Black Phone 2 (2025)

To be fair, there were a lot of distractions in the theater when I went to see Black Phone 2. Perhaps that's why I had difficulty losing myself in the movie, but I don't think that alone is enough to explain why I didn't like it as much as the first one. I'll go out on a limb and say, I think The Black Phone is a victim of its own success. The first movie was an unassuming, quality horror movie about a kid trying to escape a serial killer. I feel like this movie is trying too hard to turn "The Black Phone" into a phenomenon. Not every good horror movie needs to be a franchise.

Let me be a little more specific. There were supernatural elements in the first movie, but they played a supporting role, and ultimately served the narrative. In the sequel, they've been pushed to the forefront, jettisoning any remaining tether to reality. As if demoted to the level of franchise mascot, Ethan Hawke - whose subtle creepiness contributed much to the unsettling feeling of the last movie - isn't given much to do here besides go on a murderous rampage, threatening to kill people in their dreams and from beyond the grave - while doing it in ice skates, like a wannabe Canadian Freddie Krueger. And though the setting (while stunning in its frozen beauty) seems to give nods to Friday The 13th and even John Carpenter's The Thing, the movie isn't strong enough to raise these details from the bin of derivativeness to the level of homage.

Even on a superficial level, this movie doesn't have the charm of setting and tone and style that the first one had. The kids are older now, with the focus switched to the sister and her psychic dream powers. The actress did a fantastic job in the last movie. I hate to be vain, but they've given her a ridiculous haircut, and it's like she's a completely different person (I actually had to double check the cast list to confirm that it was the same actress). Maybe it's because they now look like adults (despite still being treated as "minor children" by the camp staff) and it's not quite so charming, but the vaguely inappropriate banter between siblings that felt so effortlessly humorous in the last movie, now feels forced and over the top (I kid you not, the phrase "dinosaur dick" appears in the dialogue at one point). And to top it all off, the movie even lowered itself to include a jump scare or two, as if forgetting what made the first movie so effective. More likely, it's pandering to a different audience. A less sophisticated audience, to my disappointment.

The Black Phone (2021)

I can't keep up with all the new horror movies coming out these days - I just don't watch 'em like I used to. But I had a spontaneous opportunity to take a couple teenagers to see Black Phone 2, and so I wanted to watch the first movie first. My patience for the all-too common low effort formula of cheap jump scares punctuated by an audio crescendo (yawn) has seriously flat-lined. Life's too short to waste time watching those kinds of movies. But that's why I loved The Black Phone so much. This is how you do horror - mystery, tension, characters you care about, just the right amount of straight-faced humor, with a creepy premise that touches on some flavor of unsettling horror (pick your poison), in a movie where the bottom line isn't getting girls to jump into their dates' arms while spilling popcorn all over the floor. The pacing was excellent. The soundtrack was excellent. I loved the commitment to the 1970s setting. The characters were interesting. The kids were great. Ethan Hawke was fantastic as the antagonist. Figuring out what was going on with the black phone, and then watching to find out if the protagonist would find a way to escape made the movie enjoyable, without any need for cheap theatrics. It pays when creators take the horror genre seriously, and not treat it as schlock designed to turn a quick buck. I applaud the filmmakers who made The Black Phone, and I look forward to seeing the sequel.

Bo Burnham: Inside (2021)

My latest Thanksgiving tradition is to watch Inside by Bo Burnham (available on Netflix) every year around the holiday. I have the soundtrack, too - which I like to listen to - but there's a lot you don't get unless you watch the feature. Not just the visuals, but shorter snippets and spoken sketches, too. You should definitely watch it first, in its entirety, to get the full effect. Then you can sample its tracks piecemeal, as your inspiration dictates, with knowledge of how it all fits into context.

My experience sharing it so far is that this comedy special is divisive (so it's okay if you hate it - you wouldn't be the first), but honestly I think it's brilliant. I don't know what that says about me - I might be biased, as somebody who has lived as a hikikomori (shut-in). But I think it's the best thing to have come from the pandemic.

I worry that it might be heavily dated, but having lived through that period, it's like a time capsule. And though it's a comedy, what it attempts to make light of are some very serious issues. In addition to evoking that sense of isolation and anxiety we all experienced throughout 2020, it addresses mental health awareness, and also life in the early 21st century, learning to operate as nodes in a digital society (itself spurred on by the physical distancing we experienced during COVID).

Subjects broached include social justice (especially navigating that minefield as a conscientious yet privileged white guy), climate change ("you say the whole world's ending - honey, it already did"), Instagram culture ("is this heaven, or is it just a white woman's Instagram?"), video chatting ("I'll waste my time, Facetiming with my mom"), sexting ("it isn't sex, it's the next best thing"), generational shifts... all with a self-deferential humor that nevertheless does not erase the significant weight of these issues (the impact of which is visible as Bo's mental state deteriorates throughout the piece).

There isn't really any part of it that I don't like. And I enjoy how the whole thing is tied together by the concept of being trapped inside ("tryna be funny and stuck in a room") - for a period of time that just keeps dragging on longer and longer ("it'll stop any day now") - and trying to maintain your sanity while using the not-very-promising gift of being a comedian to try to address the collapse of modern civilization ("should I be joking at a time like this?"). It's not really rock music, but I consider it a rock opera (a comedy opera?).

Anyway, I've boiled it down to my top three favorite songs, that work best out of context of the rest of the piece, just to give you a taste of what it's about. Here they are (in the order they occur in the special):

How The World Works
Welcome To The Internet
That Funny Feeling

And, for the holiday*, here's an extra video - my favorite song from the Inside Outtakes (also worth watching):

The Chicken

*I know, it's the wrong type of poultry, but oh well...

Love Neil Young

I started this list as a playful jab at Neil Young's exhaustingly prolific discography, but the reality turned out to be even more outrageous than the parody. So now, in celebration of Neil's birthday, I present to you the top 30 Neil Young songs with the word "love" in their title. XD

As a disclaimer, although I like grouping songs by theme, I don't enjoy ranking them. But I made an exception in this case. Just know that the rankings are a general estimation. Thirty songs is a lot to put in order from best to worst (especially when some of them are over 10 minutes long).

Also, I'm focused more on song composition than particulars of a performance - so live versions have been ignored (except where, as in some instances, a studio recording is not available).

Top 30 Neil Young Songs With The Word "Love" In Their Title

1. Love And Only Love & Love To Burn [Ragged Glory, 1990]
Comments: Tied for first, because I sampled 31 songs and didn't want to have to chuck one off the bottom of the list. But also because I have a hard time picking one over the other - they're just both so good. Love And Only Love has a great, uplifting chorus ("love and only love will endure"), but of the two, I can play Love To Burn on guitar. Regardless, they're both top tier Crazy Horse jams from Neil's 1990 comeback album, Ragged Glory. They're not just great Neil Young songs with "love" in their title, but great Neil Young songs period.

2. When You Dance I Can Really Love [After The Gold Rush, 1970]
Comments: Originally released on Neil's third album, After The Gold Rush (incorrectly titled with "You" instead of "I"), the reach of this classic was amplified (literally) when Crazy Horse performed it on the Rust Never Sleeps tour in 1979. An ode to dance floor romance, it's hard not to listen to it without singing along and swaying to the rhythm.

3. Standing In The Light Of Love [Toast, 2001*] (*first released in 2022)
Comments: From a shelved turn-of-the-millennium Crazy Horse project (a contemporary to Are You Passionate?, which featured Neil's tribute song to 9/11, Let's Roll) that only managed to reach the light of day a couple of years ago. It's short, but it's heavy, with a strong riff, and a chorus that sticks with you.

4. She Showed Me Love [Colorado, 2019]
Comments: A relatively big investment with its 13-minute runtime, despite hailing from an album only five years old (from an artist that hit it big over ten times that long ago), this sounds like a classic extended Crazy Horse jam. The lyrics aren't afraid (as Neil never is) to broach the subject of environmental activism, but the delivery is softer than in some other songs. For an old white guy, Neil is doing more than his part to ensure that we HAVE a planet for our children to live on (if only that were enough).

5. Peace And Love [Mirror Ball, 1995]
Comments: In 1995, Neil Young swapped out his backing band Crazy Horse to record an album with Pearl Jam - an appropriate collaboration for the man who has been dubbed "the Godfather of Grunge". This song starts out with moderate energy, but picks up intensity, and is raised by the novelty of hearing Eddie Vedder singing on a Neil Young song.

6. A New Day For Love [The Monsanto Years, 2015]
Comments: Don't let the quirky opening fool you - once the guitar kicks in, this song rocks. Not having been previously acquainted with Neil's "Monsanto Years" - featuring the band Promise of the Real - I was pleasantly surprised by how good the two tracks I sampled were.

