The Movies, Films and Flix Podcast – Episode 484: Legend (1985), Tim Curry, and Unicorns
You can download or stream the pod on Apple Podcasts, Tune In, Podbean, or Spreaker (or wherever you listen to podcasts…..we’re almost everywhere).
If you get a chance please make sure to review, rate and share. You are awesome.
Mark and John Leavengood (@MFFHorrorCorner on Twitter) discuss the 1985 fantasy film Legend. Directed by Ridley Scott, and starring Tom Cruise, Mia Farrow, and Tim Curry, the movie focuses on what happens when a creature named Darkness has it out for some unicorns. In this episode, they also talk about practical effects, chicken feathers, and the excellence of Tim Curry. Enjoy!
If you are a fan of the podcast, make sure to send in some random listener questions (we love random questions). We thank you for listening, and hope you enjoy the episode!
You can download the pod on Apple Podcasts, Tune In, Podbean, or Spreaker.
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: Jeepers Creepers 4: Reborn (2022), this empty, soulless reboot is the worst movie of the franchise… by far.
MY CALL: This is to JC movies what Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) was to Indiana Jones movies (1981-1989). And if you’re too young to have suffered to understand this reference, consider yourself lucky. MORE MOVIES LIKE Jeepers Creepers: Reborn: I’d recommend seeing Jeepers Creepers (2001) and Jeepers Creepers 2 (2003) instead… and (not that it was awful, but) I’d skip the next sequel Jeepers Creepers 3 (2017), which was really a mid-quel taking place between JC1 and JC2.
The Creeper Timeline: JC4 begins just like JC1, but with an elderly couple playing license plate road trip games in lieu of Darry and Trish (Jeepers Creepers (2001)). And like JC1, they are harassed on the road by a truck with the unmistakable Creeper’s license plate, and subsequently witness the driver at the side of the road dumping bodies. As the early scenes continue, this feels more and more like a scene for scene remake. Oh but wait… this is a scene of the “Jeepers Creepers movie” within the movie. So this sequel-reboot (rebootquel?) needs not follow the rules or events of JC1-JC3 as canon.
We enjoy the tactful exposition as young couple Laine (Sydney Craven; Slotherhouse, York Witches Society, EastEnders) and Chase (Imran Adams; Hollyoaks) bicker about cryptids. The characters are likable and playfully written. Unfortunately, this only applies to the early scenes. After that, the writing and acting is pretty crappy. This tends to be the case when the opening scene (or some “good concept scene”) is essentially the idea that spawned the screenplay in the first place. And like many such cases, the scene in question and the idea it presents are far better than the movie built around it.
The Creeper emerges from an abandoned shack in the woods like a rigid, quivering insect from a cocoon, covered in tattered chunks of monster chrysalis. This should really set a tone for us. But sadly, the visual effects are not impressive at all. It eats a handful of worms (that have no business being there on the soil’s surface like someone dumped a can of fish bait nightcrawlers there) and I’m starting to fear this movie is going to suck. Spoiler alert, I’m apparently more psychic than the psychic in JC1-JC3.
Not gonna’ lie. As soon as I realized that this was a reboot and not the re-emergence of the Creeper (as we knew him) 23 years after JC1, I was disappointed. I want the mythology to build. I want callbacks to what happened before. More problematic is that this seems to have the lowest budget of the four movies. This just feels like a movie that wouldn’t/shouldn’t get a theatrical release—even though, admittedly, worse films still do.
The first kill is weak. Very weak. Just bad. Then there are Laine’s premonitions—yup, more empty psychic crap that leads nowhere satisfying. The wardrobe, sets and general shots are akin to an unskilled student film. I wish this wasn’t happening.
I don’t mind cheap movies. I often enjoy them. But when a “part 4” (or reboot) is the distinctly cheapest looking movie of the franchise, this just feels phoned-in and like a waste of my time. Moreover, the cash-grabbiness is even more obvious because the producers clearly didn’t care about the fans… not that I’m pretending they typically do.
This movie can’t seem to find any momentum. Falsely presented as an escape room experience our lead couple ends up in an old “haunted” house, trapped inside with the Creeper. I despise how this was clearly chosen for cheap barren sets. And there’s a cult angle to the plot that feels just plain dumb, uninspired and (I’ll say it again) phoned in.
The special effects behind the Creeper continue to wane. The ears are sloppily made and part of a rubber mask. I don’t think it looks very good—at least, not as good as any of JC1-JC3. But it is more “monstrous” looking, even if lower quality. I don’t care for this take on the Creeper. But some may like its less “cheesy and cheeky” behavior and expressions, which are toned down in JC4. Almost nothing substantial is happening on-screen. And just when you thought it would: blurry CGI as the Creeper swoops in and grabs someone. Truly terrible.
