JD and Orchid's Domain

10 Things I Hate About You (1999)

2026-09-03T18:33:30.020-07:00

We have now arrived at the third and concluding film for our project on Teen Classic Literary Adaptations. This is a childhood movie that my sister and I both enjoyed immensely. Here, we’ve rectified many of the issues raised about the two films I covered. For example, the girl who is being bet on takes center stage as the main character, allowing us to get to know and invest in her. The supporting characters are more interesting, the plot is engaging, the two leads have ah-mazing chemistry, and the movie as a whole is just a fun watch. I've had a blast! As you may know, this is by far the best of the three movies.

As is tradition, let's give some insight into the source material. The movie is based on Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew. So the story goes like this: The main plot involves the courtship of Loveable Cad Petruchio and the wealthy yet tempestuous Katherina. Now there are many interpretations of Petruchio and Katherina. But considering the time of the play, people often interpret the character of Petruchio as a quintessential misogynist who aims to subdue Katherina and acts as a complete and utter opportunist. Many view Katherina as one of the first feminist protagonists who defies societal norms imposed on women. To tame Katherina, Petruchio becomes outright abusive, whether physically or psychologically. Oh yeah, just to mention, this is one of Shakespeare's more "comedic" plays. Bianca, Katherina’s sister, also has a subplot where she seeks a suitor, but her father’s decree prevents her from marrying until Katherina does. Bianca has a "softer" approach to femininity and is seen as the ideal woman by most men. Let's just say that the themes of the play haven't aged well. But that didn't stop it from getting adaptations, however.

There was a sequel written by John Fletcher, titled The Woman's Prize, or The Tamer Tamed, published in 1611. To usher in a new female lead, Fletcher kills off Katherina. This might be a controversial move to some, but it basically follows the same plot as the original, with Petruchio pursuing a similar character named Maira. In this version, it's Petruchio who changes his ways. The play eventually ends with Petruchio and Maria having mutual respect for one another as they live their lawfully wedded lives.

Well into the late 1600s, there was a Scottish version titled Sauny the Scott, and in the 1700s, there were two rival plays, both named The Cobbler of Preston.

And FINALLY, there was a highly successful adaptation by David Garrick, simply titled Catherine and Petruchio, released in 1754. This theatrical run extended into the 1880s. In the early 1900s, the year 1924 saw the production of operas, ballets, and even a radio play.

The silent film era saw the release of the first film adaptation of The Taming of the Shrew in 1908. But it wasn't until 1929 that the source material got a talkie treatment. However, in this version, Katherina only pretends to be "tamed" and is very sure of herself as a woman. Which I prefer as a better ending, to be honest, and from what I gather, many other film adaptations took this in stride.

The Broadway musical Kiss Me Kate, featuring music and lyrics by Cole Porter, debuted in 1948. Rather than directly adapting “The Taming of the Shrew,” this work delves into the production aspects of a Broadway musical derived from it. The main characters are the egotistical stage director Fred Graham and his movie-star ex-wife, Lilli Vanessi. It delves into the broader meta aspect of their relationship and how it bleeds into the fictional characters Petruchio and Katherina. The Broadway version would eventually be adapted into a well-remembered film version starring Kathryn Grayson, Howard Keel, Ann Miller, and a cameo by Bob Fosse.

Then, in 1963, there was a Western version titled McLintock! Starring Maureen O'Hara and...John Wayne. If you examine John Wayne's racist and misogynistic history, you can see that this role suited him perfectly.

The 1967 adaptation starring Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton is probably the most renowned of the earlier versions. Unfortunately, it's a faithful adaptation. And I say, "unfortunately," because film critic Elizabeth Schafer called the film intensely conservative, pointing out the infamous blurb, "A motion picture for every man who ever gave the back of his hand to his beloved...and for every woman who deserved it." YIKES. The on-screen chemistry between Taylor and Burton is kind of unnerving to watch, considering their complicated dynamic in real life. When you add a bit of psychological, verbal, and physical abuse into the mix, it almost turns into an anti-romantic comedy, and not in a good way. Despite being nominated for Best Costume Design and Best Art Direction at the Oscars, in retrospect, this film hasn't aged quite well.

In 1973, Charles Marowitz did an existential horror take on the source material titled The Shrew. The work adopts the tone of a gothic tragedy, focusing on Katherina’s perspective. There is no humor in this play; instead, it plays out like a psychological drama/thriller of sorts. It usually parallels the main couple with a secondary modern couple, juxtaposing the views of marriage through a psychosocial and psychosexual lens. To hammer this home, by the end of the play, Katherina is in her wedding dress, wrapped in chains as funeral bells ring in the background. This symbolic image vindicates Elizabeth Schafer's claims of conservatism and misogyny that often plague the source material. Additionally, this occurred during the early stages of feminism, and Marowitz took advantage of it to challenge viewers rather than gently leading them. The bold and unapologetic reimagining achieved great success, and subsequently, modern adaptations incorporated similar feminist principles.

We then fast-forward to 20-some odd years later, when The Teen Literary Adaptation is on a roll. Writers and longtime friends Karen McCullah Lutz and Kristen Smith came up with the concept for 10 Things I Hate About You while watching the movie Clueless. Who would’ve thought? In response to the mid-nineties teen film craze, Lutz and Smith developed a screenplay in 1997. It wasn't long before the execs at Touchstone took notice, and the film was eventually greenlit in the early spring of 1998. But the question is... how can you adapt one of Shakespeare's most misogynistic plays and turn it into a modern romantic comedy? The outcome: the most highly revered teen movies of the 90s, standing as a strong and worthy competitor to Clueless.

The cast, as usual, features many recognizable faces from the 90s and early 2000s. Most notably, the main stars, Julia Stiles, Heath Ledger, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, would become Hollywood Royalty.

But the real standouts for me are the hilarious supporting cast. You have Larry Miller, whom I know from The Nutty Professor, as Walter Stratford, the uptight, overbearing dad who regulates Kat and Bianca's dating choices. Darryl "Chill" Mitchell as the no-nonsense English teacher, Mr. Morgan, who always puts his students in their place. And lastly, we have the comedic genius, Allison Janney, who gives a memorable performance as the school guidance counselor and aspiring erotic novelist, Ms. Perky. Additionally, Janney was booked and busy, as she also starred in the cult-classic comedy Drop Dead Gorgeous. She's a riot in that, too. You should definitely check it out.

As far as the tone and setting go, it kind of mediates between the two previous movies. You have the sunny, carefree tone of She's All That, yet it also possesses the prestige of Cruel Intentions. The vibrant and unconventional San Francisco environment imbues the film with a strong sense of individuality, positioning it as an excellent choice for a modernized Shakespearean narrative. The characters are smart, witty, and not the usual teen stereotypes you see in every YA film. So, as I go through the list of the many characters in this movie, I would like to point out that they're all connected to our main character, Kat.

First up is Cameron James, the new student, portrayed by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Cameron serves as the observer, acting as an audience surrogate. He gains an understanding of the school’s complexities under the guidance of Ivy League Club Member Michael Eckman. As expected, Michael explains the different cliques, social groups, and where to fit in. That's when he focuses on the Stratford sisters, Kat and Bianca.

Cameron instantly takes a liking to Bianca and agrees to be her tutor for her French class, even though he's not quite good at it himself. Cameron thinks he has a shot by asking her out; however, Michael tells him that her dad would only let Bianca date if Kat dates. Cameron and Michael soon devise a scheme to bet with their schoolmates on who can date Kat, allowing Cameron to pursue Bianca. Now, as you all may know, this seems to be a difficult task.

But when Cameron makes a sly mention of Kat's dating woes, this sparks Bianca's interest. But unbeknownst to him, Bianca really has her eyes on the school douchebag Joey Donner and sort of friend-zones Cameron. This all changes on the night of Bogey's party, where Bianca reciprocates Cameron's feelings.

So Bianca just got duped by Joey, and Cameron kindly offers her a ride home, but not without giving her a talking-to.

He levels an accusation at her, calling her selfish, and in that moment, Bianca experiences a profound realization. Now, in most movies of this caliber, it would be around the last second or first third act that a main character would realize their own flaws, but in this case, Bianca gets the character development treatment earlier on. Surprisingly, on a whim, Bianca and Cameron kiss for the first time. As a result, they have officially formalized their relationship. This contrasts with Kat and Patrick. It doesn't run as smoothly. With Joey Donner’s help, Patrick Verona, who just arrived from Australia, is the only guy Cameron and Michael persuaded to date Kat. So here they are, in the car together, and Kat is...a little tipsy. More on that later. What makes it awkward between them is that Kat is developing feelings for Patrick. Yes, Kat Stratford, the girl with a chip on her shoulder, actually has feelings for a guy. The issue is that Patrick shares those same emotions, but he can't fully return them. So Kat goes in for a kiss, but Patrick can't accept it because if he did, it wouldn't ring true. This could stem from Kat's inebriation and Patrick's character, since he doesn't take advantage of women and shows respect for Kat in that regard. I see this as a sort of sad moment because Kat actually softened up to him, and Patrick was beginning to actually like her. However, something keeps getting in the way...

Anywho, despite the oversight with the prom invitation, Cameron and Bianca are in a good place, and ultimately, Cameron has won her affections.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt was just absolutely adorable. His best-known work around this time included Angels in the Outfield (a film my sister and I watched dozens of times) and the sitcom 3rd Rock from the Sun. He had a few small supporting roles in movies, including a memorable opening scene in Halloween H20, but this movie catapulted him into superstardom. With his perfect, engaging charm, he's a natural leading man, which makes it easy to root for his character, Cameron.

