second film.
Anyhow, this installment feels more scatterbrained and unbalanced - no pun intended.
Meg Tilly - Mary Loomis Robert Loggia - Dr. Bill Raymond Dennis Franz - Warren Toomey Hugh Gillin - Sheriff John Hunt Claudia Bryar - Emma Spool
You'd think a sequel to Hitchcock's groundbreaking horror movie "Psycho" couldn't possibly be any good. It's almost a travesty to think someone in Hollywood would dare piggyback off of the master of horror, Alfred Hitchcock. Well, someone did. And the bastards did it three years after Hitchcock's death.
No doubt Hitchcock would've raised hell at the idea of a sequel to his masterpiece of a psychological horror, a precursor to slasher films. It's one of a kind, and there hasn't been a movie like it since.
I went into this sequel anticipating it to be a terrible cash grab.
"Psycho II" begins with the infamous shower seen from the original "Psycho." Much to my disappointment, it excludes the image of Marion Crane's blood swirling down the tub drain.
It has been 22 years since Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) murdered Marion and was committed to a mental institution.
Now, he has just been released although Marion's sister, Lila (played again by Vera Mills), who is filled with loathing towards Norman and rightly so, is adamantly opposed to his release.
Norman's doctor, Bill Raymond (Robert Loggia), doesn't want him to move back to his mother's house overlooking the Bates Motel thinking it'll trigger him. But Norman does. He also lands a job as a cook at a nearby diner.
Norman meets a young waitress named Mary (Meg Tilly) at the diner, who gets kicked out of her boyfriend's place and has nowhere to go.
So, Norman invites her to stay with him at his mother's.
All the furniture, by the way, in the home is covered in sheets, and belongings are all boxed up.
When Norman returns to the Motel, he finds that the new manager, Warren Toomey (Dennis Franz), is a drug dealer who uses the rooms for sleazy and unsavory activities. So, he fires Toomey on the spot. This leads to Toomey often harassing Norman in retaliation.
Norman seems to be acclimating back into society well enough, but he soon starts receiving mysterious phone calls, and finds strange hand-written messages wherever he goes, that seem to be from his mother.
Of course, Norman thinks Toomey is behind it all.
In one scene, the two cross paths in which the drunk Toomey tries to pick a fight with Norman.
Later, Toomey meets his end when a dark hooded figure murders him.
Just as before, Norman starts hearing voices coming from his mother's house just like before.
At one point when he walks into his mother's bedroom, he finds it strangely set up exactly the way it was setup 22 years ago.
During this confusing moment, a noise lures Norman into the attic where he winds up locked in.
Anthony Perkins returns as Norman Bates in 'Psycho II.'
Meanwhile, a pair of teenagers sneak into the basement to make out. A woman hidden in shadow sneaks up on them and tries to kill them. One of the teens gets away but the other doesn't.
When Mary returns to the house, she finds Norman up in the attic.
He shows Mary his mother's bedroom, only to find it back in the state of neglect as it has been for years.
The sheriff shows up to inquire about the murdered teen. Mary tells him that she and Norman were out walking at the time the surviving teen claimed her boyfriend was murdered.
Later that night, Mary meets up with her mother who turns out to be none other than Lila. Both of them are behind the mysterious phone calls and notes in an attempt to drive Norman insane and ultimately have him committed back into the asylum. Lila even dressed as Norman's mother and rearranged her bedroom.
Mary's friendship with Norman, however, starts growing as she feels pity for him. She doesn't believe Norman is capable of committing murder. Rather, she thinks someone else is hiding in the house, especially as Norman was locked in the attic when the teenager was killed.
After Dr. Raymond figures out the Lila and Mary are mother and daughter, he suspects they're behind all the calls and notes.
While Lila is fueled by her hatred of Norman, and goes to some crazy lengths to get revenge, she doesn't quite cross the line into insanity. It's pure hatred.
But Norman doesn't believe Dr. Raymond. Instead, he thinks his real mother is behind it all. Still. he questions Mary about all this. And she admits she has given up her role in Lila's scheme. Lila, however, has no plans to stop.
