Venom: The Last Dance Sony Blu-Ray
Tom Hardy. Directed by Kelly Marcel. 2024
Eddie and Venom are on the run. Hunted by both of their worlds and with the net closing in, the duo are forced into a devastating decision that will bring the curtains down on Venom and Eddie.

I was done with "Spider-Man" in Comics long before Todd McFarlane and Venom showed up. I didn't come into "Spider-Man 3" or this trilogy of films with a love for the Venom character or any disappointment in his eventual portrayal. I will say the "Venom" films lean too hard on Comedy for my taste, but I generally enjoyed the first two; I have friends who hate them. The first two minutes of "The Last Dance" nicely sets up the main villain "Knull" with the character speaking directly to the camera. I had hoped this meant we were getting a villain this time that wasn't mostly Symbiotic Goo, but Knull disappears as quickly as he came, and we're back to Venom fighting CGI creatures with lots of tendrils. The film has a good supporting cast with Juno Temple, Rhyss Ifans, and Chiwetel Ejiofor and there are a few nice character moments that actually work. However, its mostly a Standard Issue "Government vs Aliens" story that becomes a chaotic jumble of chase and battle scenes, particularly in the third act. I honestly didn't hate it, but when I'm watching a scene where a drunk is pissing on Tom Hardy, I can't help thinking the filmmakers could have tried a little harder.

Saturday Night (2024, Dir. Jason Reitman) – Way, way better than I ever imagined it would be. And my expectations were low, as I generally dislike Jason Reitman films (for instance, I hate, hate both of the Ghostbusters movies he was involved with, even though I know he only directed the first one; but he still co-wrote and produced the even shittier second one with his pal Gil Kenan). This one was very well done in so many ways. It gets off to a rollicking start, with a pulse-pounding score, and some wonderful Steadicam work the viewers “explore” the set and get introduced to the plethora of characters. Most of whom prove to be quite adept in their roles. Honestly, there’s hardly a bad one in the bunch. They all at least look the parts, but most of them are able to conjure up really great impressions of the real people whom which they are playing. It’s a chaotic, messy ride from start to finish, and while it does feel like some liberties were taken (mainly exaggerating certain aspects/events, which don’t line up with any historical books or oral histories that have been written about the show), these are clearly done for dramatic effect and in that case I feel they can be forgiven. And while I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s award-worthy or anything, it holds the viewers attention and is genuinely one of the better movies of the past year. It should also be noted that the production design/costume design/set design is magnificent. Like, you will feel that you are there, on the set, about to watch the first episode of what would become an American institution. I’d recommend at least checking this out once. There’re way too many positives to overcome the odd negative that exists in the film…

Woman of the Hour (2024, Dir. Anna Kendrick) – Well, I suppose if you wanted to be lectured for an hour-and-a-half about what chauvinist pigs virtually all men are, then sure, you might enjoy this. But basically completely fabricating large chunks of the story in order to get across that message is grossly unprofessional. Like, you can’t have the publicity team for your movie go to every media outlet/magazine and make the spurious claim that the movie is “based on a true story.” Because the vast, vast majority is completely made up. Like, they could’ve maybe said “Inspired by True Events” or, better yet, “Derived from a True Story,” but the fact remains that most of this is completely fabricated. Like, you couldn’t just follow the facts? Cause the basic plot point that once upon a time a serial killer did appear on “The Dating Game”, that’s totally true. And it’s actually an interesting story and there’s a pretty decent true crime book based on the event. And yet these filmmakers decided, “Hey, that’s not dramatic enough. We need create some on-the-nose dialogue to get our point across. We need to completely alter the behavior of certain characters just to generate more tension.” Blah, blah, blah. I think this is easily one of the worst movies from last year. And it wouldn’t have a decent score from audiences if it didn’t try and tie itself into certain popular social movements that exist in today’s climate (also wouldn’t have such a moderate score if most people who saw it actually understood just how made up it was). There was no need to make stuff up in this film. The killer in question, Rodney Alcola, was a vicious, horrible piece of garbage. There’s no argument there. But then the film does what a lot of serial killer films sometimes do, which is to have a final coda implying that the body count he left in his wake was actually astronomically higher than what had been proven in court, and that which he had been convicted up (also see Henry Lee Lucas, who some will claim he had a body count in the hundreds). There’s no need to exaggerate to that extent unless you were just trying to make your film sound much more important than it really is (and it kind of does a disservice to the innocent victims who did have their lives snuffed out by this killer. As if their murders alone weren’t important enough, so instead they had to inflate his body count.) I think in someone else’s capable hands, this might’ve been a half-decent movie. But, for me, if I want to learn about this story again, I’m sticking with the book. Because it actually relies on facts.