7. Gateway Of Love [Toast, 2001*] (*first released in 2022)
Comments: Our second entry from Toast, the turn-of-the-millennium Crazy Horse album that almost never was. This track is another extended jam. I feel like it has the vibe of Broken Arrow-era Crazy Horse. That album (from 1996) was good, but didn't really spawn any standout hits. Although I remember the accompanying live album from that tour being pretty tight.

8. Don't Take Your Love Away From Me [Bluenote Cafe, 2015]
Comments: My research indicates that this song was written for Everybody's Rockin', Neil's '80s experiment in rockabilly - but issues with the label prevented its inclusion. Which is unfortunate, because I like it. I actually have two versions. One was included on a compilation of '80s material titled Lucky 13, released in 1993. But I prefer the version from Bluenote Cafe, a live album released in 2015 that was recorded on tour for This Note's For You in 1987-88.

9. Act Of Love [Mirror Ball, 1995]
Comments: Interestingly, in more than one case I've encountered Neil Young albums that include two different songs with the word "love" in their title. This is another track from Neil's collaboration with Pearl Jam, Mirror Ball, and it's a straight-up, no-nonsense rocker.

10. People Want To Hear About Love [The Monsanto Years, 2015]
Comments: More of a rant than an anthem, I feel like this is the kind of stuff that guy that begrudgingly bought my Living With War t-shirt in a yard sale (he liked that it was Army green) meant when he said he wished Neil would just shut up. I, on the other hand, am on board with Neil's political and environmental activism. As Neil sang on A New Day For Love, "it's a bad day to do nothing."

11. Lookin' For A Love [Zuma, 1975]
Comments: Apart from Cortez The Killer (which is choice), Zuma is a mid-range Crazy Horse album from the mid-'70s, and this is a mid-range slow tempo rocker. Not bad, not necessarily great, either. But it's easy to sing and bounce along to.

12. Lotta Love [Comes A Time, 1978]
Comments: Before we get to the bottom half of this list, I just want to point out that a song doesn't have to be a hard rocker for me to like it - but when it comes to this softer fare, there's a good way and a bad way to do it. Not too much country, a good beat, fun lyrics to sing along to, and Neil's voice in prime condition? I can dig it.

13. Love In Mind [Time Fades Away, 1973]
Comments: Part of Neil's "ditch" trilogy of albums, which he recorded in the aftermath of the success that Harvest brought (along with the singles Heart of Gold and Old Man), and the last to be released on CD, Time Fades Away features this track, a moody piano ballad. It's short, but I like the somber mood that it creates.

14. Razor Love [Silver & Gold, 2000]
Comments: On the surface, this gentle acoustic ballad (that introduces the "greedy hand") wouldn't seem to be my kind of song, but for some reason I like it. It's pretty. I'm not even sure what exactly a "razor love" is (other than that it "cuts clean through"), but it's just a really intriguing image.

15. Only Love Can Break Your Heart [After The Gold Rush, 1970]
Comments: From After The Gold Rush, it's not nearly as good as When You Dance I Can Really Love, but I do like the lyrics. They're fun to sing along to. There's not much else going on in this song, but that's something. If you like the sentiment, I recommend you listen to Miley Cyrus on Mark Ronson's Nothing Breaks Like A Heart.

16. Love Is A Rose [Decade, 1977]
Comments: Recorded in 1974 for an album (Homegrown) that went unreleased until 2020, this song was compiled on Neil Young's Decade compilation in '77. Linda Ronstadt scored a hit with her country version of it. It's not the kind of song I'd usually go for, but I have a soft spot for it. It's a catchy little ditty, and I like the lyrics.

17. Love And War [Le Noise, 2010]
Comments: For an album titled Le Noise, you'd expect it to be more energetic. Instead, it's slow and somber. I like the sentiment of this song, though - although it could be described as "mopey", who among us hasn't known the feeling of trying to speak out, and having it just fall flat? I know I have...

18. Look Out For My Love [Comes A Time, 1978]
Comments: Although not scoring as high as the other song from Comes A Time on this list, I don't dislike it. I really think Neil's voice was sounding great on this album. I can't believe this is where I stopped buying his albums chronologically, especially because it's the final link connecting his prime material to Rust Never Sleeps, after which follows the experimental '80s period (where all but the diehard fans could be excused for dropping off).

19. Quit (Don't Say You Love Me) [Are You Passionate?, 2002]
Comments: From the album Neil intriguingly recorded with Booker T. and the MGs, during a time when he was reportedy going through some problems with his marriage. This song doesn't break ground, but it's got a nice, slow shuffle, with a good groove. And I like the guitar lead sprinkled throughout.

20. Sign Of Love [Le Noise, 2010]
Comments: There are songs on this list that I like more than you'd expect, and then there are others that I'd have expected to like more. I like the sound of the feedback on Le Noise - especially compared side by side to some of these other songs, but overall I just feel middling about it. I don't think the vocal effects are doing this song any favors.

21. Fool For Your Love [Bluenote Cafe, 2015]
Comments: Our second track from the Bluenote Cafe live album recorded in the '80s on tour for This Note's For You. Obviously, from its placement on this list, it's not as good as the other one. Not enough guitar, too much brass, a wooden backbeat...

22. Little Thing Called Love [Trans, 1983]
Comments: I'm sure it has its defenders, but Trans (as in Transformer Man, not transgender - unfortunately) is probably one of the most universally panned of Neil's questionable genre experiments in the '80s. The only thing that redeems this song is the slight edge to the guitar, and that it's got a pretty catchy chorus.

23. Train Of Love [Sleeps With Angels, 1994]
Comments: Dedicated to Kurt Cobain after his unfortunate suicide, you'd think this album would be like a Tonight's The Night for the '90s. Although there are a couple of memorable tracks (this isn't one of them), it kind of occupies a limbo space in my mind - despite featuring Crazy Horse.

24. Will To Love [American Stars 'N Bars, 1977]
Comments: I don't hate this track on principle (from the album that brought us Like A Hurricane), but every time it starts playing, my first instinct is to hit "skip". It's just a slog. For a song that's seven minutes long, there's no development. Being an acoustic song, it lacks the energy and the fire of Neil's electric jams. There aren't a lot of acoustic songs that can keep my interest for that long.

25. Love Earth [World Record, 2022]
Comments: I think there's a pattern, where I like Neil's rockers, but not so much his piano ballads - especially the ones that feature country flare. You know, for a singer that's put off a lot of listeners, I was never bothered by Neil's "shakey" voice - in his younger years. But now that he's getting older, the "grampa" voice doesn't do it for me.

26. I've Loved Her So Long [Neil Young, 1968]
Comments: On Neil's solo debut album, I don't think he'd quite developed his sound independent of his work with Buffalo Springfield yet (that wouldn't happen until he recruited Crazy Horse for his second album). With a choir and symphony, and Neil's voice at its shakiest, this definitely isn't one of his best tracks.

27. Hold On To Your Love [Trans, 1983]
Comments: The other track from Trans that made this list had the benefit of at least sounding superficially like a rock song. This song suffers from too much synthesizer - like something you might hear on the merry-go-round at the carnival. I give it a pass.

28. Don't Forget Love [Barn, 2021]
Comments: The first time I listened to Neil's first post-COVID album, the dominant impression was, "damn, he's getting old." In my head I was thinking, this could be the last album he ever records (thankfully, it wasn't). Even in his old age, Neil can still rock out - as evidenced by some of the other songs on this album - but this one is far too gentle for my tastes.

29. The Ways Of Love [Freedom, 1989]
Comments: From the album that brought us Rockin' In The Free World, with pedal steel guitar and harmonies courtesy of Linda Ronstadt, this acoustic ditty - which sounds halfway between Harvest and Harvest Moon - is far too light and countrified for my tastes.

30. For The Love Of Man [Psychedelic Pill, 2012]
Comments: A mostly forgettable track from 2012's otherwise memorable album, Psychedelic Pill - which was Crazy Horse's big resurgence post-2003's Greendale (which covers both times I've seen them live). With a slow shuffle, it's like a melodic funeral dirge.

Now, can you list 30 songs with the word "love" in their title by one of your favorite musical artists? I bet you can't. :-p

Evil Dead Rise (2023) & Bone Tomahawk (2015)

Apparently, there's a new Evil Dead movie out. I saw it on Netflix, so I figured I'd give it a watch. If you know me, you know I'll never quit a movie once I've started it. Never. But I couldn't finish this one. I didn't even make it to the halfway point before I completely lost interest. Honestly, typing my thoughts out seems like more fun than watching the rest of this movie (it's still playing in the background). Although I'm an honest reviewer, I like to give creators the benefit of the doubt, because I know how hard it is to tell a story, and pour your heart out onto the page (or screen). I may be a critic, but I don't enjoy being critical. But this movie is worthless. I can't believe it has so many favorable reviews on IMDb. Somebody paid a lot of money to generate hype.