The best parts of this movie include a thrown hammer impaling someone in the head and a couple other impaling stabs—brief but well-executed. Too bad nothing else was. Most of the horror action was of complete throwaway quality for me. This all really surprised me. I am quite fond of director Timo Vuorensola’s (Iron Sky, Iron Sky: The Coming Race) past work, yet this film seems to have none of his fingerprints on it. I’m assuming this was meant to bring him into more mainstream movies, and that he settled on a crap budget and script for the opportunity. Oh well…
Sadly, after the two opening scenes, I thought this movie was bad. And while certainly enjoyable for anyone seeking a bad movie deliberately, this absolutely does no justice to the JC franchise, it didn’t scratch my JC itch, and it fell way too far below my acceptable expectations for a formerly good franchise. This would be best enjoyed by folks who have not seen the previous three movies. Because if you have, this new movie will only disappoint you… a lot. That was my unfortunate experience. However, if this is your first JC movie, they only get better as you work in reverse!
Share this post:
MY CALL: Not as good as parts 1 and 2, but still a fun ride even if things are getting silly (even for the already very cheeky Creeper and his feisty antics). Probably a good sign to stop making these movies. But who ever listens to that kind of advice? MORE MOVIES LIKE Jeepers Creepers 3: I’d recommend seeing Jeepers Creepers (2001) and Jeepers Creepers 2 (2003) before seeing this sequel—maybe even instead of seeing this sequel. But I’d recommend a hard pass on Jeepers Creepers: Reborn (2022).
The Creeper Timeline: In Jeepers Creepers (2001), we learned that The Creeper is a creature of unknown origin that emerges every 23rd Spring to eat for 23 days… and once it finds a scent it fancies, it will stop at nothing to devour it! Jeepers Creepers 2 (2003) take place on days 22 and 23 of the infernal feast, shortly after the events of Jeepers Creepers (2001). Now part 3 takes place between parts 1 and 2.
So after The Creeper ate Justin Long in part 1, Sheriff Tashtego (Stan Shaw; The Monster Squad) assembled a team of Creeper hunters who recruit Sgt Tubbs (Brandon Smith; Jeepers Creepers) to stop the monster’s murderous rampage in rural Florida. They’ve all seen what this creature can do, and understand it is not of this world.
Part 2 really amped up the action to something awesome, enjoying developments in affordable CGI for the wild flying action shots. However, I fear by this Part 3, writer and director Victor Salva’s (Clownhouse, Jeepers Creepers 1-2) now-overreliance on CGI conveniences have limited the creativity of some kills and flight scenes. I also think the “severed hand gag” was over-milked beyond its worth. Still this sequel offers improvements to the franchise in the form of deepening mythology and folklore among the locals (though more in the form of deepened mystique than actual answers). They even find a way to commune with the monster through its severed remains from decades past (i.e., from its last buffet rampage 23 years earlier).
Every JC movie has its psychic, and in this movie it’s Meg Foster, mother to a teenage farm boy taken in The Creeper’s last binge in the 70s. The nature of these psychics was never explained in the movies. They’re just a device for exposition and harbingers. That’s a shame because I feel like that’s a lost opportunity—like, what if only those who had a brush with The Creeper and survived would be cursed/gifted these visions.
So our psychic bereft mother (Meg Foster; Stepfather 2, They Live, 31, Lords of Salem) whose visions involve her dead son seems to be our main character story. But then there’s also Sheriff Tashtego and his Creeper hunters, which comes with a lot of exposition as the character explains his relevance to the movie on-screen to other characters. And then there’s Sgt Tubbs and his little yarn… and it all gets tangled together. This sequel seems to have too many people crossing paths with their own stories for us to keep track—at least, for what should have been a simple horror movie part 3.
I much preferred the strong link between parts 1 and 2. They each focused on a core group of victims, and the psychic in part 2 had visions of the victims of part 1. Simple, connected, satisfying—even if unexplained. This third movie felt like it was trying to do too much.
Another shortcoming of this sequel is the lack of substantial “answers” regarding the monster mythology. We find more weaponry from the Creeper’s arsenal that harken of Biblical origins (as in part 2). But we lack any satisfying explanation of why; no more hint than the illustrations on the weapons themselves. We learn that The Creeper travels with ravens and crows in its wake as it migrates to new hunting grounds. A nice touch of flavor. Still, I’d like more. And with this being the second sequel, I feel like I’ve earned it.
