I recall Werewolves Within (2021) coming out right on the heels of The Wolf of Snow Hollow, a Jim Cummings film I highly recommend. And, wanting to let Werewolves Within breathe and not draw comparisons between two movies about guys in uniforms being asked to hunt down werewolves, I punted, and then forgot about this movie until it came by on my Hulu menu.
A sort of comedy/ horror/ murder mystery - it's a movie set up to keep you guessing in a locked-room mystery where there may or may not be a werewolf.
Written by Dennis Paoli, who wrote Re-Animator, From Beyond, Bodysnatchers, and Castle Freak, which Stuart Gordon would film, Suitable Flesh (2023), directed by Joe Lynch, carries on the same tradition of adapting H.P. Lovecraft and creating a weird, off-kilter, occasionally hilarious horror film that was what I was looking for after a few Halloween horror movies had left me cold.
Heather Graham plays a psychiatrist associated with good ol' Miskatonic University who is in a padded room, speaking with her fellow doctor and friend, played by Barbara Crampton. Graham relates the tale of how she was visited by a young man (Judah Lewis) who has found her as she wrote the book on out of body experiences. And, boy howdy, is he, Asa, having them. He claims a man, his father who is not his father, is trying to steal his body.
So, this is a movie by the guy behind the very popular 2025 film Weapons, which I do plan to watch at some point. And when I said "yes, I will see Weapons", folks asked "but have you seen Barbarian (2022)?" To which I would say "no". Until NOW.
So... this movie is part of the horror genre of inbred underground/ remotely dwelling folks who are going to give our unsuspecting leads a very bad time. Or just weirdos living in a place. So, movies like Death Line immediately come to mind. But also The Hills Have Eyes. The People Under the Stairs. CHUD, I guess. One could even point to Psycho (and I'll circle back to that)
I don't mean to say there's nothing special about this movie, but it feels like a Polly Pocket version of one of those movies. Only, taking inspiration from some real-life cases of psychos kidnapping women and keeping them in their basement.
How does one make a movie that is supposed to be horrifying just weirdly annoying to watch?
Salem's Lot (2024) is here to crack this mystery wide open.
Poor Steven King. Probably tired of being mistaken for author Stephen King who wrote the book this movie is based on, which had a TV series or some such of it made back when I was a wee tot and missed the show. And Stephen King has become a master of horror novels which have only been made into good movies if Stanley Kubrick takes the novel as a suggestion or its Rob Reiner making Stand By Me, which is not horror. I do like Christine, though. And Silver Bullet has its moments. But neither is a patch on the books.*
Writer/ Director Gary Dauberman took a beloved American novel, wrote down "vampires" on a yellow pad, jotted down the character names from the book, and as near as Wikipedia can tell me, paid little attention to anything else. And, instead, he wrote a nonsense script where everyone is dumb as a bag of rocks to the point where I was wondering if the movie was supposed to be a satire or spoof at times.
Back in the 1970's and early 1980's, we were coming out of a monster movie craze aimed at kids. I don't know how serious the craze was, but it did mean I wound up with a lot of monster movie books - but there was never a great criteria for what made a movie monster. You might see the Wolf Man listed, which made sense - he changes shape and attacks nice folks. And then you'd see The Phantom of the Opera, who is just a dude with an unfortunate condition and a penchant for sopranos, but did murder plenty of people. And then, like, Jaws. So, large animals.
Even as a kid I found the inclusion of The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) odd. He was just a guy with a physical condition, and he wasn't out slitting throats or anything. If his condition made him a monster, I had an elementary school guidance counselor who should have been far spookier and less of a great guy.
In short, this is a drama, not a horror movie. It would be like calling Mask a horror movie because it has make-up effects to change an actor's appearance. You live and learn.
Anyway, there is this 1939 version starring Charles Laughton and a very young Maureen O'Hara (she's like 18 here) and then there's the OG silent version starring Lon Chaney, which I've never seen, but I will take in soon. I've seen the Disney version on a 13" TV on VHS once, didn't like it much, and moved on with my life.
Artist Drew Struzan, who painted the iconic posters for a wide, wide range of favorite movies during my lifetime, has passed.
I include the poster for Big Trouble in Little China above as, if Jamie would tolerate it, we'd most certainly have it up in the house. Not only does it feature tremendous likenesses of Kurt Russell and Kim Cattrall, reason enough to have such a poster, it really captures the spirit of the film, full of action, supernatural nonsense, and two dopes caught in the middle.