When they filmed an Evil Dead remake in 2013, I loved it. I'm not that hard to please. I thought this movie would follow in its footsteps, be some kind of a sequel. But it's just a hollow cash grab. The characters are uninteresting. The writing is nonexistent. The original Evil Dead had ridiculous gore effects just for their own sake - and it worked, because it was legitimately entertaining, and didn't take itself too seriously. This movie can't even hide the fact that it's contriving situations that make no logical or emotional sense just for some cheap freakouts. It's like the director is constantly bashing you over the head saying, "you're watching a movie, remember?", instead of letting you get engrossed in it. Maybe he should have directed a carnival ride instead of a piece of cinema.

It has all the hallmarks of bad modern horror: unsympathetic characters, jump scares punctuated by an obnoxious soundtrack, gross-out in favor of constructing atmosphere. Even the cute little girl that's a cliche in these kind of movies has an unnecessary lisp (we get it, she's a kid) and an inexplicable British accent. Don't be tricked by the halfway decent-looking cold open, because it's just misdirection; after the title card, the movie swerves and spends the rest of its runtime in some dingy apartment (shot with a blue filter), featuring completely unrelated characters.

The only thing this movie has going for it (and I'll give it that, though it's not much) is the look of the Necronomicon - including the artwork inside its pages. I'd love to have a recreation of it to display on my bookshelf. But it's a cool prop that deserves to be in a better movie. It's not worth sitting through this drudgefest just to see a few glimpses of it. This movie doesn't work as a standalone horror film, and it's even worse in connection to the Evil Dead franchise.

Okay, I'm watching the climax now, and it's a little bit interesting. It's weird how the characters look better drenched in blood. But it's not worth torturing yourself for 75 minutes just for a semi-decent payoff. And the homages to earlier Evil Dead films are falling flat. If the filmmakers wanted audiences to enjoy the ending, they should have stuck it at the end of a better movie. There's no excuse for this.

By contrast - and I feel bad mentioning these two titles in the same breath, but it serves as an effective counterpoint - I just watched Bone Tomahawk last night, and it was amazing. As a novel fusion of the horror and Western genres, it already starts with an intriguing premise. But what makes it so great is the writing. The characters are interesting. Their dialogue is smart, and entertaining. Most of the movie is just setup to a final encounter with a group of cannibalistic savages on the Western frontier, but the movie would be hardly less interesting if it had just been the setup, without any payoff. That's how you do it.

You have to know that I don't have anything against the horror genre (I wouldn't have published hundreds of reviews of horror movies if I didn't love horror), but when the genre becomes synonymous with pornography - cheap smut with only one simple purpose - it does itself a great disservice. The writing in Bone Tomahawk was so good, it attracted a higher caliber of actors, including Kurt Russell, Patrick Wilson, and David Arquette (I didn't recognize Richard Jenkins, but he was phenomenal in this, too). This is the vision I see for horror - like a more sophisticated form of erotica, a respected art form that's technically proficient while still delivering the thrills audiences crave. I implore you, don't waste your time watching Evil Dead Rise. Elevate your palate and watch Bone Tomahawk instead. That's the kind of project that deserves our support as horror-loving movie fans.

Leave The World Behind (2023)

Julia Roberts and Ethan Hawke join Mahershala Ali (with a cameo by Kevin Bacon) in a beach vacation rental to square off against the apparent end of the world, when a cyberterrorist attack that targets navigation systems and hamstrings communications grinds the country to a (literal) screeching halt.

With a bit of a quirky style, and a small but memorable supporting cast, I found this movie to be very enjoyable. Even, surprisingly, a little bit funny - as I have a wry sense of humor. With themes that are very topical to the current state of our country, it definitely gets your imagination running.

Some have complained about the ending, but I thought it was perfect. (You hear me, people - perfect! If you changed a single thing about that ending, it would disrupt the narrative and thematic cohesion of the story. Which is why you don't let amateurs write scripts). If you like apocalyptic cinema, I give it a solid recommendation.

AMC's The Terror (2018)

Now available on Netflix, AMC's The Terror was an unexpectedly good find. Billed as an anthology series, you can take the first season on its own (I've heard not great things about the second). It's an adaptation in 10 episodes - each about an hour long - of a fictionalized account of John Franklin's mid-19th century naval expedition in the Arctic, in search of a Northwest Passage over the top of Canada. Harsh environmental conditions mixed with hubris, exacerbated by a steadily growing sickness of the body and mind, as well as the presence of a vengeful polar bear-like creature tied to native folklore, all ensure the expedition's tragic outcome. Gripping, heartfelt, and imaginative, it was a harrowing journey from start to finish. I recommend it highly.

Aliens Among Us?

Coming hot on the heels of the latest installment in the Alien series (Alien: Romulus) is a new TV series slated for release next year, titled Alien: Earth. I'm holding out hope that it will be good, but making the choice to do a prequel set on Earth doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence. It's the same mistake that the Alien vs. Predator movies made. Setting such an early precedent for the presence of xenomorphs on Earth not only undermines the considerable effort to which The Company will later go to procure a specimen at the edge of the galaxy, but also effectively neutralizes the tension created in the original movies, built around the urgent need to keep this threat from reaching our home planet.

"If those things get back here, that will be all. Then you can just kiss it goodbye."
- Ripley, from Aliens

Certainly, you could write a script that keeps the action quarantined, where the monster is eradicated and nobody lives to tell the tale (or at least, nobody believes them). I don't doubt that this strategy would keep production costs down. But why write yourself into a corner, when there are still stories to be adapted that take place in the aftermath of the encounter on LV-426 - when the aliens not only eventually reach Earth, but completely colonize it? Imagine a post-apocalyptic landscape with xenomorphs instead of zombies or marauders! Or, if you'd really prefer to fill in holes, instead of continuing the story, I'm dying to see a depiction of Newt's harrowing ordeal, from the time that Burke orders her parents to investigate the derelict ship, through her survival as the aliens take over Hadley's Hope, until the space marines finally show up. You'd have to find an exceptionally talented young actress to do it, but I've seen a few over the years that could have pulled it off.

This comic is a good start, but it kind of glosses over the best part
in favor of retelling Aliens from Newt's perspective (partly).

Regardless of whether or not you preserve the timeline's continuity, bringing the xenomorphs onto a 21st century Earth erodes their mystique. I'll tell you why. Although I did not dislike Prometheus and Alien: Covenant, they've basically established as canon (as clear as I can figure) that the xenomorphs are an artificially-engineered biological weapon. Speculating from a scientific perspective, this is interesting, but not as captivating in my opinion as the alternate hypothesis that our encounter with these creatures essentially functions as an interstellar equivalent of the fatal mistake that Tolkien's dwarves made when they dug the mines of Moria.

"Too deep we delved there, and woke the nameless fear."
- Glóin, from The Fellowship of the Ring

If you've ever read Wait But Why's discussion of The Fermi Paradox, you'll be familiar with the concept I am describing. This paradox can be summarized by a simple question: if space is filled with stars, then why is the night sky so dark? Or, more to the point, is there anybody out there? In the vast expanse of the cosmos, shouldn't there be other intelligent lifeforms? Then what's with all the radio silence? Well, one possible explanation is that other beings are smart enough to keep their mouths shut - they don't want to announce their presence, because they know what's out there, and they're afraid it will find them!

As the premise for a cosmic horror story, I love this idea. Rather than a bio weapon, I'd prefer to think of the xenomorphs as an eldritch abomination lurking at the edges of the universe (or at least our galaxy). As our technology advances, and we begin to probe further into the depths of space, searching for more resources to deplete, we may - if we are not careful - encounter this denizen of chaos, birthed from the void, that strikes terror into the hearts of men. Not only does it put our individual lives in jeopardy, it poses an existential threat to our entire species. But if you toss it into our metaphorical backyard without lasting consequence too many times, it begins to lose its teeth (or inner jaws).

While we're on the topic of missteps in the ongoing Alien saga, I have to bring up one of Alien: Resurrection's many sins, because Alien: Romulus veered in the same direction toward its end; it's the only significant criticism I have for that movie. I can understand The Company's desire (however misguided) to harness the xenomorph as a weapon, but creating an alien-human hybrid? What is this, The X-Files? (There's even a black oil involved in the alien's lifecycle now!). The reason this plot point bothers me (aside from the fact that it deviates the monster from H.R. Giger's inspired design) is because it violates the original conception of the xenomorph - as I understood it in my youth - as a parasitic organism that takes on properties of its host. In other words, the typical xenomorph we're used to seeing in these movies is already the "human form" of the alien!

That's why, in Alien 3, when the creature hatched from a dog, it had more canine characteristics. It's the conceptual basis for the entire line of Alien toys that I collected as a child - which featured bull aliens, snake aliens, gorilla aliens, etc. Part of what makes the xenomorph the "perfect organism" is that it assimilates the genetic code of its host, picking out the most adaptable traits. I guess we saw a little bit of this evolution in Prometheus and its sequel. But if bio-engineered, it's more of a Frankenstein's monster run amok, than a naturally occuring phenomenon - like a cosmic storm, that cannot be effectively fought, only sought shelter from. All that said, I was able to enjoy AvP: Requiem, despite essentially being a suburban slasher set in the unremarkable year of 2004. So all hope is not yet lost!