Joseph is, as I would like to call him, a genre-buster. A genre-buster is an actor who would nail any film genre. An early example would be Barbara Stanwyck. That level of talent allowed him to build a profitable career in movies like Mysterious Skin, Inception, Looper, The Dark Knight Rises, and 500 Days of Summer, playing a similar character with a subversive twist. Not only is he an immensely talented actor, but he's also one of my biggest childhood crushes, which adds to his alluring mystique.

Now we move on to Bianca Stratford, played by Ms. Alex Mack herself, Larisa Oleynik. Bianca is Kat's pretty, popular sister who is right at the cusp of sixteen. So at this point in her life, Bianca is interested in seeking a male suitor, and most of the guys at her school are vying for her attention. But just like in the original text, her father forbids her to date anyone unless her sister dates. You see, she and Kat don't see eye to eye, and their social standings are vastly different.

She thinks Kat is intentionally scaring the boys away to stop her from pursuing a relationship with Joey Donner, the campus heartthrob, but that’s not really the case...more on that later.

While Bianca is pining after Joey, the new boy in school, Cameron crushes on her hard. He even volunteers to tutor her in French, even though he's not really good at French either. Bianca, in typical fashion, leverages her feminine charms to get Cameron to do as she pleases, such as setting Kat up with someone so she can date Joey. However, upon arriving at Bogey’s party, Bianca faces a harsh reality.

So Bianca finally gets with Joey, but their conversation is...lacking. Bianca soon realizes that Joey is a complete narcissist to the core. He goes on and on about how he looks in this shirt or how he looks in that shirt, how he looks in this pose or that pose. Not once does he ever consider talking about her wants, needs, or goals. It just goes entirely left-field.

To add insult to injury, Joey takes off with her so-called best friend, Chasity (played by the one and only Gabrielle Union), leaving her stranded at the party. So that's when Bianca goes to Cameron for help.

Bianca’s realization is that the allure of being part of the popular circle is not as appealing as she initially thought. Her best friend betrayed her, the guy she liked turned out to be a total douche, and she has some atonement for her past selfish behavior. Bianca briefly mentions that Kat herself was part of the popular crowd, but because of personal issues, she strayed away from the scene and accepted her status as a newly anointed outcast. I think in this moment, Bianca can finally see Kat's point of view. She then realizes that Cameron is her knight in shining armor.

When he calls her out on her bullshit, he's frustrated, passionate, and brutally honest, which mirrors her own eternal struggles.

To lessen the tension, Bianca kisses Cameron with deep meaning. She offers him reassurance and, in doing so, reassures herself.

When she chooses Cameron as her suitor, Bianca gains a new lease on life and becomes kinder and sweeter.

While the romantic comedy genre typically emphasizes romance, this film's genuine spirit lies in the sisterly bond between Kat and Bianca. Their dynamic reminds me of Daria and Quinn. Bianca is a social-climbing trendsetter, while Kat is a staunch feminist who wants to break out of the social norm. Although they make snide comments and subtle jabs at each other, you can tell they still care about one another. It may seem that Kat refuses to date boys just to spite Bianca, but the truth is, she's actually protecting her.

The gist is that Kat dated a boy during her freshman and sophomore years. She soon confesses to Bianca that the boy was none other than Joey Donner, the resident jerk jock. Bianca refuses to believe that Kat and Joey were an item, considering their intense animosity. This prompts Kat to make another confession: Joey is the one she lost her virginity to. This explains why she's been trying to prevent Bianca from dating him. At first, she's upset with Kat but eventually comes around and forgives her sister on prom night.

From then on, Kat and Bianca seem to be on good terms, and with that, Bianca gains a bit of Kat's assertiveness when she kicks the ever-loving shit out of Joey. So I say, good for her. Who gives a damn about popularity when it's best to be around the people you care about?

Overall, I find Bianca the second most interesting character, alongside Kat. Larisa Oleynik's portrayal was so endearing and relatable that it's easy to overlook the character's past shortcomings, even though she could have come across as a shallow airhead. You kind of sense that, deep down, through her false bravado, there is a lost little girl who's just trying to fit in. Larisa was famous as a TV star, primarily for portraying Alex Mack in Nickelodeon's The Secret World of Alex Mack. I had to do a double take and say, "Wait, is that who I think it is?" and then I was like, "Oh yeah, that's definitely her."

I have to say, Larisa holds her own as a leading lady, and the chemistry between her and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is spot-on. It helps that the two dated for a while, and she even had a recurring role on Third Rock from the Sun, which helped build their romantic spark. Her initial choice was the more abrasive part of Kat, but I feel like this role is a good fit for her as well. She has this way of delivering an understated yet remarkably witty performance that's ripe for a teen romantic comedy. Larisa hasn't been in many movies lately, and her best-known credit is a recurring role on Mad Men. But it would be nice if she had catapulted into teen superstardom with a headline or two.

Now we turn to the film's antagonist, Joey Donner. Joey is a mix of Zach Siler and Sebastian Valmont. On the Zach end of the spectrum, he is the charming yet pompous Big Man on Campus. On the Sebastian end of the spectrum, he manipulates and coerces girls into having sex with him. Looking back at the previous two movies, it's as if the filmmakers had to go out of their way to redeem these two guys. Zach is the lesser of two evils, thanks to the impeccably charming Freddie Prinze Jr. and the believable chemistry between him and Rachael Leigh Cook. So I guess I'll give him a pass. Sebastian, on the other hand...Well, just check out The Many Crimes of Sebastian Valmont in my Cruel Intentions review, and you'll see why Sebastian is a hell of a lot worse than Zach. But the point I'm trying to make is that Joey shows the worst qualities of Zach and Sebastian, and now that we're seeing it through a female point of view, we can see why he doesn't go on some grand redemption arc to learn his lesson. Joey is a jerk through and through.

Now, at the beginning of the film, there is some unresolved tension between Kat and Joey. But it goes beyond her just hating him for pursuing her sister; it's much deeper than that. Since the cat's out of the bag (no pun intended), Joey and Kat used to be an item. One thing led to another, and Kat ended up losing her virginity to him. Just to mention, Andrew Keegan would play a similar character in the film O, another Shakespeare-adjacent film, where he's accused of sleeping with Julia Stiles' character. How ironic. Oh, pardon me, let's continue. When Kat refuses to have sex with Joey again, he acts like the total douche that he is and dumps her. But Kat gets the last laugh and threatens that if he tells anyone about their consummation, she'll tell half the school about his "little member." And when you think about it, Joey definitely has that little dick energy going on. It shows that his high sense of self is a cover-up for his fragile masculinity.

But it isn't until Prom Night that Joey finally gets his comeuppance. When Bianca gets word from his current girl of the week, Chasity, that the reason he agreed to the bet with Patrick was that he could sleep with Bianca on Prom Night, not only does she give him a piece of her mind, but she also gives him a good K.O. to the face.

Now poor little Joey has to wear sunglasses to cover his bruises. Well, there goes his promising modeling career.

Andrew Keegan delivered a believable performance as the school scoundrel, a role quite different from his boy-next-door roles. After a couple of acting credits in the early to mid-2000s, he would take a break from the industry... to become a cult leader? Yeah, my opinion on that is that I don't trust people who run cults. Anywho, the whole cult thing wouldn't last long, and soon, Andrew hopped back on the acting train. Maybe he might get another juicy role. I'm thinking he'd try his hand at playing...a charismatic cult leader. Art imitates life, after all.

Just to squeeze this in here, I would like to talk about our beta couple in the film, Michael and Mandela. Their dynamic reminds me so much of Wednesday and Joel from Addams Family Values. Speaking of which, David Komlutz actually played the role of Joel. Oh, lovely Joel. I don't know; it's just something about him. It was when I was thinking those pesky little gay thoughts, and he was just the sweetest thing. I can see why Wednesday was slowly warming up to him. But now he's won the heart of another sullen goth girl, Mandela, played by Susan May Pratt, who also starred in You Drive Me Crazy that same year, which ALSO featured our girl Sabrina the Teenage Witch, AKA Melissa Joan Hart.

Her dynamic with Kat kind of reminds me of Jane from Daria. Yeah, I know I keep mentioning Daria when comparing this film, but I just get the feeling Daria also inspired the script. Despite Mandela’s comfort with being an outsider, she doesn’t shy away from extracurriculars and unexpectedly wants to go to prom, much to Kat’s disappointment. I also get the feeling that Mandela is sort of a drama-kid type, given her fascination with Shakespeare.

The dynamic between Cameron and Michael is that of an introverted and an extroverted nerd. Since Cameron is the newcomer, Michael shows him the ins and outs of Padua High, explaining the different cliques and social groups. Michael, in particular, is involved with the "high elite" nerds, where he has a friendly rivalry with the pack leader, Bogey Lowenstein.

After Bogey kicks Michael out of the "high elite" club, Michael seeks revenge by planning a rowdy house party at his mansion to pair up the two main couples. While Cameron takes a subtle route by volunteering to tutor French with his crush, Bianca, Michael, on the other hand, goes 100 miles and beyond by using his fast-talking ways to charm the girls, but they aren't really buying it. That is, until he runs into Mandela. At first, she doesn't seem interested, but once Michael quotes Shakespeare, it sparks Mandela's interest. Then, suddenly, Mandela receives notes from a secret admirer. We, the audience, know who this secret admirer is, and on Prom Night, Mandela finally finds her "Shakespeare..."

Of course, it's Michael. The moment Michael shows up on stage, dressed in his 16th-century garb, to impress Mandela as he beckons with his hand, is the cutest thing ever. They may be an unlikely match for some, but it works for me.

Now we move on to our darling leads, Kat Stratford and Patrick Verona.