I checked Roger Ebert's review of The Witches of Eastwick (1987). Look, some movies are a product of their time, and this is one. Ebert found it an edgy, sexy romp. And that was how I remember the movie being discussed in 1987.
I finally got to the movie here in 2025, and in short, all of the interesting bits are left off-screen. We hear about them, can infer or guess other bits. But we're still in 1980's America here, and if you want to not wind up in the midnight movie ghetto, you keep it polite so Mom and Dad have a movie they can sneak off to go see and leave you alone with a rented copy of Beastmaster.
The Witches of Eastwick is about two divorcees and a widow (Susan Sarandon, Michelle Pfeiffer and Cher) who live in a small Rhode Island town where they are hit upon by married men and saddled with lives they don't want. The three get together on Thursdays to eat processed crap food, drink, play cards and have someone listen.
During one such session, they describe what they want in a man, and, lo and behold, these three women - with what X-Men comics would call latent magical abilities - seem to summon exactly that man to their town in the form of Jack Nicholson/ some light version of Satan.
Nicholson buys a massive mansion (think Newport on steroids) and proceeds to be an ass around town and impresses everyone he meets.
He swiftly seduces Cher, Sarandon and... in front of the other two, Pfeiffer.
This is the third installment in the Haul Out the Holly Saga, a movie series which is about people who are absolutely nuts for holidays, their HOA and rules. We've abandoned Christmas for Halloween this go-round, which - given the first movies are about going over the top with traditions - seems appropriate.
This is, I should mention, a wacky comedy series with everything about the 'burbs heightened and zany, so don't take it too seriously. It's a departure from Hallmark's usual "the characters are all smiling to let you know a joke happened" style of comedy, and, instead, works more like an 00's-era comedy - complete with joke-every-15-second pop culture referencing and a rap by Octogenarians.
I think for a lot of folks, across a few generations, this one is going to hit hard. Keaton as an actress played some of the most important roles of the 20th century with her titular role in Annie Halland in Allen'sManhattan. And, of course, she's Kay Adams/ Corleone in three Godfather films.
She was in innumerable other films, of course. Father of the Bride, Something's Gotta Give, First Wives Club, Baby Boom. She carved out a place for a sort of intellectual, independent, often quirky woman as a character on screen, but also in real life. She was also a producer and director, from time to time. And generally beloved by film aficionados from the 1970's to the current era.
It is odd... I was just thinking this week that I hadn't heard anything about Diane Keaton in a while, but hadn't been concerned, exactly. I'd just observed I hadn't seen her name attached to anything in a bit.
Condolences to her family and loved ones. She'll be very missed.
I kinda knew going to see Showgirls (1995) in a theater in 2025 was going to kick-ass, no matter what. There is a self-selected group of fans of this movie, and I guess I'm now part of this unruly mob.
As (a) someone who crushed hard on Jessie Spano in high school and graduated with the Bayside High gang, and (b) who was a bit goggle-eyed that Berkley made her pivot into major motion pictures with Showgirls, (c) and who felt she got a raw deal from deeply ingrained misogyny of the 1990's (maybe I didn't feel that so much in 95', but it was a growing realization later.), and (d) has delighted in how Elizabeth Berkley seems to have embraced this thing that could have wrecked her...
An idea I had that ultimately was part of what killed the PodCast was "I want to watch Showgirls with people and ask them what they think. Over and over and over." Because, truly, the movie is a mirror to the viewer and a Rorschach test. While I have ideas about what I think it says about dreams, the American dream, showbiz dreams and what all of them cost (as well as plenty to say about sex and how it is offered and used as a commodity in entertainment) - that's me, man. I wanted to sit down and have other folks work through the movie. But to a person, when I suggested it, they said they would not do that. And, so, my podcasting dreams were dashed.
Then, a short while ago, Berkley said she was coming to Austin of all places for her 30th Anniversary screening of the opus, and, yeah, buddy, I was in.
Between 1962 and 2008, author Richard Stark (real name: Donald Westlake) delivered 24 Parker and Grofield novels. Between sometime around 2010 and 2017, I read all of the Parker and Grofield books, mostly in order. And I've re-read some since, including this year. That's not a guarantee of anything for you, but it is a sign of something that this was the series I actually stuck with it.