Alien: Romulus (2024)

I just saw the new Alien movie today, and it was good. Very much a return to form. Effectively paid homage to the classics, melding elements from the original films, while gently innovating to keep the film feeling relevant and not simply redundant, but without being too jarring to the mythos. I like that they kept the "working class sci-fi" perspective, and it was interesting to explore in a new way the prejudice against synthetics. Andy was a great character, giving the filmmakers an opportunity to convey the grey area involved with making difficult moral choices. At the right times, he managed to be intimidating while still remaining sympathetic.

I lost a little bit of interest in the climax, where the inspiration from Alien: Resurrection was strongest. And since you can't help making comparisons to earlier films, I was distracted by the disparity of wardrobe in the final, post-bedtime arc. It makes you wonder how a movie that relies on body horror, and whose creative vision was guided by an artist who shocked the world by marrying sex with death, can be so gymnophobic. We have to watch the xenomorph crawling out of what, by all accounts, appears to be an alien vagina (actually, that was pretty cool), but we don't get to see the female lead in her skivvies? What kind of dystopian future are we living in?

But, that's a pretty superficial complaint. Overall, I enjoyed the movie very much.

Zharth's Music Log is reborn!

For those who don't know or don't remember, in 2007-2008 I hosted a "music log" on my website. Every week for a whole year, I picked a theme, and then each day of the week I posted a classic rock or blues song that relates to that theme. It was a fun way to celebrate my love of music, and satisfy my creative and organizational mind, similar to what I used to do as a college radio DJ.

After the series concluded in July of 2008, I added a handful of extra themes as they came to me. I call this the Redux. Then there was a long break, and in 2018 I added the first new theme in six years. It was meant to be the conclusion of the Redux and the final theme. But thinking about the music log again, and also sharing it with a friend, got my creative juices flowing, and I started working on a new series of themes.

Over the past six years, those themes have been stewing in my head. I put a lot of groundwork down on them in 2021, before turning my attention to other things. But early this year, I began to feel inspired, and I decided it was finally time to launch the "third season" of Zharth's Music Log - which I refer to as Threedux. I've been publishing themes low key since February, and have already filled out two new "quarters" (a quarter year's worth of weeks, or 13 themes), when combined with Redux.

I thought that would be the end once and for all. But since I've been polishing and finalizing these themes, I've been coming up with new ones left and right, which I am now working on. I think that I will comfortably be able to fill out a full second year (added to the original run), with 26 more themes than what I have currently published. After that, I plan to stop, but who can say what the future will bring? (The longer I go, the harder it is to avoid repeating songs). But until then, there'll be lots of music to (re-)discover as the weeks go by!

See all the themes at zharth.net/zml.

Split (2016) & Glass (2019)

I remember being hesitant to see this movie when it came out. Not because of the controversial reputation of its director (M. Night Shyamalan has had some hits and some misses, but I respect his talent and creativity), but because dissociative identity disorder is such a tricky subject, that hasn't had the best representation in the past. But here, James McAvoy sells it (keeping in mind that this is fiction, not a psychological documentary). And Anya Taylor-Joy is radiant as always.

I really liked how M. Night effectively turned what is, on its surface, a horror movie about three girls who are abducted by a maniac with a split personality into (ending spoilers!) an origin story for a new supervillain in the Unbreakable universe. I thought that was really clever. The only thing I could have done without is the lazy molestation back story. But other than that, I enjoyed it. I'm looking forward to watching Glass next.

---

I'm not the biggest fan of conventional superhero movies. It makes me sound like a hipster, but the MCU doesn't thrill me - and that was true even before they began to bore the public with a never-ending stream of cookie-cutter blockbusters. I prefer movies that deconstruct the concept of superheros. I liked Kick-Ass, and I liked The Watchmen. It wasn't, "what would a world with superheros be like", it was "what would superheros be like in the real world we inhabit?" I think that's why Batman is my favorite conventional superhero - he doesn't even have superpowers, just a lot of money. Well, that and the gothic atmosphere. But that's what I liked about Unbreakable. What if a real person, in the real world, found out he was indestructible?

Split was good because it functioned well as a horror movie, while also expanding the universe of Unbreakable by adding a crucial new element. Going into Glass, I was hoping to see what M. Night Shyamalan's take on a "conventional" superhero movie would look like. Instead, it spends entirely too much time trying to convince us (itself?) that these superheroes/villains are just delusional. I mean, it's an interesting concept - one of my favorite episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer was the controversial one that successfully argued the posibillity that Buffy was a mental patient and everything was going on in her head. I suppose it could have made for an interesting movie if I wasn't hoping for something different.

Knowing that it's almost certainly part of M. Night's M.O. to bait and switch the audience prevents you from committing to the conceit (it's not one of his more successful deceptions). At this point in the trilogy, I've already signed on to these characters being actual superheros - let them loose! For a filmmaker who has made unpredictability his signature, perhaps the biggest twist of all would have been to do something conventional for a change. And that's what I wanted to see. But, even if I didn't love it, I'll still give M. Night credit for trying to be original. When you chew somebody up and spit them out just for going out on a limb and falling, it discourages them from daring to do it again. And that leads to an industry that runs on stale predictability.

Joker (2019)

Just watched this movie and it was *chef's kiss*. I got chills watching the Joker come to life right before my very eyes, over the course of two, riveting hours. So excited to learn that there's a sequel coming later this year - what great timing!

What I love best about this movie is how it takes a cartoon villain, turns it into a believable (and sympathetic, to a point) real life villain, without losing the style or spirit of that character. Watching the riots, in the back of my head I'm picturing Tim Burton's jesters cartwheeling through the streets and I'm thinking, that could totally be a cartoonified version of the realistic events we're seeing in this movie. It's uncanny. And so satisfying to watch the different pieces click together until finally we witness the birth of the Joker. I think the filmmakers hit a bullseye with this one.

A-Purging We Will Go

Introduction: Despite the series' less than stellar critical reception, one must admit there is a kernel of fascination at the heart of the concept behind the Purge. And it has certainly captured the imagination of a whole generation (for better or worse) - I say as someone who has actually heard the phrase "we're going purging" slip from teenagers' lips on Halloween night. For a while now I've wanted to give these movies a proper sit-through, and I've finally found a relatively cheap 5-disc collection that will allow me to do that.

But before we begin, I have to mention one little piece of trivia - because I found out about it all on my own. Imagine my shock as I was watching the original Star Trek a few years back, and an episode from 1967 comes on (predating The Purge by almost 50 years!), in which Kirk and crew explore a planet with an otherwise buttoned-up society that goes all out for one night of the year. That's right - Star Trek predicted the Purge! Okay, now let's begin.

Warning: the following reviews will likely contain spoilers (although don't expect detailed play-by-plays). I'm assuming that, at this point, you've either already seen these movies, or don't care to. It's not my intention to hype them up. If that's what you're looking for, go read a synopsis on IMDb. I wanna talk about what happens in these movies - what works, and what doesn't.

The Purge (2013)

Amusingly, the events in this movie take place in 2022, which was last year. If Trump had been re-elected for a second term, I wouldn't even call that far-fetched. At this point in time, I don't think I could say anything about The Purge that hasn't been said already. But I can tell you what I thought of it. And I agree with the many people who say that although The Purge is a movie with an interesting concept (even if it doesn't stand up to any kind of intellectual scrutiny), it doesn't really do enough with that concept, and devolves into a mediocre home invasion thriller.

Not even a good home invasion thriller. Just a mediocre one. (Home invasion is a well-fed subgenre of horror, but The Strangers from 2008 is one I remember being pretty good). The family isn't very relatable, and their early bonding moments are pure cringe. No amount of moral high ground can change the fact that the boy's decision to let the stranger in (why did he even have the code?) was really stupid. But it sets up most of the action, and puts the family in a clever bind, so whatever. I appreciate that the movie attempts to be a morality play, but there is way too much focus on jump scares - the really irritating kind that is punctuated by the soundtrack and involves no stakes whatsoever (the proverbial cat jumping out of the closet).

I liked the marauders, even if they felt a bit like walking clichés. The leader was an interesting character (is it me or did his mask look exactly like his real face?). Complaints about the girls skipping around with knives instead of guns seem to miss the point, as these are people who think murder is a game and are probably touched in the head. I like that there were brief nods to some more elevated concepts, like the Purge existing to eradicate the poor and homeless, but those ideas weren't developed enough.

"We can afford protection."

I find it funny that everybody in the story defends the Purge by saying "it works!" Even if this half-baked thought experiment actually did work, the suggestion that the government and/or society would be more concerned with results than optics is hilarious. In the real world, we'd rather enact a policy that sounds good while doing the opposite of what it claims, than one that works, but which nobody can build their reputation on.