The plot deepens when Lila is murdered by a shadowy figure while retrieving her mother costume from the cellar.
Also, police find Toomey's body and want to talk to Norman about it. Mary is terrified what might happen as a result, and tries to convince him to run away. Of course, running won't look good for Norman.
While she's trying to convince him, the phone rings. Norman answers and starts talking to "mother."
Mary listens in on another phone, but no one is talking to Norman. Still, the conversation he's having indicates his mother is commanding him to kill Mary.
She quickly runs to the cellar to dress up as his mother and command him to hang up the phone.
Dr. Raymond sees her and thinks he's catching her in the act of framing Norman. He grabs her, and in a moment of surprise, Mary accidentally stabs him through the heart.
Norman then spots his "mother" standing over Dr. Raymond's dead body. This causes him to snap and to threateningly approach Mary, backing her into the cellar. That's where she finds Lila's dead body.
Of course, she thinks Norman killed her, and raises her knife to stab him in outrage.
In that instance, police barge in and see Mary, dressed as Norman's mother, right about to stab him. They open fire and kill her. This crime scene leads police to think Mary was responsible for the murders and for attempting to seek revenge on Norman. Later, Emma Spool (Claudia Bryar), another waitress who worked at the diner, visits Norman and admits to him that she's his real mother.
Supposedly, Mrs. Bates was her sister and adopted him when Emma was institutionalized.
She admits that she was responsible for all the murders, attempting to protect Norman from anyone who tried to hurt him.
Norman doesn't know how to take this. He kills Emma and carries her body to his mother's room. Then he starts talking to himself in his mother's voice.
The movie is one plot twist after another.
Believe it or not, "Psycho II" isn't that bad of a movie. Of course, it doesn't compare at all to Hitchcock's original. It does have its issues.
Meg Tilly as Mary in 'Psycho II.'
The setup is a bit forced starting with Norman quickly befriending younger Mary and inviting her to stay at his home.
Then it turns out she's not only Lila's daughter, but her stay with Norman seems to be all part of a plan. How'd they know Norman would invite her in? Was it all a coincidence? Did Lila simply seize upon the opportunity when it presented itself? Or, maybe I misread the situation.
Thankfully, the storyline doesn't lead to the same scenario as part one. Writers still changed things up a bit. Occasionally, odd angles are used to turn up the hint of surrealism and unsettling mood. It's thankfully not overused, and does work more or less.
Despite all the twists and plot points, it's not a bad sequel. It plays out rather well, and at a decent pace. It pulls the audience in through just enough intrigue and suspense.
"Psycho II" doesn't have the intensity, nor the brilliant and daring writing seen in "Psycho." Still it somehow manages to work on its own. In other words, it gets by.
The character Tilly is really half-assed at first. Her intentions aren't clear.
Other performances are a bit too weak and not written well. Toomey, for instance, seems too over the top, being upset enough to focus all his energy on getting back at Norman for letting him go from a dead-end job at the motel that's barely surviving.
Anthony Perkins picks right back up Norman's likeability despite his darker side and secrets without effort, playing on the audience's emotions. He didn't forget how to be Norman Bates after all those years.
Perkins continues to be a sympathetic character, but not quite like he is in the first movie. He strikes me as more confused and lost rather than being a person tormented by his deceased mother. Still, Perkins takes the role seriously, and gives it the respect it deserves.
The effort to make "Psycho II" a compelling and worthy sequel is clearly present.
Of course, it's not the groundbreaking thriller the original "Psycho" remains to be. But part two is surprisingly a decent follow-up to Norman Bates's story years after the events of part one.
There are a few call backs to the original but nothing that goes out of its way.
The story starts off predictably, but takes a welcoming insanity-driven turn to make the film it's own story that goes towards a logical conclusion.
Vera Miles returns as Lila Loomis, though she plays Lila Crane, Marion's sister, in the original film. John Gavin plays Sam Loomis in the first film - Marion's lover. I guess after her sister's murder, Lila and Sam hooked up?
This first sequel to Hitchcock's masterpiece of horror may make the master director spin in his grave, but regardless, it's an entertaining passible movie, all things considered.