Memoirs of an Invisible Man (1992, Dir. John Carpenter) – Okay, first off, I think that anyone who is even a mild John Carpenter fan has heard the behind-the-scenes stories behind the making of this film. It’s covered in a least a few books I’ve read. Carpenter wanted to make a more commercial, more action-packed, even comedic movie. Chevy Chase wanted to, as William Goldman described in one of his books, “explore the loneliness of being invisible.” Those two conflicting visions were never able to reconcile and thus the film they produced just lacked cohesion, as it would go from one somewhat serious scene to a suddenly slyly comic scene to an action scene; it just felt like the individual pieces were better than the sum of the parts. But that’s not to say everything about this movie is bad. It’s actually not bad. It’s an average movie (with above-average special effects for its time) that simply could’ve been better. And the visuals were somewhat groundbreaking for their time, and they still manage to hold up. One set-piece where a building is partially made invisible and certain floors seem to be suspended in midair was stunning when I first saw it, and it still impresses me. And I actually like parts of Chase’s performance; I just wish he hadn’t tried so hard to suppress his comedic impulses, because as much as he tried, he’s really hardly ever proven himself to be a dramatic actor. Daryl Hannah, on the other hand, was awful. Completely lacked any sense of chemistry with Chase (another behind-the-scenes tidbit is apparently they really, really never got a long, and most of the scenes they shot together were uncomfortable to film), and felt like she was phoning it in. Sam Neill? Okay, Sam Neill is the standout in the film. Him and Carpenter seemed to be on the same page in terms of what film they were making, and Neill just took the role and ran with it. He made a superb, nuanced villain. And despite my issues with In the Mouth of Madness, I’m still happy they managed to work again after this pic. The Blu-Ray itself is mostly barebones, albeit a few deleted scenes and a featurette and trailer, I believe. Nothing to get too excited about. I assume Carpenter refused to give a commentary because in interviews over the years he’s mostly lamented making this movie, feeling it was a big letdown and a mistake. For Carpenter fans, though, the Blu is definitely a step up from the image quality on the DVD, and if you can get it on sale, you’ll probably want to add it to your collection.

The Ward (2010, Dir. John Carpenter) – Not even close to being as awful as its reputation suggests. In fact, I actually find a lot to like in this movie. First off, I thought the direction was vintage John Carpenter. He didn’t resort to fast-cutting and over-editing (which, you could maybe say he experimented with, at least a little, in Ghost of Mars). Here, he stuck to his traditional strengths and the movie was all the better for it. Also, I thought all five of the main actresses were fantastic. And I really mean fantastic (even Amber Heard). They perfectly inhabited their roles. They were quite easy on the eyes, too. And I loved the ‘60s setting, even though it’s not pointed out that often, and if you missed a couple key scenes, it would’ve been really easy to think this might be a contemporary film. Probably my favorite scene in the whole movie is when one of the girls puts on a ‘60s-era pop/rock song and they all start giddily dancing to the tune. I can’t even explain why, but for whatever reason that scene had me grinning from ear to ear. And Jared Harris is great as the head of the institute. The guy played that role perfectly and never overplayed his hand or went over-the-top (and there’s two other key characters who work in “The Ward” and both actors do great work). And I’m not going to spoil the twist (there’s always a twist in movies like this), but I know others have had issues with it, and sure, it might not be 100% original, but I thought it worked. I thought it was especially impressive that Carpenter managed to pack so much material in less than ninety minutes. Aside from that, you also had vintage Carpenter violence; a little gore, but never too excessive. It’s a briskly paced movie, and since it seems pretty clear that this will remain the last thing Carpenter will have directed, I think it’s a decent end to an extremely successful (maybe not box office wise, but his influence on today’s crop of filmmakers/musicians/video game designers is undeniable) career. And to top it all off, Carpenter is joined by Harris for a commentary track, which I intend to listen to sometime later on this week. People shouldn’t be so quick to sell this movie short. Hell, it might even go down that I like this one more than his last few films (aside from his Masters of Horror: Cigarette Burns episode, which I thought was one of the best of that underrated series)…