Let's start with Patrick Verona, played by the late, great Heath Ledger. Patrick is a mystery. He comes across as the typical brooding bad boy, says little, and isn't the most approachable guy.

While on their never-ending search for the perfect guy for Kat, Cameron and Michael run into Patrick. At first, Patrick doesn't budge, but when Joey Donner cuts in on the deal with his confident swag and a wad of cash, Patrick gives in.

Unlike the original, where his literary counterpart resorted to abusive tactics to control the female lead, Patrick opts to woo Kat instead. When Cameron receives personal info about Kat's interests from Bianca, he passes this along to Patrick. To get on Kat's good side, he uses his charm, or whatever charm he has left.

Then he goes to her hangout spot where her favorite band plays. She's a little impressed, but still doesn't budge. Then there's the night of Bogey Lowenstien's party, where Patrick has a little hope.

After seeing Joey flirt with her sister, Kat decides to get drunk. While wildly dancing on a table in an intoxicated frenzy, she almost falls under, but Patrick, being her knight in shining armor for the evening, catches her in time.

After she gets a little air to cool off, Kat gets those fuzzy little feelings when she stares into Patrick's eyes. Therefore, a crush begins to form, and Kat actually opens up a little. This is when Patrick's tender, softer side begins to show. He's even nice enough to take her home, but when Kat waits for that special kiss, Patrick backs away. Granted, she is a little wasted and not in her right state of mind. However, Patrick might also feel guilty about the bet, now that he's grown to like her.

Still reeling from her rejection, Kat is back to her old self and tries her best to avoid Patrick. So, to make it up to her, Patrick makes a grand gesture of love that leads to one of the most iconic moments in teen film history and makes Heath Ledger a star.

During Kat's soccer practice, Patrick leads the marching band, belting out a rendition of Can't Take My Eyes Off You. You just gotta love it. Heath Ledger is just so gosh darn cute here. I know the teenage girls in the theater were swooning over him. Even my grown ass was blushing. Heath just had that effect on people. Not only that, he has some amazing pipes. If he were alive today, Heath would undoubtedly be a standout in a musical. Fun Fact! Julia Stiles actually came up with this scene. I must say, this woman is an actual genius. This grand gesture of love wins Kat over and quickly bails him out of detention...with a few tricks up her sleeve. More on that later.

So Kat and Patrick finally spend the day together, where they get to have a little fun playing paintball wars, which seems like a good time. And that's when they share their first kiss...

When they arrive at Kat's house, Patrick tells a little bit about himself, though he doesn't reveal too much. Based on what Patrick reveals, he’s an Australian from a single-parent household, slowly adjusting to life in America. But when Kat wants to know more about his feelings for her, Patrick shrugs it off and says he just enjoys her company in a blasé tone. Kat doesn't want any of it and storms off in frustration. This could've been the moment where Patrick comes clean about The Bet thing and that he truly does have feelings for her, but he just can't bring himself to do it. It may seem that the movie portrays Kat as an ice queen who can never melt; however, it's actually Patrick who's the hard shell to crack.

It's now Prom Night, and Kat has put her grievances aside and is going to the prom. Just so you know, Patrick is there, waiting for her. But oh no, he has something else up his sleeve: he convinced Kat's favorite band to perform for her on Prom Night. This would be his ultimate declaration of love...

That's until Kat's arch-nemesis, Joey, comes and ruins everything. He reveals the bet he's made with Patrick, and Kat, once again, feels duped. Patrick tries to make it up to her by planting a kiss, but she doesn't budge and runs off. Will Patrick make it up to her this time?

I like that Patrick has many facets to his personality and how the film showcases his character development in each act. In the first act, he's distant, unapproachable, and he has very few lines. In the second act, when he pursues Kat, there is a charming side to him. He's funny, warm, and...actually romantic. In the final, third act of Patrick's transformation, he's incredibly empathetic, soft, and, overall, a person capable of love. Dare I say it, but Patrick...is probably the most interesting and well-written male lead, more than Zach and Sebastian combined.

They initially thought of Josh Hartnett for Patrick since he was known for playing bad-boy types, yet Heath Ledger had that certain something. I think his first breakthrough role was in this obscure fantasy-adventure TV series called Roar back in 1997. It was around the time when shows like Hercules and Xena were really popular, and this show was kind of cashing in on that. Although the show didn't last long, I seem to remember, even as a kid, that...Heath Ledger just had that effect on me. I'm telling you, this was before puberty. Hell, I didn't even know I was gay yet.

But then this movie comes along, and you can tell this guy was a movie star in the making. Apart from his chiseled good looks, he's also a genre-buster. Heath is just so unique in his approach, and he can easily get lost in a role. However, in this film, he seems to just play himself, which makes it more enjoyable to watch. After having a lucrative career in Hollywood, starring in iconic films such as Brokeback Mountain, he finally won his Oscar for his role as The Joker in The Dark Knight. His performance is by far one of the best in decades, and people still talk about his amazing acting talents to this day; R.I.P. Heath Ledger.

Now, the moment you've been waiting for, and of course, I'll save the best for last. Here is Our Lady of the Hour:

Kat Stratford, played by the oh-so sensational Julia Stiles.

You know what, I'm going to say it right off the bat: Kat is one of the most fascinating female characters in teen film history. Let me break it down.

First, let's talk about Kat's amazing introduction. It first starts off like your usual squeaky-clean coming-of-age teen rom-com with four perky teenage girls driving to the remix of Barenaked Ladies', One Week. Then here comes Kat's beat-up 1960s Dodge Dart while Joan Jett's Bad Reputation is blasting on the radio. She glares at the girls with her razor-sharp stare as they quickly avoid her gaze. Kat smiles in satisfaction and drives her way to the school parking lot. This shows that Kat is not someone you want to mess with and pretty much signals that she's "not like the other girls."

Kat has strong opinions, delivers them bluntly, and doesn't mind being ostracized by her peers. But the movie doesn't treat this as a bad thing. It's actually admirable in a way. Sure, there's good with the bad when it comes to Kat's personality traits; however, it's her individuality that sets her apart from the usual YA protagonists. Because she has such a headstrong personality, Kat is often called a "heinous bitch," which she's quite proud of. Kat puts up a barrier to avoid showing any vulnerability, not even toward her sister, and especially toward boys. But on the flip side, Kat's backstory pretty much telegraphs her open resentment toward her more popular classmates, including the school douchebag Joey Donner. Speaking of which, he just so happens to be an integral part of Kat's reputation as a shrew.

It turns out that Kat was like the other girls, or still is, in some sense. According to Bianca, Kat was very popular once and actually dated Joey around her freshman/sophomore year. But as the story goes, the relationship didn't last long when Kat lost her virginity to him, and she didn't want to do it a second time. So it's sort of a "this is how we got here" moment when she confesses this to Bianca. After her breakup with Joey, Kat is, of course, ostracized by the popular crowd and creates a new persona.

You see, this was around the time when the Riot Grrl movement was in full swing. These were women who weren't afraid to be bold, opinionated, confrontational, and angry as hell. This marked the concluding phase of the proto-feminist movement, with Kat embodying it. This is why I find her more captivating than the two female leads in the previous two films. When it comes to Kat's love life, it's kind of complicated. Because of Joey's mistreatment, Kat scares the boys away. But when Patrick Verona comes into the picture, she seems to have met her match.

He's not afraid to challenge her, yet he's sweet and romantic in his approach. Their interactions echo a classic 1930s duo known for rapid-fire, amusing jabs, but an underlying tension keeps them coming back for more.

And I have to admit, the chemistry between Julia Stiles and Heath Ledger is absolutely fire. Initially, Kat is unimpressed by Patrick's allure, so he has to put in a lot of effort to win her over. However, it's not until the night of Bogey's party that sparks begin to fly between them.

Kat's encounter with Joey leads her to believe he'll likely get his way with her sister, a prospect that deeply disgusts her. Out of pure impulse, she downs a few drinks to not only avoid Joey but to avoid Patrick as well. This leads to one of the funniest and most entertaining moments in the film.

You see, Kat has mostly been a girl who's kept her guard up. She's very headstrong and takes herself seriously. But in this scene, Kat gets very tipsy and lets herself loose. And I must say, Julia Stiles has some amazing dance moves. Oh, and here's a fun fact: Julia Stiles improvised the dance moves, which eventually got her cast as the lead in Save the Last Dance, starring Sean Patrick Thomas, who was in our last movie, Cruel Intentions. I can just imagine the producer saying, "Oh, this Julia Stiles girl is kind of fly; she would be perfect as our lead!" How awesome is that!

So Patrick comes as her knight in shining armor when she almost falls off the table and takes her to get some air. As I've mentioned before, this is the moment their mutual attraction begins. Kat's Ice Queen persona slowly chips away, going back to the smitten teenage girl she once was. She sees that Patrick is actually a gentleman and doesn't take advantage of her. So, she rewards him with a kiss...Unfortunately, he doesn't take it. This leaves Kat jaded, and she reverts to her Ice Queen mode. However, Patrick instantly wins Kat over when he makes his grand declaration of love during her soccer practice, prompting her to act spontaneously.

To hatch a plan to get Patrick out of detention, Kat tries to distract the teacher on duty. Out of the blue, she flashes him. Like, actually flashes him...in front of the class. Wow, you don't write moments like that in a yearbook. I can just imagine one of the kids whispering, "Wow, this Kat girl isn't half bad at all." Now, I know this scene wouldn't work today because it's a teenage girl flashing an older man, but it's still funny as hell.

As we enter the second act of the film, Kat and Patrick go on their first date, and the place they choose looks like an absolute blast. Paintball Wars, you gotta love it.