Now for an odd turn. I felt like The Creeper’s truck got as much attention as the Creeper himself. This heavily booby-trapped truck smacks of the Predator’s ship (i.e., Predator 2 (1990)), boasting a skull trophy of something not of this earth as we know it. Like the Fast and Furious movie series, this later sequel comes with new-fangled toys for our monster, who now has a self-driving truck (yes, you read that correctly—SELF-DRIVING) with a retractable harpoon gun and bulletproof tires and windows. I suppose this tricked up truck wasn’t fully functional in parts 1 or 2 for some reason… because there were certainly scenes where this would have come into play! The bulletproof car results in some hokey shenanigans, and the car releases Mario Kart bomb-shells. It’s almost cartoonishly silly to watch. That vehicle is a 1940s truck suped up into a future-tech war wagon.
The final confrontation has some nice visuals, but overall lacks the flair and ghoulish heart of its predecessors. The creature seemed like it felt defeated in the end, but we don’t really understand why. At this point, I’m not sure I even cared. The movie was fun and all, but I never felt invested in the outcome. The movie ends with Trish (part 1’s survivor; Gina Philips; Jeepers Creepers, The Sickhouse) taunting the next 23rd year emergence of the beast. I suppose we were to expect a JC 4 taking place 23 years after JC 1-3 and hopefully teaming up with our farmer dad (Ray Wise) who defeated the monster and waited 23 years for The Creeper’s resurrection at the end of Jeepers Creepers 2 (2003). But alas, why would they give us the movie we deserve?
This is not nearly as good as JC 2, which might have been better than it deserved to be. For me, most to least entertaining would be JC 2, JC, JC 3. Still, this was a fun jaunt, especially when viewed in close proximity to the others for appreciation of the timeline.
Share this post:
The Movies, Films and Flix Podcast – Episode 483: Scream (1996), Wes Craven and Matthew Lillard
You can download or stream the pod on Apple Podcasts, Tune In, Podbean, or Spreaker (or wherever you listen to podcasts…..we’re almost everywhere).
If you get a chance please make sure to review, rate and share. You are awesome.
Mark and Zanandi (@ZaNandi on Twitter) discuss the 1996 horror classic Scream. Directed by Wes Craven, and starring Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette, Matthew Lillard and a blue plaid shirt, the movie focuses on what happens when horror goes meta. In this episode, they also talk about 1990’s horror, Norman Bates, and the excellence of Matthew Lillard. Enjoy!
If you are a fan of the podcast, make sure to send in some random listener questions (we love random questions). We thank you for listening, and hope you enjoy the episode!
You can download the pod on Apple Podcasts, Tune In, Podbean, or Spreaker.
Share this post:
MY CALL: I just… didn’t enjoy this at all. So many great ideas here. But none of the execution to make it work.
Based on a graphic novel, director Darren Lynn Bousman’s (Saw II-IV, Mother’s Day, Spiral) opening credits have a very Se7en (1995)/Saw-ish (2004) flavor. Themes of homes, floorplans, neighborhoods and fly-on-the-wall POV bespeckle the montage overlayed by a noir-ish narration by Jebediah Crone (Dayton Callie; Sons of Anarchy, Fear the Walking Dead, Halloween II, The Devil’s Carnival) as people are murdered in the aforementioned rooms.
When one of the murders touches the life of investigative reporter Julia (Jessica Lowndes; The Haunting of Molly Hartley,Altitude, The Devil’s Carnival), she teams up with a detective (Joe Anderson; The Ruins, The Crazies) to solve this case which makes less sense the more they learn.
Our reporter with that pin-up style hair and fire engine red lipstick, the detective with that hat and coat and antiquated swagger, and the dark narrator are all so dripping-noir that I was shocked to realize this occurred in present day and not the 1930s. That said, all of the other characters feel well grounded in contemporary reality. And weirdly, later in the movie our noirish characters become less noirish in terms of hair, wardrobe, etc. Not sure what happened there.
Julia’s murder investigation eventually links a chain of murders to homes in which the house was sold and renovated, completely stripping the walls and floors of the just the murder scenes, and selling them for a loss. The clues lead them to an unconventional minister Jebediah Crone, documented as going to morally questionable extremes to heal his congregation.
I thought all this sounded cool, too. What we see and hear in this movie, however, do not meet any glimmer of my expectations and rather disappoint me at every turn. Not sure how else to say it, but this movie is just not good. There’s a cool concept here—really cool. But the delivery just isn’t there. I can appreciate the style Bousman was trying to capture, but I’d say he missed it. Feels more like a soap opera horror in the first half, and ill-adapted videogame horror in the second half. Lin Shaye (The Grudge, Critters, Insidious 1-4, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Chillerama) appears as an exposition character, and while not a small role, it’s not impactful.