Here Sony Blu-Ray
Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, Directed by Robert Zemeckis, 2024
An odyssey through time and memory, centered around a place in New England where—from wilderness, and then, later, from a home—love, loss, struggle, hope and legacy play out between couples and families over generations.

"Here" is one of those films that seemed to come and go with barely any notice. It's a shame, and I hope this reunion of the director, writer, and stars of "Forrest Gump" will pick up some viewers when it hits Netflix. Robert Zemeckis loves a challenging premise, and the story of "Here" is told through a single static camera shot and spans from when this particular spot was roamed by dinosaurs, a wilderness traversed by Native Americans, to overlooking the estate of Ben Franklin, and to the eventual site of a home in the Twentieth Century, where at least five families would live over the decades. "Here" primarily tells the story of Richard (Tom Hanks) and Margaret (Robin Wright) and their struggles raising a family over the years. All of these stories are told through time-shifting vignettes, randomly, -and not so randomly, -shuffling characters from different times and telling a bit of their story. One moment Margaret is shocked to be giving birth in the living room, then we’re shown a Native American woman dealing with birth in her own way. While the first two acts are told in a succession of brief vignettes, the third act focuses more tightly on Richard and Margaret trying to save their marriage and the movie takes a darker turn.

The storytelling device takes a bit to get used to, -as does the omnipresent but mostly effective "de-aging" CGI used throughout the film, -but I eventually found myself absorbed in the film. One could rightly complain that all the story turns in "Here" are cliches of Family Dramas, but they are also common experiences that occur in most lives. Some viewers might be turned off by this or made uncomfortable because it hits too close to home, but I was moved by the end result.

Adventures in Public School

I Saw the TV Glow (2024, Dir. Jane Schoenbrun) – Hm. That was kinda weird. The filmmakers do a great job keeping the viewer off guard, as the film goes in certain directions that I certainly didn’t quite see coming. It also has a much odder structure than I had imagined, and I think it sometimes works in the film’s favor, other times to its detriment. But it is generally a compelling watch. The soundtrack is superb. Any film that begins with a classic Broken Social Scene song is one that’s almost immediately winning me over. Some of the acting is very impressive, mainly by an actress that has an almost solo scene three quarters of the way through. It’s jaw-dropping, and it’s accommodated by a what sounded like the perfect song. People that have scene the film can probably guess what scene I’m referring to (the movie itself might not fall into my top ten list of last year, but that scene would certainly be one of the ten best of last year). But, despite that, it did drag at times, and I have to admit that the general concept is pretty “out there”, and I know I had to chuckle at a few of the line readings and situations the characters found themselves in. It’s tone (tone, the storylines aren’t really similar) actually kind of reminded me of the way I felt while watching and after watching Donnie Darko. I think it has a similar vibe. And I think people that like that film are more likely to enjoy this one. So, yeah, a bit of a mixed bag, but I’d say it’s much better than most films. And I don’t regret watching.

The Return Decal Releasing Blu-Ray
Ralph Fiennes, Juliet Binoche. Directed by Uberto Pasolini. 2024
After 20 years away Odysseus decides to come back. The King has finally returned home but much has changed in his kingdom since he left to fight in the Trojan war.