Then they have their first actual kiss, and our dear heroine Kat is in deep bliss. But when Kat tries to get to know Patrick on a personal level, she realizes that he's a very evasive guy with a hard shell to crack. Kat storms off and takes some time to realize her own flaws. Therefore, she decides to be more open with her sister, leading to the penultimate scene in which Kat confesses to Bianca about her and Joey's previous relationship. It explains her distrust of boys and why her refusal to date them prevents Bianca from dating Joey. She didn't do it out of spite; she did it to protect her. However, because her mom left the family and she carried her own emotional baggage, Kat delayed intervening with Bianca about her crush on Joey.

Of course, Bianca is upset about this and chooses to wallow in her thoughts alone. As she watches Bianca sadly swing on a swing set, Kat prompts her decision...

She finally goes to the prom.

This leaves Bianca to pair up with her high school sweetheart, Cameron, so they can dance that special dance.

And then comes Patrick in all his marvelous glory, giving out his last gift to Kat: booking her favorite rock band to perform for her at the prom. This is when Kat realizes that this guy really, really likes her. But before they rejoice in each other's arms, here comes Kat's nemesis, Joey, to ruin everything. He bluntly tells her about the bet he and Patrick made and that he literally had to bribe Patrick to date Kat. This devastates Kat, and she runs off. Patrick tries to explain, but to no avail.

Oh no, we can't just let Joey off the hook for spilling the beans. His recent main squeeze spilled his own beans to Bianca about his bet with her, so, as you know, Bianca gave him a punch to the face and a really nice kick to the balls for good measure. However, the prom ends on a bittersweet note as Patrick tries to explain his true feelings to Kat, but she wants none of it and bolts away, leaving Patrick to sulk along the staircase.

The weekend finds Kat finishing the last touches on her English project, pouring her heart and soul into every word.

Then we reach the penultimate scene: Kat presenting her project in English class, and Patrick sitting right in front of her.

Summoning her courage, Kat reads her poem aloud: "10 Things I Hate About You." Although Kat intended the poem to be misanthropic, she becomes emotional while reading it. At this moment, Kat isn't seen as a "shrew" or a "heinous bitch"... she's seen as a human being.

I just wanna say that Julia Stiles absolutely killed it in this scene. Originally, she wasn't supposed to cry in the script, but somehow those emotions came out, and she made the scene better for it. I just have that feeling that the producers looked at this scene and were like, "Wow, this girl is a star!"

Completely moved by her poem, Patrick sat there, wishing that he could hold her in his arms one more time. When their eyes connect, Kat quickly leaves, fearing another heartbreak. Determined not to lose Kat again, Patrick pursues her and confesses his love.

When Kat finally lets her guard down, Patrick makes his promise and seals it with a kiss. Finally, he makes one last declaration of love by gifting her a cherished guitar, and they share another passionate kiss.

And with that, the movie ends with Letters to Cleo's I Want You to Want Me on the school rooftop.

Now, before I conclude this review, I would like to focus on the delightful Ms. Stiles and her incredible range as an actress. Julia, much like Joseph Gordon-Levitt on his way to stardom, began her career as a child actress. She appeared in a few minor supporting roles and was a candidate for the role of Claudia in Interview with the Vampire (Check out the review here: Interview with the Vampire Review), as well as a memorable guest role on my favorite childhood show, Ghostwriter. Her big break came in the 1998 indie psychological thriller Wicked. I'm not going to go too deep into the plot because it has some disturbing subject matter, but I will say that this is the role that got Julia Stiles noticed. She shows this level of intensity and maturity that is captivating to watch, and it's hard to believe she was only 16 when she got cast. It was actually this film that got her the role of Kat a year later. Initially, the filmmakers considered Eliza Dushku, best known as Faith from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, for the role of Kat. Eliza definitely has the Riot Grrl edge about her, but she'll eventually play a similar role in the movie Bring It On, which also stars our very own Gabrielle Union.

This role seems tailor-made for Julia Stiles. She truly knocked it out of the park, and this is by far one of her most iconic performances. She's up there with Sarah Michelle Gellar as a future Golden Globe or Oscar winner. This girl is wonderfully talented and has gone on to legendary cult status. The factors behind her potential stardom are clear. In the late 90s and early 2000s, Julia had that It Girl factor. She had a memorable supporting role in the Bourne franchise and, at one time, was a candidate to star as the lead in a film adaptation of Sylvia Plath's The Bell Jar. Most recently, the long-awaited project is in production with singer Billie Eilish. Yeah, I'm kind of on the fence with that one, but I might check it out if it's any good. On a side note, I heard actress Sarah Polley was going to direct, so I have my hopes up, at least.

Throughout the years, Stiles has mostly worked on indie projects and TV guest spots, most notably playing Lumen Ann Pierce in the TV series Dexter, which earned her an Emmy nomination. This movie, however, truly showcased her skill as an Oscar-worthy actress. Her fierceness, her vulnerability, and most of all, her ability to turn her characters into three-dimensional human beings. One day, I'm hoping Ms. Stiles can carry that Oscar home. I am definitely hoping for that outcome.

One of the film's strongest aspects is the screenplay by Karen McCullah Lutz and Karen Smith. The film clearly draws inspiration from teen movies like Clueless, but it also has a distinct personality, with sharp dialogue, touching scenes, and multifaceted characters that strengthen the narrative.

The film's cinematography and direction offer a delightful immersion into the expansive world of San Francisco. As I mentioned, the opening scenes showcase the vibrant, worldly setting that contributes to the film's art-pop style. Everything just feels like a beautiful teenage daydream.

As for the movie's soundtrack, you know it's freakin' fire.

Most of the praise goes to Letters to Cleo, who I cite as one of the most underrated 90s bands of all time. Not to mention, lead singer Kay Hanley would go on to lend her vocals to another movie soundtrack, Josie and the Pussycats, which also stars Rachael Leigh Cook from She's All That. I swear, I can play six degrees of separation with all three films. This is also one of Kat's favorite bands. Cool, that means we have good taste in music!

The part where they had an EPIC performance with Save Ferris, performing "Cruel to Be Kind" on Prom Night, was absolutely fantastic. I'm telling you, it was a blast! Overall, it's comfort music for a comfort movie. A laid-back late-90s treat.

The film went on to gain immense popularity, which left a few projects in its wake.

In 2003, another adaptation of The Taming of the Shrew with an all-black cast, titled Deliver Us From Eva, starred, you guessed it, Gabrielle Union and LL Cool J. I saw snippets of this film here and there; the reviews were mixed but not too bad, and at least I liked the song Paradise by LL Cool J featuring Amerie from the movie's soundtrack.

A sitcom based on the film aired in 2009, with Larry David reprising his role as Walter Stratford. This was actually successful on its first run, and I've heard good things about it. Sadly, it ran for only one season, though I might look into it out of curiosity.

By the early 2010s, a sequel, titled 10 Things I Hate About Life, was in the works, starring Evan Rachel Wood and Thomas McDonell. According to the production notes, it starts off like a typical romantic comedy until the main couple plans their suicide. Yeah, it's miles away from the lighthearted film that we got here. From what I know about this sequel, many production issues and setbacks eventually led to the project being canned. All that's left is a trailer. You can view it here: 10 Things I Hate About Life Trailer.

And finally, a musical adaptation premiered in 2025 and most recently had a 2027 revival released sometime this month. How cool is that!

So what is the legacy of 10 Things I Hate About You? Well, it's pretty legendary if you ask me. This movie will forever remain a treasure of my childhood. It's beautifully written, has an amazing, Oscar-worthy cast, and a phenomenal soundtrack that gets stuck in my head. Whenever I watch this film, it reminds me of a special place in time. A time that I'll always miss. This is the quintessential feel-good romantic comedy, and it's a joy to experience its magic again.

My Last Word: Watch it right now! You won't regret it.

Cruel Intentions (1999)

2026-06-07T20:59:23.225-07:00

Now we get to Cruel Intentions. This has got to be one of my all-time Guilty Pleasures, and it's one of those movies that I watched a dozen times as a kid. Don't worry, it was the television version. But beside the point, I feel like this movie is the inspiration for Gossip Girl. From the theme music to the prep school setting to the wealthy teenagers plotting schemes against each other, it's all there in the handbook. I was surprise to learn that Roger Ebert gave this a thumbs up back in the day as he would be the type of film critic that would look down his nose on films like this. He even praised the performance of Sarah Michelle Gellar and I agree, she is a knockout, but more on that later. I could tell that there were trying to make a more prestigious film with a little more edge to it, straying away from the teenage fluff at the time. What you got is sex, drugs, and incest...well, with the last part the characters in question are step-siblings but it still counts. I would say that it has a much stronger script compared to the last movie. It's not afraid to push the envelope and at least with the first half, it keeps you engaged. The black comedic aspect of the movie totally sells but for some, once the melodrama kicks in, it falls flat. But I didn't mind the melodrama because, you know, high school is melodramatic, so it does it for me.

Overall, this movie is a certified gem in my opinion. It's not perfect but it's perfect entertainment.