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.
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!
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.
Cast Anna Chappell - Evelyn Bill Thurman - Rev. Bill McWiley Will Mitchell - Al Virginia Loridans - Tanya Major Brock - Crewshaw James Bradford - Sheriff Amy Hill - Prissy Marian Jones - Mary Gregg Brazzel - Vernon Jill King - Lorie
I've done a decent number of reviews for horror movies released within the year. Now, I want to get back to some good old fashioned, nitty gritty, gag inducing, sick and insane, blood 'n guts, so bad they're good, fright night, creature feature horror flicks. I want to get back to the kind of horror movies, as my blog header says, you forgot about, wanted to forget about, or just haven't heard of... yet.
I have a lot of these kind of schlocky horror movie titles listed in my go-to movies I plan to get to at some point.
Well, recently, I stumbled upon a horror subgenre called psycho-biddy. The term sounds familiar. I'm pretty sure I've heard of it before.
This subgenre is a label for psychological thriller flicks that center on older women who have gone insane to some degree or another. The 1990 movie "Misery," based on Stephen King's novel about the crazy and unstable Annie Wilkes (Kathy Bates) who holds author Paul Sheldon (James Caan) hostage comes to mind. In early psycho-biddy horror movies, these violent unbalanced older women were often depicted as being among the upper-class.
The 1962 psychological horror thriller "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" starring Joan Crawford and Bette Davis is great example of this subgenre.
There are a few other psycho-biddy movies filmed in the same period that pair well with "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane" such as "Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte," (1964) also starring Bette Davis, "What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice?" (1969), "What's the Matter with Helen?" (1971), and "Whoever Slew Aunti Roo?" (1972).
Bette Davis stars in another psycho-biddy horror movie called "Dead Ringer" (1964), also known as "Who Is Buried in My Grave?" Even the movie poster advertises it as "for 'Baby Jane' people!"
And Joan Crawford stars in the psycho-biddy horror films, "Straight-Jacket" (1964) and "Berserk!" (1967).
Maybe it's fitting to cast Joan Crawford in these kinds of movie considering her true life past. The 1981 biographical psychological drama movie "Mommie Dearest" which I've heard some refer to as horror, is based on Crawford's parenting.
Anna Chappell and Bill Thurman in "Mountaintop Motel Massacre."
Anyways, the 1983 psycho-biddy slasher flick, "Mountain Motel Massacre" is a movie I've tried watching twice before. And each time, I ended up falling asleep. That's not a criticism of the movie. Well, this time I stayed awake for the entire experience.
The story is set in rural Louisiana. Motel proprietor Evelyn (Anna Chappell) is taking care of her motel after previously spending time in a mental hospital. Little does she know that her daughter, Lorie (Jill King), practices black magic in the basement, trying to contact her deceased father.
When Evelyn finds Lorie in the middle of some weird ritual, she has a breakdown and accidentally kills her own daughter with a sickle.
Not sure what to do next, she drags Lorie's body to the kitchen, calls the police, and convinces them she had nothing to do with her death.
Of course, they believe her...except the sheriff (James Bradford). He's not convinced.
Meanwhile, the motel she runs, called "Mountaintop Motel," is really a bunch of separate cabins used as motel rooms.
After Lorie's funeral, Evelyn is now alone at her motel. And as expected, she begins to go mad. Rev. Bill McWiley (Bill Thurman), who presided over the funeral, checks into the motel for Evelyn's sake.
Soon, other guests arrive.
A guy named Robin Crewshaw (Major Brock) checks into a cabin right next to McWiley's. The two of them chat it up and have a drink in McWiley's cabin.
Meanwhile, some newlyweds named Vernon and Mary (Gregg Brazzel and Marian Jones) arrive as they pass by on the freeway during their honeymoon road trip and need a place to crash for the night.
Later, as rain starts pouring, cousins Prissy (Amy Hill) and Tanya (Virginia Loridans) are also driving along the nearby freeway towards Nashville when their car breaks down. As luck would have it, a wealthy businessman named Al (Will Mitchell) passes by and offers these young girls a ride.