Ralph Fiennes is excellent in "The Return", portraying Odysseus as akin to a soldier suffering from PTSD. He's a ragged wreck of man, who returns home filled with regret, unable or unwilling to declare his identity and reclaim his throne. However, I found the first hour of the film rather dry, as I waited for Odysseus's inner warrior to emerge. Eventually Odysseus overcomes his trauma in order to rescue his wife and son and the film finally generates a compelling energy.

Cuckoo (2024, Dir. Tilman Singer) – A slightly above average horror film that has some good things going for it. Kind of a psychological horror with hints of early Cronenberg…it’s a half-decent story that unfortunately gets a bit bogged down in the middle (and is a bit slow to begin, to be honest). And the acting is nothing to write home about. I actually thought the main actress was a little out of her depth; or maybe the character just wasn’t written that well. It still has some good scenes, although the overall storyline is a little convoluted and over-thought (or simply not explained well enough). And despite a third act that is a bit riddled with plot holes and nonsensical occurrences, the actual ending is pretty decent. And it has some beautiful scenery of forests and mountains. And the score isn’t too bad. If anything, I think the director was really aiming for an ‘80s vibe (kind of how It Follows felt, even though that film is like 50x better than this one). But ultimately, it’s kind of forgettable and I hardly care to watch it again or recommend it to anyone I know.

Abigail (2024, Dir. Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett) – Another completely inept, illogical, and stupid movie from the duo that also did the past two godawful Scream movies. This cliché-ridden movie is filled with a group of perhaps the dumbest characters (and mostly sh***y actors) ever to appear on film. Like, hey, we’re committing a heist of sorts together, it was just explained to us how it’s best we not get to know each other or reveal any of our history, so what do we do the very next scene? Delve into each other’s extended histories. And oh yeah, let’s all party like we’re in a frat house after we just committed a crime and pissed off some very dangerous people. Yeah, that makes sense. Oh, yeah, and we’re supposedly highly adept criminal masterminds recruited and hand-picked for this very important mission. A favorite part is when one of the characters mutters, “Something doesn’t add up.” They’re right. The entire plot of this POS movie. Another favorite? “You’re really good at pretending to be a girl.” Yeah, and you’re really good pretending to be a decent actress, Melissa Barrera. The only positive takeaways are (A) the practical special effects (they certainly used up buckets of kayo syrup in this film), and (B) Kevin Durand’s performance as the intellectually-challenged muscle man/oaf. He seemed to know what type of movie he was in, and he ran with it. But pretty much everything else about this movie? Just awful. Like, the movie even goes against its own story’s logic…despite having just recently established said logic. And I know it’s not meant to be realistic (obviously), but these characters seem to have superhuman strength (and apparently Wolverine’s mutant healing ability). This was a stupid movie. I only watched it because it was like watching a trainwreck. I couldn’t look away. It’s that effing bad. It would help this directing duo if they gave a hot damn about the actual story and plot of their films, and not just looking for “cool” visuals…As far as I’m concerned they’re no-talent hacks whose one skill is that their movies appeal to a certain segment of society and thus make money. Apparently that segment does not include this viewer…