What interests ME about the concept of the Purge is the fact that laws are just approximations of what people in the aggregate think represents an ethical code (or a moral one - legislating morality introduces yet another angle for criticism). I wanted a movie that deals with the grey area of consensual crime, but in true American fashion, this story is overly preoccupied with violence.

Nowhere is the myopic focus on violence more frustrating than when the teenage daughter's slightly older boyfriend (honestly, they look about the same age) sneaks into the house - not to consummate his love, which could have set up a potentially enlightening subplot about statutory rape (that is, consensual sex with someone whose consent the law simply doesn't recognize), but in order to attempt to kill the girl's dad, who doesn't want them to be together. Like she'd want anything to do with him then. What a ridiculously stupid turn of events.

Anyway, I can see the merit in the concept behind this movie. I just wanted something a little smarter, and less dragged down by tired horror tropes. A home invasion thriller is admittedly a safe and simple way to introduce the world to the Purge. I'm hoping the sequels will open up that world, and explore some of the institutional facets (and repercussions) of this ill-advised annual Bacchanalia of blood.

The Purge: Anarchy (2014)

Anarchy feels like a much different movie than its predecessor. So much so, that I'm surprised it was written and directed by the same guy (James DeMonaco). With only a year between their releases, this movie feels much more modern, like going from a studio to an independent film. Unfortunately, that means we have to deal with more gonzo-style cinematography, including lots of claustrophobic close crops and shaky handheld footage that I could live without. But, despite still having more jump scares than I'd like, the writing is otherwise improved in this sequel, with a slightly more ethnic cast of less cringey characters, and a superior story.

While The Purge centered around a home invasion, Anarchy feels more like an action-packed apocalyptic adventure, as three groups of sympathetic protagonists converge downtown and must pull their wits together to survive the night. Where the first movie hid behind the shutters of a mansion, this one takes place right out on the streets. As such, we get to see how more people spend their Purge, from daring entrepreneurs rounding up riffraff to sell at auction to bloodthirsty hunters, to wealthy white families paying for the privilege of bonding over the slaughter of a poor black man in the safety of their own home. And then there's that guy with the sniper rifle in the tower who sits back and cracks open a beer. (I did appreciate the irony of a flaming fire engine, though).

As always, the fetishization of violence these purgers revel in is horrifying. When your neighbor is permitted by law - nay, encouraged - to break down your door and rape mother and child, all for the glory of God, can we even call that a society anymore? It's especially disturbing to think about the extent to which this movie captures the spirit of our school-shooting, Capitol-storming times (I don't think it's a coincidence that this is one of the popular horror franchises to come from this era). But I'm happy to see the introduction of a resistance movement (and a story told from the perspective of those who don't buy into the state's propaganda), and a more serious consideration of the political themes (i.e. racism, sexism, and classism) introduced as background noise in the last movie - exemplified by the inclusion of an organized military force systematically exterminating the poor in response to insufficient murder rates among the populace.

"Fuck you! Fuck your money! And motherfuck the Purge!"

In short, this was a better movie than the first. It's not without flaw, but I feel it was able to rise above its flaws overall, especially in the second half, once it got rolling and I felt invested in the protagonists' journey. As disturbing as the premise is, I'm glad this series hasn't turned out to be a complete dumpster fire, and I look forward to seeing where they take it in the next film. I hope the filmmakers continue to advance and innovate the narrative, and not resort to repeating themselves. The next movie's subtitle is "Election Year", and I could see it going one of two ways - either a campaign to end the Purge, or extend it year-round. It came out in 2016, so I'm already a little scared. But also intrigued, in a morbid sort of way.

The Purge: Election Year (2016)

Welcome to the third installment of the movie franchise that posits the question, "what if the United States turned violence into a national holiday?" By this point, I've seen two of these movies already. Sitting down to watch another one is a bit like visiting an old friend. But will the series be able to keep innovating, or will it fall into the rut of repetition?

On the plus side, Election Year raises the stakes by putting the future of the Purge in question. The establishment doesn't even talk about lowering crime rates anymore - it's all about saving the country from economic ruin, in what activists dub "predatory capitalism". After at least 18 years (and probably more) of purging, the growing anti-purge sentiment in the country has finally raised up a candidate who is poised to outvote the New Founding Fathers of America (NFFA). The idea of a conservative party running the country unopposed for more than four whole election cycles alone is a terrifying thought.

Naturally, to defend their power, the NFFA (who behave as much like mobsters as politicians, and are nominating a Minister as their presidential candidate) revoke the rule protecting high-ranking government officials on Purge night, and put in place a plan to assassinate the woman (a Senator) who is running against them. But guess who the Senator's head of security is? It's Leo, a.k.a. "Sergeant" from the last movie! But where he had to earn his reputation as a "badass with a heart of gold" before, it feels like now he's just coasting on it.

Unfortunately, this is where the movie starts to get repetitive. Despite the raised stakes, what follows is a formulaic repeat of what happened in the last movie - a few groups out on the streets coming together to survive. They're even led by the same guy! And, eventually, they come into contact with the resistance force. A few elements from the first movie are also borrowed, including a short home invasion sequence, and a bit of a morality play in the form of deciding whether to counter-assassinate the NFFA's candidate, or take the high road and win "fair and square". Realistically, taking the high road is a guaranteed defeat, but in this case, they seem to actually have a shot at winning (otherwise the NFFA wouldn't be so desperate), and I'd wager that the NFFA have an endless lineup of dummies ready to be propped up as figureheads for the party.

I've said before that what interests me about The Purge is the concept, yet these movies tend to focus on presenting increasingly extreme exhibitions of violence (which is no doubt what the audiences come to see). Normally, I'd be excited to hear a Miley Cyrus song in a movie, but her smash hit "Party in the USA" plays poignantly over a shameful display of youthful entitlement, in which shots are fired over a stolen candy bar. "I get mine" only works up until you start taking what's not yours. Only briefly touched on is the phenomenon of "murder tourism" - foreigners visiting America in order to Purge. This is contrasted by an offhand comment that puts things into context, considering other countries where this kind of violence is a day-to-day reality.

Interestingly, we get to see how the NFFA spend their Purge night - in church, of course - which demonstrates how the "religionization of murder" (as writer/director James DeMonaco phrases it) completely misses the target on the nature of "sacrifice". Sacrifice is giving something of yourself, not taking something from another. The mantra has evolved from "release the beast" to "purge and purify", but all these people out on the streets aren't making sacrifices to God and their nation (one and the same), they're just indulging in bloodlust.

"We will now Purge. We will torture you and violate your flesh.
Remove your skin and share in your blood. This is the American way."

To summarize, although it superficially raises the stakes by putting the future of the Purge in question, Election Year unfortunately falls into the rut of following the formula laid out in the previous movie. As such, it doesn't distinguish itself from Anarchy very cleanly in my mind, and while it does evolve the central concept marginally, it doesn't innovate on the level that I was hoping for. Which is to say, it's not any worse than the last movie, but I'm not sure it's any better, either. We leave off on a positive note, with it looking like the Purge might finally be eliminated. (Unfortunately in real life, election year 2016 was just the beginning - not the end - of a national nightmare). What a great time to go back and do a prequel!

The First Purge (2018)

We're three movies into this franchise now, and it's getting harder to find new ground to tread. That's why I'm intrigued by the idea of doing a prequel. We've seen the Purge; we've explored it. As interesting as the idea is, it has thus far been taken for granted. What could be more interesting than shining a light on the circumstances that led to (or followed from) the initial enactment of this social experiment, when the New Founding Fathers of America (NFFA) first came into power? That is, provided the concept doesn't completely fall apart under direct scrutiny, given how irrational it is. (But then, mankind is far from a rational species).

As familiar as the usual formula has become - a short establishment phase, characterized by a build-up of pre-Purge jitters, until the siren sounds and pandemonium ensues, leading to a climax at dawn, and a very brief denoument - this would have been a good time to mix things up and try a different format. Alas, the filmmakers are not brave enough to take that gamble. Despite having a new director at the helm (Gerard McMurray), you can tell James DeMonaco is still writing, because it's just another iteration of the same story that's been told at least twice before (although the fans who clamor "we want more purging" instead of, I dunno, "we want a smarter movie", are at least partly to blame). There might be some refinement of the concepts on display - and make no mistake, this is the most ethnic Purge movie yet, with a nearly fully colored cast - but the skeleton hasn't changed.

And speaking of skeletons, the "Skeletor" character in this movie is a tad over the top (although creativity points for the syringe claws that evoke a junkie Wolverine). The one thing of substance, I think, that this movie contributes to the overarching lore of the Purge, is that it never really worked. It was always just propaganda. And isn't that appropriate? As crazy as the idea that anyone would back the Purge on scientific grounds, the fact is, the trial (exclusively limited to Staten Island for the first year, with poor people being offered monetary compensation for participation - and issued trackers and glowing contacts that record everything they see) would have failed miserably if not for the government hiring foreign mercenaries to inflate the murder rate by (as we've seen in later Purges) systematically exterminating the poor.