With the rain coming down in sheets, they decide to find a motel to wait out the storm. Attempting to drive in the rain would be dangerous.
They hitch a ride with Al, who claims to be a record producer for Capitol Records. He even has a car phone which is pretty prestigious for 1983.
Of course, the girls leave their money and stuff in their car. So, they have to bunk with Al at the motel. They fancy themselves singers, so they see this meetup as a golden opportunity for a potentially successful career. And Al is just full of promises.
Back in Crenshaw's cabin, Evelyn peaks in through a trap door on the floor. When the coast is clear, she releases some cockroaches in his room,
In the newlywed suite, Mary is getting ready to hit the sack as Vernon is relaxing on the bed. Evelyn sneaks underneath their cabin and releases a poisonous snake into their room unbeknownst to the couple. The snake makes its way towards Vernon, and bites him on the face. Mary freaks out and tries to call a doctor. But the phone doesn't work.
She runs to the main office and runs into Al just after he checks in.
Mary tells him what happened, and he calls a doctor.
Everyone is generally uneasy in their rooms. McWiley is awoken with rats in his cabin and tries killing them all.
But in Al's room, he and the girls, especially Tanya, start getting loose with themselves.
Before anything happens, the girls lock themselves in the bathroom to freshen up and argue over who's going to sleep with Al. Tanya's willing to go to bed with him if it'll lead to a record deal.
But Prissy remains in the bathroom.
As Tanya and Al begin fooling around, Evelyn sneaks into the bathroom through a trapdoor and slashes Prissy's throat with a sickle. She takes her body down into the basement.
Tanya hears the ruckus, but when she opens the bathroom, Prissy is gone. All that remains is blood splatter on the wall.
Soon, some of the guests discover the trap doors and begin to figure out what Evelyn has going on. So, it's up to someone to stop her and get to the bottom of these massacres.
This is nothing more than a hack n' slash flick where all the bad acting and plot devices are enjoyed for the sake of a cheap fright.
It's clear the guests are going to die. But how it all plays out is what keeps audiences tuned in. It's definitely a poor man's "Psycho." Very poor!
But watching this movie makes me glad I set this blog up in the first place. This is the place where shlock like "Mountaintop Motel Massacre" has a memory hole to fit into and remain.
The 2021 film "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" was a decent third installment to the 1984 horror comedy "Ghostbusters" and it's 1989 sequel "Ghostbusters II." I wrote about my thoughts of "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" in the local newspaper, noting that it "works as a tribute to the original film." I even gave it 3.5 out of five stars.
Now a fourth Ghostbusters movie is on the horizon, titled "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire." And the trailer for it dropped November 8th.
Based on the trailer, this new Ghostbusters movie looks like something unlike the other movies, save for the Ghostbusters squaring off with the paranormal. Where "Ghostbusters Afterlife" is a retread of the 1984 film, namely to restart the franchise with new characters, part four looks like something all on its own.
The trailer starts off lighthearted as "Cruel Summer" by Bananarama appropriately plays on top scenes of beach goers enjoying the New York City summer. Of course that's interrupted as an ominous sky begins to loom over the city, coming in off the beach and engulfing everything with ice.
It looks like New York City is under a bit of a frozen spell in the middle of summer. Patton Oswalt's character voices over the trailer, stating "for the first time in New York history, people froze to death in the middle of July." That's a lot of death and destruction!
"Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire" looks darker and more sinister than before.
My fear, however, is that the plot of a frozen Manhattan is a setup for a preachy flick about climate change. We've had too many of those, and they're pretty much all crappy movies.
Thankfully, the official synopsis of Frozen Empire gives me some reassurance.
It reads, "The Spengler family returns to where it all started - the iconic NYC firehouse - to team up with the original Ghostbusters, who've developed a top-secret research lab to take busting ghosts to the next level. But when the discovery of an ancient artifact unleashes an evil force, Ghostbusters new and old must join forces to protect their home and save the world from a second ice age."
James Acaster in "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire."
But a recent article in "Rolling Stone Magazine" speculates a plot about climate change.
I want a paranormal story with the Ghostbusters, no matter how old they are, doing what they do best - telling jokes and busting ghosts.