You’re Cordially Invited (2025, Dir. Nicholas Stoller) – Huh. I kinda thought this might be an anomaly; like, an original Amazon Prime produced comedy that’s actually funny? Could that be possible? Not this godforsaken time. This steaming pile of excrement is on par with the worst of the Adam Sandler Netflix comedies (and possibly even worse than some of those). The supporting cast of comedians is distinctive for one key reason: their primary talent is not actually possessing comedic skills. Like, no comic timing, no comic delivery, no physical comedy skills…nothing. The couple cameos are dumb, pointless, and simply exist to draw some attention to the movie (I’m sure one in particular will annoy others just like it annoyed the hell outta me). Reese Witherspoon may be a great actress (loved her in Election, which is proof she can be funny with the right material), but here she’s one of weakest aspects of the film. Ferrell brings nothing new to the table and can’t even manage to rise to occasion with his usual schtick. And I feel particularly bad for Geraldine Viswanathan (as bride-to-be and Ferrell’s character’s daughter). She shined sooooo bright in last year’s Drive-Away Dolls, and to go from that to this crap? Wow. She’s not the least bit funny in this. It’s actually somewhat embarrassing watching some of the scenes she has to do; some of the line readings she has to give. I’d say most of the blame rests squarely on Stoller’s shoulders. Both in terms of direction and script. And furthermore, I’m amazed that he could sit in the editing room, sit through screenings, and somehow still think that this was a releasable movie. I guess ultimately it doesn’t matter cause due to the cast it’ll still score a ton of views, and content is key. So Amazon will be happy regardless of the quality of the movie. But Stoller’s fallen pretty damn far from the heights of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Get Him to the Greek, Neighbors, and (to a lesser extent) The Five-Year Engagement. This one feels like he needed a paycheck so he just decided to fire off a screenplay over the course of a weekend and then call it a day. Or perhaps most of the film was just (poorly) ad-libbed. That’s possible (would explain some things). This is the first movie I’ve seen this year that was actually released in 2025…so not off to a great start…

2024

Hulu

Jay Baruchel was in it so I checked it out.

"In the wake of an environmental collapse that is forcing humanity to shed 20% of its population, a family dinner erupts into chaos when a father's plan to enlist in the government's new euthanasia program goes horribly awry."

Directed by Caitlin Cronenberg another Cronenberg sibling who directs.

Trump better not watch this or it might give him new ideas.

First time watching, any version.

Cannibal Girls (1973)

A decade before Stripes and Ghostbusters made him a household name, Ivan Reitman began his career as a director with a couple of low budget Canadian films featuring future SCTV stars Eugene Levy and Andrea Martin ... the second of which was the Canucksploitation horror-comedy classic Cannibal Girls. Shot in snowy rural Ontario, the story follows young couple Cliff and Gloria (Levy & Martin) as they arrive in a small town to get away and relax for a few days. On a suggestion from the lady who owns the motel that they're staying at, the couple decide to go for dinner at an out-of-the-way bed and breakfast run by the Reverend Alex St. John, a Svengali-esque character who takes a not-so-subtle interest in Gloria. Unbeknownst to the couple, the young female servants employed there are under the Reverend's spell ... and have an insatiable appetite for human flesh! This film is a lot of fun and much better than the title and description would suggest. There's a Messiah Of Evil vibe to it that I enjoy, as well as the early 70s Canadian feel and location. The movie does not shy away from the gore and nudity, either. One of my favorite 70s exploitation flicks and a very nice blu-ray from Filmswelike. A cool watch on a winter's night. Just be careful not to overstay your welcome. You've been warned ...

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem (2023, Dir. Jeff Rowe) – Starts off really, really strong, with a great, unique animation style, a nicely-curated soundtrack, and what appears to be a strong story. The dialogue is wonderful (and surprisingly realistic, at least when it comes to “teen-speak”) and one of the best aspects of the movie is that it’s actually not dumbed down for younger audiences. I was actually surprised by how “grown-up” it was at times. It doesn’t talk down to younger audiences; it just assumes that they’ll be able to follow along, and I think that’s a great approach. However, after a while the story just progresses more-or-less exactly how you would expect. There’re few surprises along the way. And to be honest, the animation begins to get a bit too…crowded? Or busy? It gets to be almost headache-inducing at times, and the action becomes harder and harder to follow along, just cause the action is so fast it’s almost like one big “blur.” And I thought it maybe introduced way too many characters at one point. I think some of them could’ve been kept for future installments, cause they’re given so little individual screentime you can hardly differentiate one from another. And the ending? Meh. It pretty much ends like every Marvel movie these days. Giant baddie. Big fight. City partially destroyed. Heroes win. Teaser at the end. The voice work was good, though, despite the fact that when I scrolled through the credits I mostly didn’t even recognize some of the voice actors because, like I said, there’s not a lot of character development; it’s just a menagerie of voices. I did think Ice Cube was the standout. So, it’s definitely a million times better than those shitty Michael Bay/Megan Fox movies, but I still prefer the original three live-action movies from the early ‘90s, and probably even the animated one titled TMNT (that one is super-underrated and still holds up today). If they do end up making a sequel like they claim, I’ll probably check it out once it’s On Demand. But I wouldn’t make it a priority…