"The conceit is not a political one. It is a psychological one."

Taking the place of an armed and organized resistance movement (that hasn't formed yet), we have instead a local gang that seems to be liberally swiping pages from The Wire. The movie questionably portrays the gang boss as sympathetic (glossing over the fact that he's a criminal peddling the streets with violence and drugs the other 364 days a year), but does so relatively effectively, culminating in a legitimately thrilling climax that channels action movie more than horror (in my notes I have written "black Rambo" - if you think this sequence stretches the viewer's suspension of disbelief, I'll remind you that all believability was thrown out the window with the idea that a third party could ever come to power in US politics). And there's definitely some "societal catharsis" involved in seeing the protagonists enacting a "freeing violence" upon authority figures in white hoods and masks that imitate blackface.

In its favor, this movie does briefly consider the concept of non-violent crime, before the murder really ramps up - being the first time these people have ever purged. One guy takes his anger out on an ATM. Several block parties crop up - ignoring the danger you and I (who have seen many Purges) know such activity would place people in, imagine an all-night rager with no noise limits, all the underage drinking, drugs flowing freely... At one point, there's even a couple going at it in public (not nearly enough nudity, though). Wouldn't it be more interesting if we had a night where all non-violent crime was legal? You know, instead of mostly just murder?

I could point out more little details here and there (like the irony of a church being called "the safest place on the island" - clearly, purging hasn't been fully "religionized" yet), but I'm gonna wrap this up. In conclusion, I think this movie does perfectly well within the confines of the formula that's been established. My biggest complaint is that it doesn't have the guts to break free from those confines and try something new. Will the next movie do that? I doubt it, but we'll see. I don't know what the premise is, but it sounds like the Purge might escape the bounds of a single night, erupting into total anarchy, perhaps leading to its final termination once and for all. Or maybe it'll be a period piece set in the lawless reaches of the Old West (just judging from the poster). That could be interesting. But I'm not getting my hopes up.

The Forever Purge (2021)

After three formulaic movies in a row, I finally get my wish of a Purge movie that tries something new! That is, if you can get past the first thirty minutes of ridiculous jump scares and cringey character introductions. It isn't until the morning after the Purge (picture a scene of getting up and going to work with corpses in the street and buildings dripping with blood) that things start to get interesting, starting with a tense stand-off, ultimately building to a rush to the border as the country descends into chaos.

If The First Purge was "the black Purge", then The Forever Purge (featuring a new director - Everardo Gout) is "the Mexican Purge". Familiar themes of classism and racism recur, but there's a new spice added to the mix in the form of xenophobia. We get to see how the Purge shakes out in Texas between the cowboys and the ranch hands, taking a cue from real world politics and the fear of immigration that Trump famously exploited. The "purification" element associated with purging also takes on a poignant new meaning - not to rid oneself of hatred or the urge to transgress, but a desire to purify the bloodline of America.

Don't let the first half hour of this movie rattle ya. It starts out like a typical Purge movie, with the events of Election Year pretty much tossed in the garbage. The NFFA has come back into power, and reinstated the Purge. So much for progress. But when a grassroots movement of so-called "patriots" decides that one night is not enough, the promise of Election Year's ending scene riots is finally realized - and the "Ever After" Purge begins.

"There's no such thing as crime anymore."

We get to see purging in full daylight. We get to see how the police and, after the NFFA disavows this demonstration of true anarchy, the military struggles to contain the violence. In a humorous switch, Mexico and Canada open their borders to refugees fleeing the States in fear of not just their freedom, but their very lives. Meanwhile, the whiter half of our miscegenated band of protagonists has to confront their racist assumptions (spotlighting the limitations of a "separate but equal" mindset). And eventually, a Native American tribal leader steps in with organized assistance (and explosive arrows!).

Although I like that this movie in particular (and the series in general) is partly a send-up of the type of religious conservative gun-toting maniac our country is currently plagued by, I feel like even this exaggerated fantasy doesn't manage to capture the full breadth of political madness we're living with. To wit, calling the Purge a "celebration of freedom", as if conservative pundits in real life aren't constantly pushing legislation to restrict our liberties. Then again, to be fair, the cognitive dissonance on display in these populations is quite significant.

I think this is the best Purge movie since Anarchy. And while it builds to an open ending - what would appear to be full-on civil war - I'm not sure where the story could go from here. Perhaps it's a good time to call it quits, and end on a high note? But we know that's not how capitalism works. I've heard there's a TV show; I think it could be interesting to explore different characters and how they personally contend with the Purge. You could go into greater depth on the particulars - moral issues, emotional repercussions, different types of crimes - especially if you have a good batch of writers. Could be a great subject for an anthology series.

But we are talking about the Purge, after all. The only thing American audiences want to see is more violence, right? I feel like showcasing Purge methods (and there are some pretty creative ones in these movies) is a bit like showing off new traps in Saw. Which is another hugely popular horror franchise from this era. In fact, there's a new one in theaters right now. Perhaps I have a subject for my next marathon. -_^

The Purge (TV)

I'm not going to strain myself to extend this review even further, but I did see that the TV series was available on Hulu, so I gave it a watch. Unfortunately, it is not an episodic anthology of concepts, it's just a Purge movie stretched out into ten episodes. But, there are two separate and unconnected seasons.

The first one starts out okay, with some interesting characters and ideas, but has a tendency to drag at times, with a few belabored performances. Like most of the Purge movies, it was just okay.

The second season was a good deal better, because like The Forever Purge (which, if I've got my dates correct, actually came out after this series), it dares to explore events outside the bounds of Purge night. In fact, it covers a whole year between Purges, so there's actual room for character and story development, from the events of one Purge to the next. I think the series deserves kudos for that.

"What happens on Purge night, stays on Purge night."

If you're not a Purge fan, there's probably little here to recommend, but if you are, you can rest assured that the series is at least on par with the movies.

The Fall of the House of Usher (2023)

I recommend this series on Netflix. Less a straightforward adaptation than a modern reimagining of one of Edgar Allan Poe's classic stories, with plentiful homage to some of his others. Created by Mike Flanagan, who brought us the spectacular The Haunting of Hill House (and its followup, The Haunting of Bly Manor), as well as a bunch of other things I'm just learning about that I might have to check out. Fair warning: there are some pretty aggressive jump scares that are not telegraphed. But where these are usually a cheap ploy used to cover up bad writing, here this is emphatically not the case. Clever story. Good performances. Cynical, but not quite as bleak as the Haunting series. Expect a scary good time.

The Conjuring Universe

I've admittedly fallen out of the habit of writing reviews, not because I don't enjoy the work, but because it IS work, and work that I've never been paid for (despite my feeble, failed attempt at generating affiliate revenue). I do still enjoy horror as much as ever, but I don't spend as much time watching it (outside of the Halloween season), nor do I keep track of new releases like I used to.

Still, I'm proud to say that the kids in my family have pretty much all learned to appreciate the entertainment value of a good horror flick - even without any conscious prompt from me! It's actually kind of funny to hear them raving about horror movies, having little idea of how obsessed I've been with them for much of my life. Like when they discovered The Conjuring on Netflix, a movie I saw in the theater back in 2013.

I had no idea back then that it would become the next big horror franchise following Saw (currently featuring eight films in The Conjuring "universe" - no doubt borrowing a page from Marvel's playbook), but it does make a certain amount of sense in hindsight, given how crowded that theater was (which was a surprise to me, as someone who is used to sitting practically alone in the theater during horror screenings), and the fact that the story is framed as a single case from the colorful career of a pair of paranormal investigators (based on real people, not that that means much in horror).

Browsing my review from eight years ago, the point that stands out is how effectively the movie utilized the genre's clichés to generate a cross between The Amityville Horror (a story which itself has ties to the aforementioned paranormal investigators) and The Exorcist. Anyway, the kids keep talking up the sequels, and have lent me their DVD collection for them, so I'm going to watch them all and write down my thoughts as I go. I haven't done a marathon like this for a while, but it will be just like old times!

The Conjuring (2013)

I don't have a whole lot to add to my previous review of this movie; my impression this time was on par with how I felt the first time I watched it (minus the reactions of a largely unblooded theater audience). Despite utilizing many of the tropes of the genre, it does so very effectively and piles them on thick. I did notice that Annabelle features more heavily in this movie than I remembered.

In fact, the first shot of the movie is a closeup of her face, and a brief recounting of her origin is used to introduce paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren, who in this movie investigate what is promised to be their most extreme case, of a demonic possession tormenting a family of five(!) daughters, that results in (spoiler) the Warrens performing a homebrew exorcism.

I did recognize a few familiar faces, including Joey King (who would grow up to star in the runaway hit Kissing Booth movies) and Mackenzie Foy (who was memorable in Interstellar), but most surprisingly John Brotherton (who plays D.J.'s other romantic interest, Matt Harmon, in the Fuller House reboot) as a town cop whose presence provides more comedic relief than actual protection (after all, it's ghosts - not criminals - they're up against).