I don't want to spend money on admission just to be lectured again about climate change and saving the planet, yada yada yada. I want to escape for an hour and half, and just be entertained.
That was my big gripe over the 2019 movie "Godzilla: King of the Monsters." It's a preachy flick about that same topic. I've heard it all before.
The trailer offers some images that, like so many other fans, has me anxious and excited to see this new movie.
For instance, the characters from "Afterlife" dawn red winter coats that are a new part of the Ghostbusters uniform. One new character, played by James Acaster, is also sporting this red winter coat along with a name patch similar to those on the Ghostbusters coveralls. Some on social media speculate this might be baby Oscar from "Ghostbusters II" all grown up. Others think the name on his coat looks like it reads "Melnitz" which may indicate he's related to the Ghostbuster's receptionist, Janine Melnitz, played by Annie Potts in parts one, two, and in Afterlife.
I even read that this mysterious character might be related to EPA agent Walter Peck, played by William Atherton in "Ghostbusters."
Incidentally, Atherton is supposed to reprise his role in this new movie.
As for the new specter tormenting New York City, it's appearance is really intriguing. It show's up twice in the trailer.
In the first brief glimpse, the monster looks like its attaching horns into its head.
A fellow Ghosthead I chatted with on Facebook seemed certain this new ghost is "Garaka" which he surmised thanks to some leaked concept art.
"Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire" concept art.
I couldn't find anything online to confirm this except for a blurb on the Ghostbusters wiki page about a character called "Hob Anagarak" - a monster that appeared in the episode "Cold Cash and Hot Water" from season two of the animated series "The Real Ghostbusters." However, they're clearly not the same two characters as Hob Anagarak is a fire deity who "has the ability to breathe and control fire, has incredible strength, and can teleport away from danger. It was said Hob Anagarak could have reduced whole cities to charcoal."
The horns on that thing, which you can barely see in the blurred shot of it walking into the firehouse, makes me think of Bullwinkle J. Moose.
Still, the Ghostbusters News website has an article that claims "Frozen Empire" is said to have taken inspiration from "The Real Ghostbusters."
Actor Kumail Nanjiani, who appears in the trailer, posted the following on X - formerly Twitter; "Also I am a huge fan of The Real Ghostbusters (the animated series) and that show was a point of reference for this movie. The filmmakers wanted to make a long episode of the animated series. So if you love that show as I do, be excited."
I guess the animated series has content that's worth pulling inspiration from in order to make an entertaining live-action movie with the original Ghostbusters along with the new characters. I hope there's more originality thrown into the new movie rather than ideas recycled from the cartoon.
Whoever this big scare is, I appreciate something new and original for the franchise rather than rehashing old characters from before.
Even so, I think it would be great to see Rick Moranis return, even if briefly, as Louis Tully from parts one and two. Still, I doubt his return as he's very selective about the roles he's offered nowadays.
Gil Kenan, who worked as a writer for Afterlife, sits in the director's chair this time after Jason Reitman directed the previous movie. Kenan directed the 2006 animated horror comedy "Monster House" which isn't a bad film. I enjoyed it, as did my kids.
He also directed the 2015 "Poltergeist" remake. The less said about that flop, the better! I saw it when it was released, and don't remember anything about it. He also directed the Christmas movie "A Boy Called Christmas," which is also a decent enough picture. So, being a decent enough director, I think Kenan's presence adds a little promise to this next Ghostbusters movie. We'll see, of course.
There's a spectacular shot of Ecto 1 blaring down the streets of New York City in the trailer! And it's restored. I'm excited to see her in action again.
Plus, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, and Bill Murray return. That's always a welcomed sight, especially for Murray who seemed reluctant to do any more Ghostbuster movies after the second film.
Though I can't help but have my doubts that part four will be any good as the original film's success is true lighting in a bottle, and both part two and "Afterlife" are hit and miss, I'm still anxious and curious to see where "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire" takes the franchise. As of now, "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire" is set for release on March 29, 2024.
_theatrical_poster_(retouched).jpg){kind=spacer}