Over the years, the books have been adapted here and there, but during Stark's lifetime, he had a rule that the studios not use the name "Parker" in their adaptations. Likely because the studios always made changes, and he was protecting the essence of his character.
With Stark/ Westlake's passing, his wife allowed the studios to try another go at an adaptation, this time using the Parker name. And, thus, we got the 2013 mid-tier film, Parker, starring Jason Statham and Jennifer Lopez. We talked about it here and here.
But now we have a new take... and I do not know who this is for.
During the Q&A for the screening of Re-Animator, star Barbara Crampton mentioned she'd produced and starred in a horror movie recently, Jakob's Wife (2021). I recalled the name from last year's mini-dive into Crampton's work, but didn't get to the movie. But we've fixed that.
One fun thing about horror is that even when you say "vampire movie", it only really means a potential set of rules and maybe a gentle push a few directions. Eggers' Nosferatu is not Coogler's Sinners is not Garrard's Slay. You can change up the rules, and change up the look, as long as you do a few key things, usually involving blood consumption and slow discovery of evil. But not always!
The high concept of vampirism can be used to explore themes well beyond "a foreigner has moved in next door, and probably brought rats with him". To that end, Jakob's Wife digs not just into the traditional roles of men and women, but of women as they reach a certain age, denied a life of their own in prescribed servitude.
Our titular Jakob (Larry Fessenden) is a pastor of a church in a dying southern town. He's leading his diminishing flock, preaching traditional values of a man's role in his family. His wife, Anne (Barbara Crampton) is the dutiful pastor's wife. She's past the point of youth, married thirty years and feeling life passing her by as the perpetual prop to her husband.
Last year I watched Re-Animator (1985) for the first time in forever, and was reminded of (a) what a great movie Re-Animator really is, (b) fired up a new appreciation for what the movie is doing, and (c) was reminded that Barbara Crampton is just an excellent idea all around.
She's on socials, and she does not disappoint. And so it was that I learned she and Jeffrey Combs were traveling to some cities to hype up the 4K restoration of Re-Animator on its 40th Anniversary. And, fortunately, they were coming to Austin.
Les Girls (1957) is what happens when someone sees Rashomon, likes the notion of the same story told from different angles, but lacks the ability or skill to write a story that pulls off the Rashomon-effect. And, so, Les Girls is three different stories with the same characters that seem like they take place completely divorced from each other. Because of this, and because none of the three stories is very interesting (and because my mind drifts when movies are dull), it is, I think, somewhat of a confusing watch.
But if you read about Gene Kelly, Les Girls gets mentioned all the time, so I wanted to check it out.
Possession (1981) is one of those movies you see get routinely mentioned, but very rarely with *specifics* as to why it's on lists and recommended.
Look, this is not a movie where one bops along with an A-B-C plot. It's absolutely one of those movies - maybe likeInland Empire - where folks sure seem certain about what it is about but nobody agrees, including critics. It is an easy movie to get engrossed in and like, mostly because it falls just on this side of adding up, and your brain is working overtime trying to stitch the pieces together. Is it religious symbolism? Is it not? Is this a commentary on Berlin or using Berlin to make a point about divorce? What's with... you know... the, uh... creature, I guess?
First - it's remarkable how messed up the music industry was in the 1990's that I realize I kind of disliked some of the music from the artists in Lilith Fair: Building a Mystery (2025) not because of the music, but because if a song was any good in the 1990's, you kind of couldn't escape it for months at a time. I think half of why I got weird about music in college and decided "I'm gonna go listen to Cole Porter standards" was because if I heard Hootie and the Blowfish one more time, I was going to shove pencils through my ear drums. On the whole, radio, Muzak and MTV had a real "you like ice cream? Great. We're force feeding you a gallon of mint chocolate chip every hour for the next two months" sort of vibe.
It did not help that I was working in a Camelot Records during the period when the artists who would become the headliners at Lilith Fair in the first years were releasing their music. (So tired were we of Paula Cole's "Where Have All the Cowboys Gone?" that, behind the counter we would whisper to each other in response to Cole's query, "Up my butt". But almost 30 years later, that song is a-ok, Paula Cole.)