We end up in a cartoonish mega-house that is a gigantic collection of murder scene rooms populated by a collection of ghosts. Again, super cool idea. There is some dreadful ghost CGI that leaves a lot to be desired, and exploration of the house does not match the scale of its introductory imagery.
This movie really tries. But for me, it really fails at every turn. I just found it to be an overwhelmingly boring execution of an otherwise creative idea. But for the record, I can totally see how this idea would’ve worked so well as a graphic novel—as it likely would as a videogame, too. It just didn’t translate well… at least not with this attempt.
Share this post:
Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre (2023) – Review
Quick Thoughts – Grade – B – Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre is a breezy crime caper that will put a smile on your face.
The best thing about the spy comedy Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre is that it has no interest in matching the bombastic exploits of the Mission: Impossible films, and could care less about the self-seriousness of the James Bond franchise. This is a good thing because it ditches the weight of massive expectations and can simply focus on telling a story about super spies being super awesome while Hugh Grant steals the show as the charismatic villain. It’s the kind of rewatchable film that earns its rewatchability because it features no massive twists, zero tragedies, and focuses on well-dressed people taking part in episodic exploits in exotic locations. If you go in expecting a mid-tier Ritchie film that will make for a pleasant viewing experience, you can’t go wrong because there’s a lot to like about Operation Fortune.
After knocking it out of the park with The Gentlemen and getting heavy with Wrath of Man, director Guy Ritchie (Snatch, RocknRolla, The Gentlemen, The Man From U.N.C.L.E.) has eschewed organized crime stories loaded with monologues, bespoke suits, and more monologues, and instead focuses on traveling around the world with his friends while telling the story of a super spy named Orson Fortune (Jason Statham – looking totally comfortable) putting together a super squad to prevent some terrorist nonsense. He’s recruited by his British handler Nathan Jasmine (Cary Elwes) to stop Greg Simmons (Hugh Grant), a billionaire arms broker who is currently brokering a big deal involving dangerous weapons. Fortune recruits Sarah Fidel (Aubrey Plaza), JJ Davis (Bugzy Malone) and A-list actor Danny Francesco (Josh Hartnett) to travel with him to Simmons’ massive compound so that they can figure out his plan while looking awesome in tailored outfits.
The plot and action takes a backseat to the performances of the core cast who clearly enjoy looking awesome while saying zippy dialogue. The script by Ritchie, Ivan Atkinson (Wrath of Man), and Marn Davies (Wrath of Man) works best when it focuses on the comedic moments of the crew as they drink expensive wine, insult each other, and sneak around Jasmine’s compound looking to hack his computers. There is zero tension throughout and that isn’t a bad thing because it isn’t really needed. The best moments involve Bugzy Malone reacting to excellent wine, and Aubrey Plaza looking like she’s legitimately shaking Statham’s confidence while they argue. There’s some nonsense involving a rival crew but none of that is important. What is important is that Grant and Hartnett are fun together, and it’s been a blast watching Grant be villainous in movies like The Gentlemen, Paddington 2, and Operation Fortune.
The biggest issue with Operation Fortune is the occasionally wonky editing that cuts a bit rough and can take you out of scenes. Also, characters disappear for large chunks of the movie which suggests a lot more was shot, and then left on the cutting room floor. It’s quite disjointed at moments, but it never takes away from the overall enjoyment of watching Hugh Grant clearly enjoy himself.
Final thoughts – Operation Fortune is an entertaining spy romp that features likable actors being likable.
Share this post:
The Movies, Films and Flix Podcast – Episode 482: Thirst (2009), Park Chan-wook, and Large Rocks
You can download or stream the pod on Apple Podcasts, Tune In, Podbean, or Spreaker (or wherever you listen to podcasts…..we’re almost everywhere).
If you get a chance please make sure to review, rate and share. You are awesome.
Mark and Jonny Numb (@JonnyNumb on Twitter) continue their “Feel Good” series by talking about the 2009 horror romance Thirst. Directed by Park Chan-wook, and starring Song Kang-ho, Kim Ok-bin, and a large rock, the movie focuses on what happens when a priest becomes a vampire. In this episode, they also discuss terrible fishing trips, people being thrown into the woods, and the filmography of Park Chan-wook. Enjoy!
If you are a fan of the podcast, make sure to send in some random listener questions (we love random questions). We thank you for listening, and hope you enjoy the episode!