The source material is based on the French novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses also known as Dangerous Liaisons. It's famously one of the earlier examples of a book genre called roman a clef, where a fictional novel is based on real events. In this case, the French aristocracy. So the story starts off like this: Former lovers turned friendly rivals, Isabelle De Merteuil and Sebastien De Valmont, spend their days by ruining others for their own amusement. Isabelle has her eye on the virginal Cecile De Volanges who is set to marry one of her former lovers. But the catch is, Cecile is deeply in love with her music tutor Chevalier Danceny. Isabelle use this to her advantage and weasels her way in between the two young lovers. Meanwhile, Sebastian plans to seduce Marie De Tourvel, a virtuous, married woman whose living with his aunt while her husband is away. Although he has eyes for Marie, he still wants to continue his sexual relationship with Isabelle. She makes an ultimatum: if he successfully seduces Marie, she'll go to bed with him. He even agrees to seduce and outright sexually assault Cecile, all because her mother said some disparaging comments about his character. Sebastian eventually seduces Marie, however, he suddenly catches feelings for her, which prompts him not to go through the affair with Isabelle. Being rejected by a lover again, Isabelle is pissed and plots her revenge against Sebastian...Lots of drama ensue. People die, people suffer. The End. This was a Soap Opera before that term even existed.

There was a French film adaptation set in the jazzy 1950s but it later became a London stage play that crossed over to Broadway in the mid 1980s. Then came the idea for another film adaptation to be in the works. In 1988, Dangerous Liaisons was released. The cast was stacked! You had Glenn Close, John Malkovich, Michelle Pfeiffer, Uma Thurman, and of course, Keanu Reeves. The film swept the Oscars with several nominations and three wins, making it the most successful and well-regarded of the many film adaptations. One year later, Valmont was released. This was a more light-hearted take on the story and just like the last film, this too is also stacked with a well-known cast. You have Colin Firth, Annette Benning, Meg Tilly, Fairuza Balk (best known for Return to Oz and The Craft), and Henry Thomas (best known as the kid from E.T.). Although it's a good film in it's own right, it's not as well-remembered as the 1988 version.

Then we fast-forward to ten years later. The Teen Classic Literary film boom is at a sky high. So why not adapt a 17-century French novel, that was considered shocking at the time, into a modern teen romance drama? The original title for this project was called Cruel Inventions but the filmmakers thought it sounded too much like a sci-fi film, and I agree, it's a corny title. Cruel Intentions has more of a ring to it.

Traditionally, the cast is filled with recognizable faces from the 90s and early 2000s. We also have a few veteran actresses like Louise Flecther, Christine Baranski, and even Swoozie Kurtz, who appeared in the 1988 film, makes a cameo.

In contrast to the sunny, warm, happy-go-lucky feel of She's All That, Cruel Intentions is sleek and stylish, set in the cold, industrial New York City landscape. The characters are much more interesting and complex with plenty of baggage. So let's break them down one by one, shall we?

Here we have Sebastian played by the always attractive Ryan Phillipe. Okay, I would say one positive thing about this character. The filmmakers actually did a good job of making Sebastian a total asshole in the beginning. With Zack in She's All That, although a bit arrogant, is portrayed as too safe, a generic boy next door/everyman type. But Sebastian is definitely on top of the douchebag meter. Many have debated, who is the worse of the two? Sebastian or Kathryn. With Kathryn, it's petty high school bullshit. With Sebastian, it's absolutely criminal. Well, this is going to be a rough one. Let's go through the many crimes of Sebastian Valmont.

Strike one: He tricks a teenage girl to pose for him, then publishes the pictures on the world wide web. This is straight up revenge porn. Not only is it illegal, it's unfathomably immoral. The girl (a small role by Tara Reid before her American Pie fame) just so happens to be the daughter of Sebastian's therapist (cameo by Swoozie Kurtz). I guess he has some personal vendetta against the therapist, so he goes after the daughter, to not only embarrass her but also expose the therapist as a phony. I'm guessing he just did this for fun.

Strike Two: He sexually coerces a teenage girl with the use of alcohol. Oh boy, this is a hard one. So we have Cecile, who's around 14 to 15 years old. I'm guessing she's the same age as the rest of the characters but comes off younger than she is...more on that later. Okay, let me describe the scene verbatim.

So Cecile sneaks off after Kathryn peer pressures her to have sex with Sebastian. While at the apartment, Cecile drinks iced tea, not knowing that it's Long Island Iced Tea offered by Sebastian. Ugh, how fucking gross. Then once again, Sebastian pulls out his camera and takes pictures of Cecile, prompting her to take her clothes off. Cecile refuses but Sebastian, being the "charmer" that he is, coerces Cecile to have oral sex i.e. go down on her. This is straight up sexual assault. Adding to the problem, the scene is treated humorously with a cheerful 90s pop song accompanying it. Such a strange and uncomfortable scene

Finally, strike three: the emotional manipulation of Annette. This is when things get a little tricky because the romance between Sebastian and Annette is the centerpiece of the film. At first, Annette is nothing more than a means to an end, a bet to impress his hot stepsister.

But when Sebastian actually gets to know her, he catches feelings. Now this is probably on the script but the scene where Sebastian confesses her feelings to Annette rings hollow, especially after he just had sex and coldly discarded Cecile.

Don't get me wrong, the chemistry between Ryan Phillipe and Reese Witherspoon is there, it's just the love story surrounding their characters feels underdeveloped. Okay, so there's a scene where Sebastian asks Annette for a walk at Central Park. Maybe there could've been a moment where they gotten to know each other better. Maybe this could be a moment where Sebastian sees her as a person, not just some ditzy socialite he can take advantage of. Also a bit of improv from Phillipe and Witherspoon would've elevated their chemistry more.

And what if Sebastian didn't go through with seducing Cecile? What if Annette is the reason why he doesn't take her whole virginity? Maybe this plot point would've add more to his character development.

So remember the scene where Kathryn supposedly lies to Ronald about Sebastian hitting her. In the movie, we don't exactly see the act but in the screenplay, he really does hit her. It happens when Kathryn coldly rejects him and Sebastian throws this violent hissy fit and slaps her across the face. This moment would've made him much worse. Not that he's any better in the final version but I'm glad it was cut out and it might've made his whole redemption arc even more unbelievable.

When it comes to the literary and film counterpart, Sebastian in the novel is by far the most reprehensible because he's a grown man in his forties, fully aware of what he's doing. Whereas, Sebastian in this film version, can be looked at as a spoiled pompous teenager who's never been taught the values of morality. Despite his obvious imitation of John Malkovich, Ryan Phillipe did an okay job. However, I do think the role does suit him, considering his 90s heartthrob status. I don't know what it is with him playing assholes, but he sure is good at it. The romantic scenes he shares with Reese Witherspoon, which show his softer side, are the most effective. This was actually the same year that Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillipe would tie the knot. Now that's what I call art imitating life. Gotta love it. Although I don't particularly care for this character, at least Ryan Phillipe made him somewhat bearable.

Next we have Annette Hargrove played by the immensely talented Reese Witherspoon. Annette is your typical mid-western girl next door whose wise beyond her years, has keen interest in family values, and a overall good role model. Unfortunately, there's not much to know about her character. She's just the unattainable good girl who has a sole attachment to Sebastian. Sure, Reese Witherspoon is great as always but Annette felt underdeveloped. I just didn't get that internal struggle her character was facing. In comparison to the 1988 film, you can feel that push and pull from Marie, stuck between being an honorable woman and her yearning for Sebastian.

Maybe the film would show how Annette feels suffocated by her sheltered life and her constant need to break out of the confines of her conservative upbringing.

Sebastian can be viewed as the key to unlock her hidden desires. There is mention that she has a boyfriend named Trevor but he's never seen. To clarify that Annette may have feelings for Sebastian, maybe she confesses to her friend Greg that she recently broke up with Trevor. And again, had they shown that scene in Central Park, this would've given us the chance to learn more about Annette; her goals, her fears, her wants, her needs, etc. There was an alternate ending in the script when Annette gets hold of Sebastian's journal where she uses it to blackmail Kathryn into submission. I'm glad they didn't go with this ending because it doesn't fit her character. She supposed to the moral compass of the film and she's the reason why Sebastian changes his ways. So it would come off as weird if she copied the same manipulative behavior he had in the first act of the film.

Besides the lack of development on Annette's part, Reese Witherspoon did a splendid job and the chemistry between her and Ryan Phillipe is spot-on. She actually gave Annette more depth than needed here and it shows why she became a powerhouse talent in the later years.

Then there's Cecile Caldwell played by the criminally underrated Selma Blair. Most people would point out how problematic this character is, not only because she's played a woman in her mid-twenties but also strangely sexualized. I guess she supposed to be portrayed as younger? I’m thinking she’s at least 15 or 16 at the most, and, unlike the tragically naïve Cecile in the French novel, the filmmakers written her a complete ditz and is mostly deemed as the comic relief of the movie. It could be because the writers don't take teenage girls seriously but, on the other hand, you have the two female leads who exhibit some sort of level of maturity and intelligence, so it could be that Cecile might be mentally challenged. I'm not sure.

But the most disturbing aspect of her character is how she becomes a sex toy for both Sebastian and Kathryn. First, there's the scene where Kathryn teaches Cecile how to French kiss. This may come off as just to showcase two hot girls making out with each other but it's much more deeper than that. It's a power play and Kathryn uses this moment to prey on Cecile's sexual fragility. And when the kiss happens, that's when Kathryn catches Cecile in her web, throwing her into the arms a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing i.e. Sebastian. Now that I've discussed the aforementioned scene between her and Sebastian, you should know what the outcome is. Sebastian coldly discards her after their tryst and there's not much use of her as the film progresses. Again, I would've preferred if Sebastian didn't go through with taking Cecile's virginity and him, and also the film, would respect her as a character from then on.

I will say that Selma Blair does a good job as a comic relief and at least she made the role memorable. This was actually one of her first major roles before branching out into films like Legally Blonde (which also starred Reese Witherspoon) and the Hellboy series. Besides the problematic writing of her character, Selma Blair did good on her first outing.