The documentary of Lilith Fair: Building a Mystery charts the origins, rise, challenges to, and eventual final wrap-up of the initial go at Lilith Fair, and its place in culture in the 1990's. It shows how the very suddenly popular Sarah McLachlan parlayed both her position and organization into recruiting other female artists and playing multiple summers of tours from the mid-90's to 1999. Along the way, luminaries like Patti Smith, Bonnie Raitt, Erykah Badu, Emmylou Harris, Suzanne Vega and countless others joined McLachlan on the road to help change perceptions of how women fit into the music industry.
In late summer 1990, I saw the trailer for Miller's Crossing (1990) at my local cinema in Spring, Texas. I don't remember what movie I saw that day, but I remember seeing the lush, lyrical trailer for a movie that seemed to jump off the screen with its imagery, language and violence. Coming off of my first high of mob movies with The Godfather around that time, as well as seeing the guys who had madeRaising Arizonawere behind the movie, I was ready to see the film on opening day.
But the Coen Bros. were not yet famous, and Fox, which had distribution rights, didn't really push the movie. I kept looking for it in show listings. But it played downtown Houston, not out in the 'burbs, and I was still something like eight months away from my license. And, so it was that I missed the film until it came out on VHS.
One of the only book series I've read in its entirety, and re-read multiple volumes, has been the Parker series of books by Richard Stark (aka: Donald Westlake). I tend to think of Parker as a criminal project manager, and that works for me in my world.
A while back I'd read of the casting of Robert Downy Jr. for the role of Parker in the Shane Black helmed film, but that seems to have gone away with Avengers stuff back on RDJ's slate. To my surprise, the role here is occupied by Mark Wahlberg. I'm not anti-Wahlberg, but after spending 20-something books with Parker, I was of the opinion that RDJ could do it, but he wasn't my first choice. Look, Parker is supposed to be a towering figure and RDJ Is like 5'9". I am a bit baffled by the casting of Wahlberg, but no one asked me. We have a whole Dave Bautista out there.
There have been many adaptations of Parker books to film, and all of them make the mistake of wanting Parker to have... feelings. He does have feelings, like anger, mild-irritation, general crankiness... but he's not a joker or hugger. He does not quip. And that's hard for folks writing him or playing him, and why Lee Marvin's take in Point Blank was probably closest. He's largely amoral, and will put a bullet in you if you cross him, even if he's known you for years as a colleague. He *does* have unspoken feelings and maybe even what he considers friendships, if Butcher's Moon is any indication.
So, long story long, the trailer doesn't reflect the novels.
Nor is it, exactly, one of the books. It seems to be melding elements from The Handle and another book or two. But it's its own thing, in the end.
But what I have heard twice now is that the movie is not the Ocean's 11-vibe that I'm getting from the video above. In my humble opinion, the closest to the vibe of the books is probably Payback with Mel Gibson, or the aforementioned Point Blank.
If I may... Amazon is doing the wrong thing here in general, and should just make 3 Parker movies per year for maybe 3 years, and just stick to the books, setting the movies in the era in which the novels were released. Stop at The Rare Coin Score, I think. Bring in Claire and then decide if it's worth continuing.
Cardinale, who hailed from Italy, appeared in a handful of American films. She's most famous for 8 1/2 and one of my personal favorite films, Once Upon a Time In The West, where she plays Jill - a deeply complicated woman arriving on the frontier just as industrialization arrives on the front porch.
Here's one of my favorite sequences in cinema, featuring Cardinale (with an American voiceover, because Sergio Leone).
Longtime readers will know that The Bride of Frankenstein is, full stop, one of my favorite movies. And Frankenstein is such a favorite book, I think I'm starting a re-read soon.
I'm not really much of a purist, as these things go. The book is 200+ years old, and folks can do as they please. What *does* bother me is when folks either have never seen Bride of Frankenstein or gravely, somehow, against all odds, misunderstood the movie. In either case it's believing that the movie is not 100% about the folly of believing you can make someone love you. (in this case, make someone to love you) And so we get all the cutesy merch with Franky and The Bride as a cute couple, and... well, I have to remind myself it's all in good fun.
So, I could care less if someone does *an entirely new story* that doesn't just bobble the 1935 movie. Take those basics of the Frankenstein movies and/ or book and go bananas. And, this looks bananas. Good on director Gyllenhaal. I'm in. I could care less that we already had Poor Things andCreature Commandosrecently. Keep it coming.
Your guess what this will be is as good or better than mine.