You can download the pod on Apple Podcasts, Tune In, Podbean, or Spreaker.
Share this post:
The Movies, Films and Flix Podcast – Episode 481: Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, Kang the Conqueror, and Baskin-Robbins
You can download or stream the pod on Apple Podcasts, Tune In, Podbean, or Spreaker (or wherever you listen to podcasts…..we’re almost everywhere).
If you get a chance please make sure to review, rate and share. You are awesome.
Mark and Mo Lightning (@molightning on Twitter) discuss the 2023 Marvel Cinematic Universe film Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. Directed by Peyton Reed, and starring Paul Rudd, Jonathan Majors, Evangeline Lilly, Kathryn Newton and some ants, the movie kicks off the fifth phase of the MCU and also features Ant-Man throwing a nice front kick. In this episode, they also talk about Michael Pena, terrible ideas, and the excellence of Jonathan Majors.
If you are a fan of the podcast, make sure to send in some random listener questions (we love random questions). We thank you for listening, and hope you enjoy the episode!
You can download the pod on Apple Podcasts, Tune In, Podbean, or Spreaker.
Share this post:
The Movies, Films and Flix Podcast – Our Favorite Moments From the John Wick Trilogy
You can download or stream the pod on Apple Podcasts, Tune In, Podbean, or Spreaker (or wherever you listen to podcasts…..we’re almost everywhere).
If you get a chance please make sure to review, rate and share. You are awesome.
Mark and DJ Valentine (@TryingToBeDJV on Twitter) talk about their favorite moments from the John Wick Trilogy and ponder why C-level assassins would attempt to kill John Wick (AKA a death machine). In this episode, they discuss club fights, Mark Dacascos, rolling down stairs, and iconic Wick lines. Enjoy!
If you are a fan of the podcast, make sure to send in some random listener questions (we love random questions). We thank you for listening, and hope you enjoy the episode!
You can download the pod on Apple Podcasts, Tune In, Podbean, or Spreaker.
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: Boogeyman (2005), horror-LITE about childhood trauma and a fear of closets.
MY CALL: A very PG-13 horror about a young man who is haunted by his childhood trauma of the Boogeyman and his broken family. No gore, no nudity, no profanity, dumb-looking CGI monster, very little horror. MORE MOVIES LIKE Boogeyman: Move on to Jeepers Creepers 1-2 (2001, 2003), Darkness Falls (2003), The Babadook (2014), The Bye Bye Man (2017), Candyman (1992), which I find to be yet more fun and/or better and/or intense with much better horror backing their Boogeymen.
After witnessing his father getting dragged into the void of his closet by the storied Boogeyman, Tim (Barry Watson;Teaching Mrs. Tingle, 7th Heaven) has spent the last twenty years fearful of closets and the dark. But Tim’s issues don’t stop there. He suffers from nightmares of his childhood trauma including his mentally unwell mother (Lucy Lawless; Ash vs Evil Dead, Salem). Upon her nightmare-prophesied passing, Tim returns home to face his fears where he reconnects with his childhood acquaintance Kate (Emily Deschanel; Rose Red, Bones), who will now also suffer his perhaps supernatural trauma.
Tim is losing his grip on reality. When things don’t make sense, we’re left to wonder if he is having a nervous breakdown or if supernatural things are actually happening. And was his father really taken by the Boogeyman, or was that his coping mechanism for his father abandoning him and his mother?
Our horror comes in the form of jump scares, faulty lights, creepy kids, and cultivated dread when gazing into the darkness. I think it’s executed well enough for a young teen viewership. But the methods may seem overly formulaic to more seasoned viewers. The jump scares are fine, but not really earned. Still, overall this is a very proficiently made horror with decent production value. It’s just not scary.
Director Stephen Kay (Sons of Anarchy, Get Carter) has made a horror-LITE for fans of 7th Heaven (1996-2006), as this movie stars the show’s heartthrob and hardly ever utters a bad word, sneaks a boob, or lets a drop of blood. The CGI Boogeyman looks awful, by the way. Awful!
In the end, Tim faces Boogeyman under the guidance of the ghost of a missing girl. Yes, it’s about as lame as it sounds. The way Tim defeats the monster is…. dumb. But really, this movie isn’t dumb. It’s quite well-made. I just didn’t like it. And what’s funny is I recall enjoying it when it was new. Maybe that’s just because I was a younger, less mature, less-seasoned horror viewer. Or maybe now I’m just old, grumpy, and tougher to please. No clue. But I hope my ranting helps you estimate if this movie is for you.
Movies, Films & Flix 