In hindsight, I'm less surprised that this movie was successful; for a horror movie, it's as effective as it is accessible, with a framing narrative that leaves room for expansion, and the added kick (however cynical I've become of this claim in the realm of horror, it works rather better with the more naive, general audiences) that it's based on a true story. Now let's see about those sequels.

Annabelle (2014)

So, this movie actually starts with the same scene as The Conjuring, but the main story takes place before that encounter, with Annabelle's previous owners. I was actually kind of disappointed that the Warrens didn't feature in this movie, but I guess they can make more movies if they don't need the principal actors for the side stories.

If The Conjuring was a cross between The Amityville Horror and The Exorcist, then this movie is Chucky meets Rosemary's Baby. A young, married couple expecting their first baby is the target of a Manson-style home invasion conducted by members of a Satanic cult, which results in what would seem to be the origin of Annabelle's supernatural powers.

"To non-believers, it's all crazy."

Honestly, the movie felt a little slow, and the doll scares weren't as effective for me as the ghost scares in The Conjuring. Haunted dolls just aren't my thing. I mean, yeah, dolls can be creepy, in an uncanny valley sort of way, but if supernatural forces are going to take physical shape, they can be a lot more creative than relying on manmade wooden effigies.

Even if the effigy in question is so grotesque that I have a hard time swallowing anyone buying it (at least unironically) as a gift. That said, there is a point in this movie where an actual demon makes an appearance, giving us the money shot that The Conjuring lacked, and it's worth seeing. But if this movie wanted to impress me more, it would have had more demon, and less doll.

The Conjuring 2 (2016)

A question one might have for The Conjuring 2 is, if The Conjuring already depicted paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren's most extreme case, how do you make the next one stand out? And the answer is, go for name recognition. The movie starts with the Warrens investigating the house from The Amityville Horror (albeit in the wake of the events that went on there), and then proceeds to tie it in to the notorious case of the Enfield poltergeist in England.

Maybe this is just the inevitable result of watching too many haunted house movies, but there comes a point when the scares start to feel too contrived (even including the use of feints to trick the audience), especially with the guidance of a dramatic soundtrack. This is something I liked about the low-key approach of Paranormal Activity - I prefer a situation that's organically scary to the movie broadcasting the parts at which I'm supposed to be scared.

Which isn't to say that the poltergeist activity in this movie isn't creepy, or that it's not creative, but it's distracting when you can feel the invisible presence of the director's hand manipulating the scene, conjuring up ways to shock the audience. Is there meaning in the ghost flicking light switches, spontaneously playing radios, switching TV channels, or is it just generally trying to be a nuisance?

"Honestly, I don't know what's worse - the demons,
or the people preying on our willingness to believe in them."

"The demons. They're worse."

So, there's two stories going on here, one about a nice English family apparently being haunted by a renegade band of Cornish Pixies, and another where Lorraine seems to be hounded by a ghost she encountered in the Amityville house, which looks like a cross between Marilyn Manson and Jigsaw, dressed in a nun's habit (is this "The Nun"? Why are we seeing her now? Or is this another case, like Annabelle, of the writers creating spin-off potential?).

The movie actually gets a whole lot more interesting (and surprisingly humorous) when the Warrens finally get involved in the Enfield case. After all, these characters are what sets these movies apart - it's fun to see their confidence in action, and the experience they have doing this unusual work. In fact, the conclusion is quite thrilling (even if it's not exactly original at this point to conduct the climax in front of an open second story window), complete with a few dizzying twists. I think this movie requires a little more investment than the first one (especially given its fairly long runtime), but I'd consider it an effective sequel.

Annabelle: Creation (2017)

What this movie lacks in originality, it more than makes up for in execution. The first Annabelle movie gave us an origin story for the evil within the doll (which was already redundant, given that a different explanation was profferred in her first appearance in The Conjuring); yet, instead of tapping in to the potential for stories about other people coming into contact with the doll following its corruption (and before it ends up in the safe keeping of the Warrens' treasury of occult objects - unless it were to somehow manage to escape, hint hint), this movie takes us back even further, to tell a tale about the dollmaker who handcrafted Annabelle, and to seemingly spin a new origin story for the evil within it (because what would an Annabelle movie be with a doll that's not haunted?).

Many questions arose as I was watching this movie. Is Annabelle just so cursed that she can host multiple demons within her slight wooden frame? Or are there multiple Annabelles? In this movie, we witness Annabelle's construction; it's indicated that this is the first in a limited series of what was supposed to be a hundred dolls, but I think there's a reasonable indication that no more were ever completed after the first one - even though that could have explained the presence of different dolls with different possession stories. Yet, this reading would require that something about the design of the doll must be a unique conduit for evil (like LeMarchand's puzzle box). However, other than its aforementioned grotesque appearance, no explanation for this is given. (Spoiler: the end of the movie ties all of these loose ends into a neat bow).

To summarize the plot of this movie, years after his daughter is killed in a freak accident, the dollmaker opens his house up to a girls' orphanage (beating The Conjuring's previous record with six girls this time), and the typical poltergeist-related shenanigans commence, with Annabelle at their center. I don't know what it is, but the scares in this movie were significantly more chilling than the others so far. And I'm glad to see that the creators took my advice from the first Annabelle movie (which I've just given, years after both movies were already made >.>), and favorably tweaked the demon-to-doll ratio. The venerable Miranda Otto (who has been having a blast in The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina lately) hovers around the edge of this story, but the real revelation is young Talitha Bateman as polio-stricken Janice. There's a career to watch.

"Forgive me, Father, for I am about to sin."

Oh, and one other thing. I had a thought while watching this movie, although it's probably more true of The Conjuring movies than the Annabelle movies, but have you ever noticed how these movies are like a fireworks display of poltergeist activity? They start out small, trying out a few displays, then slowly ramp up the action, and you can always tell when the finale hits because they'll throw everything in their arsenal at you all at once!

The Nun (2018)

Like Annabelle before it, The Nun is a spin-off prequel telling of the origin of one of the series' major antagonists, introduced in The Conjuring 2. Except, it's not so much an origin story as a "this happened, too" story - and there's a critical flaw in setting up a prequel as a typical standoff between good and evil, when you know that evil is ultimately going to prevail (and not even in a "the bad guy wins" sort of way, which can be good). The best five minutes of this movie are a rushed summary of where the evil came from (something to do with a deranged crusader performing Satanic rituals) - and if you ask me, that story is what this whole movie should have been.

But to get to what this movie actually is, we start at the beginning, which feels very contrived. Inexplicably, a random abbey in Romania has a demon locked in its basement (oh yeah, happens all the time), and even more inexplicably, the abbess decides that it's a good idea to unlock the door and let it out (did you know that doors can totally hold demons back?). And if that weren't enough, once the abbess is presumably possessed, and the demon is chasing what appears to be the last surviving nun, she goes off and commits suicide, because that's totally something somebody ordained in the faith would choose to do. The fact that these events are eventually provided a plausible explanation doesn't forgive the movie for asking the viewer to stretch their suspension of disbelief so far in the first place. The only redeeming element is the irony of one of these movies starting, rather than ending, in front of an open second story window for a change.

But the movie's implausibility doesn't end there. In the wake of this disastrous encounter, the Vatican sends a "miracle hunter" priest to investigate with the help of a sister-of-the-faith-in-training. When the latter is introduced explaining dinosaurs to the younger students at her convent, it feels like the writers are telling us, "she's religious, but don't worry, she's totally cool". Because you know the church would aggressively stamp out that kind of open-minded progressivism in anyone on track to taking their vows. On the other hand, the character is played by Taissa Farmiga, who I remember from the first season (in particular) of American Horror Story, and who I keep thinking about every time I look at her sister (although they are 21 years apart in age) Vera's face, who plays Lorraine Warren in these movies. So that's cool.

I don't want to drag on too long talking about this movie that largely failed to hold my interest, so let me just address a few points. I like the setting - a gothic castle feels more appropriate for a ghost story than a modern dwelling. I just wish it was used in a movie with better writing. Example: the priest dismisses the guide so he won't have to "be caught on the road at nightfall". The guide agrees, and promptly leaves; in the next scene, he's on the road and it's dark. Like, okay. Later, the priest gets buried alive (and proceeds to use up as much oxygen as possible shouting repeatedly and flicking his lighter), and the nun-to-be has to use her psychic visions (I know) to dispel the ghost's distractions in order to find which grave he's buried in, except that the ghost already put the priest's name on the tombstone...