Under Paris (2024, Dir. Xavier Gens) – Well, considering how ridiculous the concept must’ve seemed on paper, this turned out to be one helluva movie. I remember when this first popped up on Netflix, and there’s a ton of shark movies on Netflix, so I just assumed this was just another “B movie” that just existed to create more content. Man, I was way off. This is filmed like a Hollywood blockbuster, only smarter than most. The effects are surprisingly strong. The direction is simply fantastic. Both of the main leads (Berenice Bejo and Nassim Lyes) are superb in their roles. The film just works surprisingly well. It even manages to pay homage to Jaws more than a few times, without going to far as to seem that cliché. There are certainly tropes of shark movies that definitely reappear in this movie, only here they are handled skillfully and ably. And it really amazed me with the amount of tension and suspense this film was able to generate. If anything, I doubt anyone would fall asleep while watching this sucker. And even one set of idealistic characters that annoyed me (but I understand why they were in the film)? Well, the film takes care of them, in quite a hysterical and bloody fashion. Far-fetched? Yep. But they took the right approach by taking the subject matter seriously. And I think that made all the difference. Great movie.

Berenice Bejo caught my eye in Henri-Georges Clouzot's Inferno. Just watched the trailer for Under Paris and liked what I saw. Looks very good ...

It’s Alive (1974, Dir. Larry Cohen) – A ‘70s horror film that has always appeared divisive to me. I’ve read prominent, well-respected critics that love the film, and I’ve read other prominent, well-respected critics that really don’t care for the film. And while I used to mainly fall in the latter category, the movie has grown on me over the years, and I can appreciate it a lot more than I used to. I still wouldn’t go nearly as far as to call it a classic. But it’s a lean, efficient, low-budget Larry Cohen film. And that’s oftentimes a good thing. It deals with a couple, Frank (John Ryan) and Lenore (Sharon Farrell) that are having their second child, only to discover that for some unexplainable reason, their infant was born a deformed monster (of sorts). And after causing numerous casualties in the delivery room, the infant is now roaming free, its intentions or destination unknown (at least for a while). John Ryan has always been a personal favorite of mine, and he delivers a helluva performance here, especially because he works to restrain his emotions, so when they are revealed it’s actually quite powerful. Sharon Farrell is also a perfect counterpoint as his distraught wife. The rest of the cast is somewhat interchangeable, but no one stands out negatively, so that’s a plus. Dimly shot, most likely to hide the prosthetics/puppetry of the infant monster, the film is a relatively slow-moving piece of work. And it kind of lacks any major set-pieces, so it just kind of feels like a slow-burn that kinda reaches a conclusion that seemed inevitable…but strangely satisfying. Also features a score by Ennio Morricone that is very subdued and feels as though it’s lacking in character or pizzazz…I appreciate it more now but don’t feel like it’s one of his more memorable scores. So yeah, I usually give anything Larry Cohen ever wrote or directed a shot, cause the dude was prolific and quite talented, and this is a solid watch. Also just worth viewing because you do hear it get referenced in the oddest places (even today)…So I wouldn’t say buy but if it’s late one night and it’s On Demand for free, you could do worse. Unless of course you appreciate Cohen’s commentary tracks, one of which is included here. He’s almost never at a loss for words and is always well worth listening to…