Speaking of bisexuality, in the scene where Sebastian catches his gay accomplice, Blaine (played by Joshua Jackson during his Dawson's Creek fame), with his jock boyfriend Greg (played by Eric Mabius best known as Daniel Meade in Ugly Betty), Sebastian sort of toys with them sexually, hinting that he might want to have a threesome with them. Of course, the filmmakers left this on the cutting room floor, but it is interesting to know that Sebastian and Kathryn are open to exploring their sexual fluidity. Considering the film was made in the late 90s, a time when queer films were gradually gaining mainstream acceptance, this exploration could have provided additional subtext to a film that was already controversial.

Then we have Ronald Clifford, the object of Cecile's affection, played by the strapping Sean Patrick Thomas. Just to squeeze this in, before Ronald came into the picture, Cecile was supposedly dating Court, Kathryn's ex-boyfriend but somehow, he's never seen, heard, or mentioned again. Just like Annette, I wanted that push and pull from Cecile. Maybe there should be a scene where Cecile confides to Kathryn that she's starting to have feelings for Ronald and feels that her and Court aren't even compatible. This would enrage Kathryn even more because Court basically broke with her for nothing.

Now on the topic of Ronald, he comes off as refined and mature than the other teenaged characters. I'm guessing he's a least in his early twenties (Patrick Thomas was 28 or 29 at the time) and possibly a college student that's majoring in music. Now here's where I give him a little backstory. He's a student at Julliard who does tutoring gigs to get by and comes across Bunny Caldwell to have him tutor her daughter Cecile who's dating Court at the moment.

A romance is blooming and Cecile, out of the blue, breaks up with Court, which pisses Kathryn off and that's when she unveils Cecile and Ronald's love letter to Bunny. Bunny is furious and vehemently confronts Ronald. Although Bunny in this scene comes off as a typical Karen; ignorant, arrogant and deeply out of touch, I can't help but understand her anger. Here's a guy who, she thinks is very responsible and articulate, trust him with her underaged daughter and she finds out that he's attempting to seduce her. So yeah, her anger is justified when viewing this as an adult.

But besides all that, Ronald is seen as one of the morally just characters in the film and although his love for Cecile is genuine, he gets easily seduced and roped in Kathryn's web which leads to Sebastian's accidental death. Sean Patrick Thomas did a decent job with what little he was given. I can feel the chemistry between him and Selma Blair but there wasn't enough scenes between them to make their romance believable. There's an obvious comparison to another Sean Patrick Thomas role which is Derek from Save The Last Dance. He too mentors a sheltered white girl i.e. dance and just like Cecile, she falls head over heels in love with him. Maybe its because Sean Patrick Thomas is so charismatic and again very strapping.

Last but not least, its time to present the Queen of the Hour, ladies and gentlemen, may I introduce to you...

Sarah Michelle Gellar as Kathryn Merteuil.

She really knocks the house down with this performance. Even Robert Ebert send his praises. How I would describe Kathryn is that she's a darker, edgier version of Sydney Rutledge from Swan's Crossing, though not with a few layers peeled underneath.

In the beginning of the movie, Kathryn makes this speech that resonated with me. She goes on about how boys like Sebastian would get away with so much while she has to play pretend and keep up appearances. She has to conceal her sexuality while Sebastian, a male, displays it freely. Her literary counterpart, Isabelle, dealt with the same thing, showing how different it was for women in the 1700s, however, it's not so different for women in the 21st century either.

That's why Kathryn despises girls like Annette and Cecile because they can conceal those hidden desires yet still obtain a wholesome appeal. Though when it comes to Kathryn, it's a rock and a hard place.

I would also like to highlight another amazing scene from Mrs. Gellar. It happens when Sebastian just broke up with Annette. He goes to Kathryn and since he won the bet, Sebastian agrees to have sex with her. He tries to hold on to his pride but the tear stains in his eyes are clearly visible through his sunglasses. Kathryn isn't fooled one bit and lets him have it. Sarah Michelle Gellar absolutely kills this scene. After her verbal lashing, shattering Sebastian's ego into little pieces with no crumbs left in sight, there is a sense of regret on Kathryn's face, implying that she might've had feelings for him that was beyond sexual. But my biggest highlight of her acting prowess is the ending. Holy smokes, she is, no question without a doubt, phenomenal...but I'll save that for later.

I've always found Sarah Michelle Gellar to be an exceptional actress. I've been checking out her early work in the daytime soap circuit and I mean, wow, she was extremely talented. She definitely deserved that Emmy for her work in All My Children. You can tell she was a star in the making. Not to mention her countless awards for Buffy and, of course, Cruel Intentions. I can tell that this role was made for her. I can most certainly see her as an Alexis Carrington type of character and I think they were taking that route in the pilot episode of the revival series but, yet again, I will get back to that later.

Anywho, Sarah Michelle Gellar was the shining star of this movie and I hope one day she'll win a Golden Globe or even an Oscar. Yeah, she's that good.

The cinematography in this film is just chef's kiss. This shot here alone just shows how incredibly breathtaking the scenery is.

Just by the way it's directed, you can tell the filmmakers went out of their way to make this a prestigious goldmine, coping the same grand aesthetics of the 1988 Oscar darling but with a style of it's own.

When it comes to the French novel, it was pretty taboo back in it's day. But Cruel Intentions decided to take it a bit further by making the two main characters stepsiblings to add more tawdriness and scandal to the material.

However, the true thesis of the film is the love triangle between Sebastian, Annette, and Kathryn. It's more than just your run-of-the-mill teen love triangle. It shows how Sebastian is caught between two worlds as he goes through his character development, particularly in how the film frames the two girls. Annette represents warmth, stability, honesty, and safety. Kathryn represent iciness, excitement, deception, and danger. If the film focused more on the chemistry between Reese and Ryan, it would show that Sebastian isn't afraid to be himself around Annette with public displays of affection, as shown in the airport scene. But when he has interactions with Kathryn, it's more discreet. Most of their scenes is shared inside her bedroom. Although it's opulent and decadent, it's also suffocating. Just like Kathryn, beyond the surface of it's perfect exterior, the bedroom is full of secrets and lies, like being trapped in a beautiful cage. Whenever she's around, Sebastian has to put up this facade to keep her preoccupied.

But when Sebastian turns his back on Kathryn, that is what ultimately leads to his doom.

Now I just want to squeeze in this before we dive into the ending (which is the most memorable part of the film by the way), I would like to talk about the amazing alternative rock soundtrack. I'm talkin' Placebo, Blur, Counting Crows, Skunk Anansie, freakin Aimee Mann! I'll say it once, and I'll say it again, these movies have some fire soundtracks. But there's one song that holds a special place in my childhood and that song starts near the ending, which I will cover right...now.

It's the day of Sebastian's funeral and Kathryn walks around like she doesn't give a damn, snorting her coke and priming herself in the bathroom mirror. Then Annette walks in. This is actually the first time they've met each other on screen. Besides being aware of Kathryn's schemes, Annette plays it nice. Kathryn is all but amused by Annette's sentiments and prepares for her eulogy.

As she makes her speech, Kathryn becomes irritated when a couple of students walk out of the funeral. Kathryn quickly follows them and...that's when she comes to the realization that all her nasty secrets have been revealed with copies of Sebastian's journal being passed around by Cecile.

Just to mention, there was this little movie called Jawbreaker (a definite cult classic, you should check it out) that had a similar character named Courtney. While her downfall was satisfying, Kathryn's downfall is...devastating. Throughout the film, she has been arrogant, cold, manipulative, high-strung, and even outright petulant. But in this scene, she crumbles and Sarah Michelle Gellar just sells it here. Then as this all happens, Bittersweet Symphony by The Verve, one of my all-time favorite childhood songs, plays, making this the perfect closer for this film.

Thus, Annette drives off with Sebastian's car to the world unknown...It's great that Annette and Cecile gotten happy endings, in contrast to how tragic their fates were in the French novel. Those girls definitely deserve their just due.

I just have to say...wow! What a fantastic finale. I would have to argue that it's probably the best endings out of the three movies so far.

As you know, Cruel Intentions became extremely popular and was a box office hit. Organically, this would produce a couple of sequels and a television series.

It was around late 1999 and early 2000 where a pilot movie was made for a show called Manchester Prep based on this movie. I guess it wasn't picked up by FOX because it was too raunchy for T.V. So the filmmakers decided to add in more spicy scenes to get an R rating and dump it in the rest of the direct-to-video bargain pile. It's supposed to be sequel but it's actually a prequel that centers around Sebastian and Kathryn's start of darkness. This would star future Oscar-nominated actress Amy Adams as Kathryn and actor Robin Dunne as Sebastian, who's known to be in knock-off direct-to-video sequels such as this. The filmmakers portray Sebastian as this goody-two-shoes, even though, at the beginning of the film, he frames a teacher for sexual harassment but I digress. It sort of hints that Kathryn is the one that influenced him into be a manipulative jerk but nope I still don't believe it. With Sebastian, its a nature vs. nurture type of thing and if Sebastian is a victim, he's only a victim of his circumstances, that's it and that's all. Now when it comes to Kathryn's excuse, its because she's trying to get her mother's approval, who also possesses Kathryn's icy demeanor. Yeah, I'm not buying it. I get they were trying to retcon a few things to make this into a television series, but Sebastian and Kathryn's backstory was told through a few lines of dialogue. Sebastian's dad was a raging alcoholic capitalist and Kathryn's mom was a gold-digging social climber. This obviously shows that Sebastian got his ruthless side from his dad and Kathryn's emotional detachment is due to her mother's way of using people for her own benefit. These elements could've been explored more had it went through as series but Sebastian and Kathryn's characterization is so paper thin. Sebastian is just some put-upon nice guy while Kathryn is a generic, one dimensional mean girl without any of the nuance.