I guess I don't find the concept of a nun wandering around, even in the shadows, to be particularly scary. I mean, yeah, nuns are scary, but for all the human reasons, not any supernatural ones. And while the nun does have a creepy face, I feel like they're overplaying that factor (and I feel bad for the actress that plays her - how would you feel being told that you have a great face for horror?). I also don't think she quite lives up to the epithet "the defiler". Mocking religious symbols is one thing, but you have to have an artistry to it, a certain depravity. And it's not as much fun if you don't throw in some perversion. Maybe, like Annabelle (which played largely on the fears of new motherhood), I'm just not the ideal audience for this movie, given that I'm neither religious nor superstitious (redundant, I know).

The Curse of La Llorona (2019)

As the first "spin-off" in The Conjuring franchise that's really more of an independent tale, not preemptively teased or featuring a previously introduced entity in any of the other films, there's not much tying this movie to the Conjuring universe, aside from the brief appearance of Father Perez (who played a supporting role in the first Annabelle movie). Well, that, and the fact that this movie very much possesses the spirit of a Conjuring movie, with a creepy antagonist (just in a bridal gown instead of a nun's habit) who terrorizes people with poltergeist activity in pursuit of human souls.

The movie starts out well enough, feeling like more of a supernatural drama compared to the fantasy horror of The Nun. The story is inspired by a Mexican folk tale about a woman who drowned her own sons. She's called La Llorona (and forgive me, but I had the tune to My Sharona playing on repeat in the back of my head all throughout this movie), or the Weeping Woman. As the legend goes, when she found out that her husband had cheated on her, instead of punishing the husband, she murdered the kids she'd had with him. Upon realizing that she was the worst mother in the world, she killed herself only to end up spending her afterlife taking other people's kids. Until she runs into a feisty social worker (Linda Cardellini) and widowed wife of a cop raising two perky kids in Los Angeles, that is.

There's also another woman, whose behavior throughout the movie is quite frustrating. Like, she locks up her kids and acts crazy, and then blames the social worker (and actually attacks her) for rescuing the kids and thereby leaving them vulnerable to the entity that's hunting them. Like the social worker bears any responsibility when the woman failed, when given the opportunity, to explain the situation. I get that it's a supernatural folk tale, but if she was afraid of sounding crazy, the ship had already left that port. It just annoys me when drama is manufactured from a situation that could be resolved if people would simply explain themselves. I get that this happens in real life, too, but that doesn't change my feelings about it. And then later in the movie, she totally flip flops with no real motivation between being on the good side and the bad side.

And then we come to the final act of the movie, in which an ex-priest faith healer (Raymond Cruz) with "miracle hunter" vibes steps in to help the afflicted family, through a series of rituals and preparations that seems totally arbitrary and as if they were being made up on the spot. At this point, I think I'm getting bored with the convoluted schemes ghosts use to steal people's souls (read: lives). I mean, I can get playing tricks to make people go crazy, especially to the point of desperation and giving in just to make it stop, but it's almost demeaning that these supposedly intimidating supernatural forces have to resort to such petty psycho-physical manipulations. I keep thinking about how effective The Exorcist was, and it saddens me to see these ghosts and demons preoccupied with gliding down dark hallways, slamming doors, and toying with the remote. Give me sodomy with a crucifix any day of the week.

Annabelle Comes Home (2019)

Now that we're past the low point of the series, with those movies that don't even have "Conjuring" or "Annabelle" in the title, we're back to the power hitters, and I'm pretty excited. I may not have been real stoked to watch the first Annabelle movie (because haunted dolls, ya know?), but I liked the second one a lot, and I saw a trailer for this one when I popped in the disc for The Curse of La Llorona, and I'll be damned if I didn't think it looked good.

So, for the third time in the series, we get a movie starting with that scene with the Warrens interviewing the last owners of Annabelle before they acquired it, but for the first time, we get to see what happens immediately after that, on Annabelle's trip "home" - to the Warrens' Artifact Room. And it's nice to see the Warrens appearing in a movie that doesn't have "Conjuring" in the title. That's a testament to how big the Annabelle spin-off has become.

"Nice doll."
"That's what you think."

And this time, we get a proper sequel instead of another prequel - even though the events of this movie still occur before the events of The Conjuring - with Annabelle escaping her glass cage in the Warrens' treasury of occult objects. We also get to see more of the Warrens' daughter Judy, who is central to the action for a change, although she's been recast (no doubt because the previous Judy grew up) as Mckenna Grace, who was in The Haunting of Hill House (among other things - including a small role in Fuller House, since another actor from that show already turned up in one of these movies previously).

Along with Judy (who sees dead people, but she gets that from her mother), this movie is carried by two teen girls, a babysitter and her friend. Babysitters, school hallways - this feels like a vintage horror movie. I like a movie that gives you a nice slice of life with interesting characters before hacking them to bits (well, if this were a slasher). The real horror isn't what the monster does to its victims, it's what it takes away from them - peace of mind, happiness, and a chance at a normal life.

I'll even forgive the babysitter's plucky friend for being stupid enough to break into a room filled with cursed objects (and the Warrens for not hiding the key better), because it's just a plot device, resulting in a level of mayhem that's akin to a containment breach in the Ghostbusters headquarters. If we weren't so late in the series already, I'd say it's all fertile ground for further spin-off material.

The scares are pretty fun this time, without too much reliance on cheap gimmicks. The effect of the coins in the Ferryman's eyes, in particular, was clever, contributing to the effect of a creepy atmosphere over the hollow payoff of a jump scare. And the prognosti-tube (no idea what it's really called) was ingeniously unsettling. Although I could do without the "puking blood into somebody else's mouth as a vehicle for possession" trope. I know horror isn't designed to make you feel comfortable, but seriously, ew.

As a final thought, seeing so much of the Warrens' Artifact Room just makes me realize that this series hasn't remotely tapped the true sequel potential of its premise, especially spending three movies now revisiting the same doll (even if it does have the reputation for being the most dangerous object in the room - I like the touch of putting the tarot card for The Devil on her case, by the way). I think The Conjuring would be great as a TV series, with each episode detailing the origin/acquisition of one artifact from the room.

The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It (2021)

The Conjuring 3 opens at what seems to be the climax of one of the Warrens' cases, in which they are asked to oversee the exorcism of an 8 year old boy (for the first time, it's a boy - and one with ridiculous Gibson Praise glasses). And it looks like a doozy. Lorraine is sporting a new hairstyle - an updo reminiscent of pictures I've seen of the real Lorraine Warren, who looks rather older than she does in these movies. Between that and the (brief) return of the original actress who played Judy (who continues, as we all must, to advance in age), my suspicions are confirmed that this is one of the Warrens' later cases. Which is appropriate, eight years after the first movie came out, and as many films into the series. I wonder, though, if there'll be any more after this one?

The exorcism ends unusually in an apparent transference of possession (whose host gives off such strong Harvey from The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina vibes that I'm legitimately surprised it's not the same actor), and with Ed in the hospital, unable to warn the others what happened before the new host wreaks havoc (his struggle with health problems really gives Lorraine a chance to step up to the plate in this one). But what's really interesting about this movie is the extent to which it covers new ground, instead of retreading territory the series has already been over (other critics might cite this as a weakness, but I think it's one of this movie's strengths). The Warrens are faced with a new kind of demonic possession - less poltergeist activity and more Satanic curse - and must solve the mystery of what's going on while a young man's life is on trial.

"The demon's gone, what can you do now?"
"Who's your lawyer?"

This movie is based on the true life story of the first case in US law to claim demonic possession as a defense, which the Warrens consulted on. But that's not to say that this movie is a court procedural. The Warrens' investigations lead them to a(nother) ex-priest (played by John Noble, who was very memorable on Fringe) - one who studied the Disciples of the Ram (the Satanic cult responsible for much of the mayhem in the first Annabelle movie), to the point of collecting a treasury of ritual objects of his own (more along the lines of objects created for evil purposes, as opposed to mundane objects repurposed for evil), enough to make even the Warrens hesitant to enter. I'll refrain from giving away the rest of the movie, but suffice to say, I enjoyed it.

Conclusion:

It's been a fun ride! I enjoyed the main entries better than the spin-offs, although the Annabelle movies grew on me more than I expected them to. Ed and Lorraine Warren are definitely interesting characters, and provide fertile ground for stories to tell in the paranormal subgenre of horror. I think casting Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga was a good choice, as they both have good screen presence, and a natural chemistry. However, ironically, the more I've learned about the real life Warrens, the more I'm convinced they were frauds. Not that I ever seriously considered their claims, skeptical atheist that I am, but I will admit that I was a little taken in initially by the claim that they spent a lot of time finding perfectly natural explanations for the phenomena their clients experienced. But I guess if you want to convince people that your snake oil works, you're gonna pick the best case studies you can get your hands on (then again, one could argue that picking such highly publicized - and thus scrutinized - cases isn't the most effective strategy unless it's only publicity you're courting). Then again, it's entirely possible that they believed their own hype, reserving supernatural explanations for anything they couldn't otherwise explain. Religion and self-delusion frequently do go hand in hand. But that's reality, and this is fiction, and I'm capable of keeping the two separate.