It’s Alive II: It Lives Again (1978, Dir. Larry Cohen) – What can I say? A solid entry in the trilogy, probably on par with the first film. A little more action-packed. The baby puppet is shown to a slightly greater extent, but is still mostly kept largely concealed or in the shadows, as per budgetary requirements (if made later on in the ‘80s or ‘90s, I’m sure the violence would have been much more overt and gory). John P. Ryan returns and is solid in his role, and they added some great character actors in Frederic Forrest (he was doing some great stuff in the ‘70s), John Marley (from The Godfather and Faces), and Eddie Constantine (Alphaville). Kathleen Lloyd plays the Forrest character’s wife and she’s all right. I enjoy this film more than I did when I first watched it 10+ years ago. I think it’s best to watch in close proximity to the first film (back-to-back would be ideal). The film deals with the same hot topic issues, whether it be abortion, the overuse of pharmaceuticals and the effect this has, and the environment and pollution and whether or not any of those are factors in the sudden mutations which are now occurring more frequently nationwide. I enjoyed this one but it’s not a classic or anything.



It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive (1987, Dir. Larry Cohen) – OMG. A bloody, gory, rain soaked, and absolutely stellar opening scene. Shows how much tastes changed since the much, much tamer first two films. The entire scope of this film is so much more ambitious. More locations (including a tropical island filled with lush jungle scenery), much more audacious shots including multiple helicopter shots, more intense action, and a much, much faster pace. And then you have Michael Moriarty (Ben Stone from Law & Order) teaming up with Cohen. Now I don’t know what it is, but whenever those two team up they seem to bring the best out of each other (see Q: The Winged Serpent and their awesome Masters of Horror episode Pick Me Up). Cohen gives Moriarty the freedom to improvise and add a ton of flavor to his role. Which means there’s much more humor in this one. But that doesn’t take away from the inherent terror that dominates the movie. As the title suggests, the mutant infants were sent to an uninhabited island so they could mature without being a danger to anyone. However, sure enough, the government eventually decides that they want to check in on their progress, and with Moriarty’s character being a father of one of the children, they send him to tag along with a group of scientists. Unsurprisingly, things do not go as planned. Despite still having a rather limited budget compared to most other films at the time, Cohen somehow makes every cent of that budget seem like ten times its worth. It’s easily the best of the franchise and one of Larry Cohen’s absolute best films. Hell, this movie could even stand alone, apart from the trilogy, aside from I believe two minor references to previous events in the series. But even with those references, the film is easy to follow along. Moriarty clearly had a blast making this. And some of the shots are seriously STUNNING. There are shots on the open ocean that look gangbusters. And then you add on the acting talents of the one-and-only Karen Black and you’ve got yourself an excellent movie. Black is fantastic in this. And Rick Baker handled the effects for the infant mutants, and they are like night and day compared to the other two movies. This is a great horror movie and should be recognized as such. This is the film in the series that I find myself returning to most often. Even if you don’t like the other two, I still think you’ll love this unheralded horror gem. Highly, highly recommended for horror fans…

Is that a new movie?

2024

It is on Mubi but I used my Amazon digital credits and rented this.

"Bailey, 12 years old, lives with her single father Bug (Barry Keoghan) and her brother Hunter in a squat in northern Kent. Bug doesn't have much time to devote to his children and Bailey, who is approaching puberty, seeks attention and adventure elsewhere."

I thought Barry Keoghan would have had a bigger role but still worth a watch.

2003

"A withdrawn young man, Leland Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling) is imprisoned for the murder of a mentally disabled boy, who also happened to be the brother of his girlfriend, Becky (Jena Malone). As the community struggles to deal with the killing, Pearl Madison (Don Cheadle), a teacher at the prison, decides to write about Leland's case. Meanwhile, others affected by the murder, including Becky and her sister, Julie (Michelle Williams), must contend with their own problems."

I rented this back in 2003 and forgot all of it.

A excellent cast but what was the point of the movie?

2015

AMC+

"Two siblings (Timothée Chalamet, Kiernan Shipka) with special powers live with their parents behind an impenetrable wall that isolates them from the outside world."

It got horrible reviews but I did not think it was that bad and runs under 90 minutes.

2019

HBO

I had it on the DVR for 5 or 6 years and watched part of it in 2024 and finished it in Jan 2025.

I watched it but was not really there and paying attention

2023

Showtime

It was crap