Besides the bad acting, low-budget production, and subpar script, let's just say that this one didn't hold up well and should be forgotten.

Then there was a second sequel called Cruel Intentions 3 that focuses on Kathryn's cousin Cassidy who does her own manipulative machinations at a Santa Barbara College. Apart from the connection to Kathryn, it's an In Name Only sequel. Fun Fact! Keer Smith, who starred in Dawson's Creek alongside Joshua Jackson who starred in 1999 film, is the male lead in this. However, I've only seen snippets of this movie but I really don't care to see the rest of it.

However, the real kicker in this supposed franchise is the unaired pilot featuring Sarah Michelle Gellar reprising the role of Kathryn. It also stars Peter Gallagher, who played Sandy from The O.C. to add in some nostalgia bonus point. I haven't seen the pilot in it's entirety but I have seen clips of it on a Youtube review. From what I've seen and read, it's a total shit show.

So apparently, Annette was pregnant with Sebastian's child and moves back to her home state of Kansas. The child has grown into the ripe old age of 17, the same age as his father and goes by the name of Bash, which is short for Sebastian. Bash? You gotta be kidding me. After the accidental death of his stepfather, who's been having a secret gay affair, Bash discovers Sebastian's journal, the journal Annette has been hiding for years now. He reads the journal, has a tense confrontation with his mom and decides to take off in the jaguar (that works in good condition for some reason) to New York to find his birthright, I guess? Then that's when we focus on Kathryn, a reformed drug addict who is now married with a stepchild. Soon, Bash gets all entangled in the lifestyle of the rich and famous while Annette tries to save her son from the same fate as his father's. Bada bing, bada boom, it plays out like your usual trashy prime time soap. But there is this really weird scene near the end of the pilot where Kathryn looks up old photos of Sebastian, including baby photos of Bash and fantasizes about getting it on with him. Let me mention, that this is technically her step nephew. If that's not gross and creepy, I don't know what is. So yeah, I can see why they didn't pick this pilot up, it was just little too much for network television. It has bad acting, bad writing, awful, awful, dialogue. Let's just say that I'm glad it was left on the cutting room floor. Here's the Youtube review where I found this on:

Finally, we get to the recent adaptation: an amazon prime series simply titled...Cruel Intentions. This time the setting is at a college in Washington D.C. with a little political intrigue thrown in. Personally, I really don't care for that. I think the appeal of the 1999 film was the spicy content, melodrama, and the sexual/romantic elements. I could care less about the going-ons in the white house. It mostly borrows elements from the 1999 film with a few references from the novel. When it comes to the characters, the names have been changed but it's pretty clear who is who. Hell, they even bring back Sean Patrick Thomas who plays a character similar to Ronald.

This looks kind of bland to me. To be honest, when I first heard the news about this show, I rolled my eyes because there's so many of these reboots and remakes. It's exhausting. When I first seen the trailer featuring the two leads, I was like yeah, no, this isn't working. I was particularly perplexed by the actor who played Sebastian (his name is Lucien in the series). Sure, they probably cast him because he shares the same boyish good looks and curly hair like Ryan Phillipe, but I just don't see the sex appeal of this guy. Not only does he have that stupid haircut, he also looks like somebody's annoying little brother. And here's where I get a little controversial...they should've cast somebody a bit older, at least around the 24/25 years old. It's a college setting after all.

The show only lasted one season so there's really no reason to watch it.

I can't believe this small little 90s teen film became such a huge franchise. I mean I feel like the sequels and TV series were unnecessary but I can see why the first one became a highly remembered cult classic. It is a teen melodrama to a T and its not afraid to be edgy. Like I said, there wouldn't be a Gossip Girl, Elite, or even a Euphoria if it wasn't for this movie. Now am I calling this a masterpiece? No but it sure as hell entertaining. It has a solid cast, an intriguing premise, and a kickass soundtrack. What's more to love?

My Last Word: A 90s Cult Classic worth watching.

She's All That (1999)

2026-04-06T19:58:00.000-07:00

So in this round in The Teen Classic Literature brigade, we have She's All That, based on George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion and George Cukor's My Fair Lady, which starred Audrey Hepburn. Although I had fond memories of watching this during my childhood, I can't help but say that this movie hasn't really aged very well along with some problematic tropes that I'll point out later in the review. Sure, I was still entertained, no problems there but, in hindsight, the movie isn't that great. However, there is some potential if it had a better script.

Believe or not, this is a tale as old as time. It dates back to Greek Mythology, which tells the story of Pygmalion, a legendary figure of Cyprus, who fell in love with the statue he carved. The origin of Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion came from British playwright W.S. Gilbert's Pygmalion and Galatea. This along with basing the character Eliza Dolittle on a local flower girl, George Bernard Shaw debuted his play Pygmalion, at Hoftburg Theatre to great success and have since opened from London to New York during the mid 1910s.

There was a film version in 1938 penned by George Bernard Shaw himself and starring Leslie Howard, best known as Ashely from Gone With The Wind, as the role of Professor Higgins. But I think people are more familiar with the 1956 Broadway version, My Fair Lady and it's 1964 film version. The role of Eliza Dolittle was originated by Julie Andrews, a Disney favorite of mine, but in the film version the studios decided to cast Audrey Hepburn because she was the bigger star. There was this huge controversy surrounding the film because the filmmakers dubbed over Audrey Hepburn's singing voice as opposed to casting Julie Andrews who can actually sing. But that's not the real topic at hand here. Anywho...

Some thirty-odd some years later, after the success of Clueless and Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet, Miramax Films had the idea to adapt Pygmalion and My Fair Lady into a modern teen rom-com with Robert Iscove attach to direct. And here we have She's All That.

So the premise of these three movies always involves a bet. There is always a girl involves with these so-called bets and that's what sets the plot in motion.

So the story starts off like this: Big Man on Campus Zach Siler have just broken up with his girlfriend Mean Girl Taylor Vaughn. Anxious to find a prom date and not look like a complete doofus in the entire school, Zack makes a bet with his fellow Jerk Jock buddy Dean to make the most unappealing girl into a prom queen. They eventually spot fellow high school "outcast", Laney Boogs as a potential candidate. Zach is reluctant at first, but he gives in and tags Laney along. But when Laney gets that "magical" makeover and Zack sees her as a real person and not just some plaything, romance ensues. Da Da Di Da Day Dum, I've heard this song before. As you can see, the premise is very cliche and very predictable, so there's really not much to elaborate on but let's focus on the characters, shall we?

I’d classify Zack Siler as a Vanilla Protagonist. This protagonist is exceptionally ordinary when contrasted with the more interesting and distinctive supporting cast. Sure, Zack is the guy that every girl wants and every guy wants to be, but he lacks depth. His character development probably involves the struggles of maintaining perfection and pleasing his father, but his personal difficulties remain underexplored.

The art performance scene is a demonstration of that, but I still wanted more. Maybe there should’ve been more scenes with him and his dad to give off more of their dynamic. Zack mentions to Laney that his father has always pressured him to go to Dartmouth, but Zack feels torn because he’s thinking of other options.

Throughout the film, his dad only has at least two scenes with him. If there were more scenes of his dad showing signals he should join Dartmouth or Zack showing interest in art like Laney, maybe there could be a semblance of development that the character lacked.

Besides Zack being a bland main character, Freddie Prinze Jr. did a surprisingly decent performance without phoning it in. He has the natural charisma of a romantic leading man to where he actually made Zack bearable, and despite the script being rather pedestrian, Freddie Prinze Jr. pulled through just fine.

Now we get to Laney Boogs, who's a lot much more of interesting main character than Zack. She is perceived as the School Freak but, in my eyes, she's a normal teenage girl. It does show that she has somewhat of a social life, having one best friend and is part of an ensemble art performance group outside school, so no problem there. Then there's mention of her fashion sense paired with the painted overalls, but when you look at it through a modern lens, her clothes aren't half-bad either. Teenagers these days would consider her fashion sense cool or edgy. Lastly, when it comes to her appearance as a whole, she looks totally fine. Besides the obvious hair extensions, her skin is flawless, she's well-groomed and even one character makes mention of her nice body. As far as her economic status compared her more opulent peers, Laney is at the top of the middle-class food chain. She actually lives in a nice house in the suburbs. Hell, I wouldn't mind living there. So in spite of all this, what is really Laney's damage?

Some people would point out that its not so much about Laney's appearance but its more so her struggles of opening up. If that's the case, then why not make Laney the main character? What if bullying during her youth and her mother’s untimely death contributed to her isolating herself? I feel like there's a whole like going on with this character that needed exploring but I guess the studio execs thought it would be too complex for teen romantic comedy.

So, Laney gets the obligatory makeover and, like I said, she really didn't need that much work done. All she needed was a trim, contacts, flattering clothes and presto! You have a supermodel in the making. But before I go on, there is one pivotal scene I like to point out in the movie.

Before Laney's "fabulous" makeover and newfound popularity, she has encounter with these two so-called goth girls. They make a comment about a dead artist and they make a suggestion of Laney killing herself so that she could be remembered more. This was less funny and more triggering for me. Back in high school, I dealt with girls like this. They pride themselves for being these outsiders when, in actuality, they copy the same behavior as the mean girls they hate. Hypo-critical. When you compare these two, the popular girls (with the exception of Taylor), come off like total sweethearts. Telling someone to kill themselves is one of the worst insults you could say. Sure, Taylor is obviously obnoxious and hate Laney's guts, but I don't think she would say something like that. It could be because the girls are jealous of Laney's talents, but still, was that even necessary? Laney has another encounter with the main girl of the two, who's drunk off her ass. Laney, being the sweetheart that she is, helps her up but the girl is an ungrateful bitch and insults her yet again. So, to get back at her, Laney does what any art prodigy would do....

This girl is definitely deserving of the clown makeup because she's a clown herself. I guess her partner in crime was too embarrassed to be seen with her. She deserves it, no doubt.

So once Laney rises up her popularity status after her face-off with Taylor Vaughn, she still stays the same. So, the inner character thing is still missing here. Sure, Laney gains a bit of confidence this time around but even before the transformation, she haven't had a problem with social anxiety. So if the script did a bit of rearranging, made Laney the main character instead to give us more insight into her insecurities, wants, needs, and goals, maybe the film could've been way much better than it is.

Fun Fact! The name Laney Boogs is a mixture of two characters portrayed by Winona Ryder: Kim Boogs from Edward Scissorhands and Laney Pierce from Reality Bites. I definitely get a Audrey Hepburn/Winona Ryder vibe from Rachael Leigh Cook, which is why I think she makes a more effective lead in my opinion. She totally outshines Freddie Prinze Jr. by a mile a minute and I actually consider her to be a stellar underrated actress. I especially loved her as Josie in Josie and The Pussycats, a misunderstood classic that should be re-evaluated. But that's a story for another day.

The real selling point of the movie is the chemistry between Rachael Leigh Cook and Freddie Prinze Jr. Despite the movie's faults, their chemistry is extremely palpable, and they also have this witty banter that elevates the material. Its without a doubt that you can't help but root for them in the end.

The supporting cast is stacked with a lot of recognizable faces from the 90s and 2000s. You have Dule Hill, best known as Gus from the TV series Psych. Gabrielle Union, who would later star in 10 Things I Hate About You (which I will get to soon) and the iconic Bring It On. And I had no idea that Lil Kim was in this movie. Yes, I'm talkin' the Notorious K.I.M. But I'm not done yet. You have Kieran Culkin (yes, that is Macaulay Culkin's brother), who would be best known in movies like Scott Pilgrim vs. The World and TV shows like Succession. Not to mention, he's also a recent Oscar Winner. Then you have Anna Paquin who played Rouge in X-Men and would be forever immortalized as Sookie Stackhouse from True Blood. And lastly, there's Elden Henson who starred in a number of Young Adult films in the 2000s such as O and The Butterfly Effect and would later star in the Marvel TV series Daredevil. Fun Fact! Josh Harnett was considered for the role of Zack and Jordana Brewster for the role of Laney. Both have starred in The Faculty, which also starred Clea Duvall and Usher Raymond who, you guessed it, starred in this movie as well. Even Buffy herself, Sarah Michelle Gellar (who would also star in Cruel Intentions and Freddie Prinze Jr.'s real life wife), makes a cameo.

I think the one supporting cast member that stands out among the rest is Matthew Lillard as Brock Hudson who may or may not be based on Puck from The Real World. He actually is the catalyst for the events of the movie as Taylor breaks up with Zack after hooking up with Brock at an MTV Spring Break block party. Remember those?

The concept of Brock is still relevant today. You have these reality stars and social media influencers that have such an inflated ego to the point where they think they're the most important person in the room.

This is further demonstrated in the Brock dance scene. Matthew Lillard is comedy gold in this and I never laughed so hard. Although his appearance was brief, Matthew Lillard was by far the best part of this movie.

Now we get to the antagonists, Taylor Vaughn and Dean Sampson Jr.

Taylor Vaughn played by Jodi Lyn O'Keefe, is your typical mean girl: spoiled, self-absorbed, competitive, and obnoxiously arrogant. The main joke of the movie is that she's not as well-liked or special than she think she is. Just as soon as Taylor breaks up with Zack for Brock, Brock breaks up with her out of nowhere, implying that Brock only saw her as a fling and nothing else. Then there's the incident at the party where she tries to humiliate Laney but it becomes a boomerang effect and Laney is just as popular as she is, and it turns out that basically half the school can't stand her, including her friends. There's another implication that the reason why Taylor is popular at all because she dated Zack. So, she tries to get back on his good graces, however, Zack has already moved on and doesn't pay her any mind. He even stands her up on Prom Night. Taylor is eventually crowned Prom Queen but the school could care less. There's also a funny bit where the school principal cuts off her mike mid-speech. So after that, Taylor realizes her fate as she sits alone on graduation day. In Taylor's case, her whole entire story arc highlights that one cannot indulge in cruelty simply because of their wealth and beauty.

Then we have Paul Walker as Dean Sampson. This was the movie where I formed a major crush on him to the point where I almost forgot how despicable his character is. He's the one who initiates the bet with Zack but, out of pure jealously, he's the one who spills the beans to Laney, which prompts her to take him to the prom instead. However, he's only playing the part of the upstanding guy just so he could have his way with Laney then dump her. He boasts about this on prom night with his buddies and I like that they're not on board with his misogynistic bullshit and blows him off, which shows that Dean is a dumb jerk jock and everybody sees him as dumb jerk jock. Eventually, Laney gives the upper hand and blows a really loud horn in his ear, rendering him almost deaf. This all happens off-screen by the way but what really bothers me is how the movie plays off of what seems to be a sexual assault as light comedy. Considering that Miramax was founded by Harvey Weinstein makes it even worse retrospectively.

Now it's without a doubt that the soundtrack is absolutely fire. I feel like it gives the movie a personality, particularly in the Prom Night scene. Fatboy Slim's The Rockafella Shank has been stuck in my head for a while and although it's impossible that every one of these high school students are professional dancers, at least the scene gives the movie a musicality to it. Then there's the penultimate song, Kiss Me by Sixpence None the Richer. It was originally released in 1997 to moderate success but it was this movie that made it one of the most recognizable songs of the 90s. I'm talkin Prom Nights, Graduations, Birthdays, and Weddings, this song will live on till the days on end and I'm not afraid to admit that this is one of my favorite songs since childhood.

Like I said before, the screenplay is unoriginal and largely set the trend for teen movies in the 2000s. I dare you to play a drinking game for every cliche that's been done by the book. You'd probably be in a coma by now. As far as the directing, it's fine. Nothing really special, just fine for what it is.

In 2021, Netflix did a remake titled, He's All That starring TikTok star Addison Rae and Tanner Buchanan from Cobra Kai with special appearances by Rachael Leigh Cook and Matthew Lillard. Now I never thought I would say this, but this remake was kind of unnecessary. It mostly follows the same beats as the original but worse. This was basically just a starring vehicle for Addison Rae and nothing more. I've watched some clips of it but from the cheap Netflix look combined with acting, I'll give it a pass. Not worth my time.

But when it comes to the original, it's definitely on the safe side. Once you turn your brain off, it's a fun watch, especially though a nostalgic lens but it's not a classic either.

Without the two leads, the comedic genius of Matthew Lillard, and the amazing soundtrack, nobody would be talking about this movie today and even consider remaking it. It's run-of-the-mill 90s fluff and not much else to it.

My last word: Watchable but forgettable.

The Year 1999 and Teen Adaptation of Classic Literature

2026-03-17T18:48:00.000-07:00

1999 was a special year for me. It was the pinnacle of my childhood and the center of my universe. Everything came to pass, and this was the year that set my path as a creator. From the music to the TV shows, and let’s not forget the movies. Oh, there were lots and lots of movies. Movies that are now considered all-time classics. However, there was this trend called the 90s Teen Boom, a trend that was inescapable. Holy crap, I mean where do I begin? Sure, there was a similar teen movie trend in the 80s made popular by John Hughes. But the 90s? Oh boy, the 90s were it! So many cult classics, so little time. Yet, there was a twist to this. The most popular movies I could think of were She’s All That, Cruel Intentions, and 10 Things I Hate About You. What set these movies apart was that there were based on Classic Literature. You know, the type of Classic Literature you took classes at your local high school. Well, to make it less boring to the younger crowd, Hollywood added a modern teen lens to the Classic Lit genre. This all started with a little movie called Clueless, which just had a 30th anniversary last year. Unbeknownst to me, this was actually based on Jane Austen’s Emma. It followed all the same beats of that novel, except for the modern high school setting in 1990s Los Angeles. Then along came Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet, which is also set in 1990s Los Angeles, but the twist is that the Shakespearean dialogue is still intact. And it was this film, not Titanic, that I developed a crush on Leonardo DiCaprio. And finally, here comes the early eve of 1999. The year where the Teen Classic Lit Genre reached into the stratosphere. These three films were the cream of the crop, and without further ado, I’ll be reviewing each and every one. Oooo, this is going to be fun! So as it begins, I get to revisit my childhood and talk about the films that defined me as a writer of Young Adult fiction. With my bottle of wine and a special dose of the forbidden flower, let’s take a trip down memory lane...

I Know What You Did Last Summer (2025)

2025-11-29T02:45:00.000-08:00

So, I finally watched the I Know What You Did Last Summer requel. Do you want to know what I thought about it? It sucked. It totally sucked, and I'm not surprised. Oftentimes, the original gets accused of being a Scream rip-off/cash grab, but this seems more like a Scream rip-off/cash grab. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, there was also a TV series, not that it's relevant to this review, but the I Know What You Did Last Summer television series came out at the same time the Scream TV series came out, which proves my point. This whole requel trend has been ongoing for a couple of years now, and although some, such as Halloween 2018 and Scream 2022, have been successful, the majority of these horror requels have fallen off pretty hard. I Know You Did Last Summer 2025 has no reason to exist, but the power of nostalgia persists, and here we are.

The story is pretty much the same as the first one, only this time the main group of characters are college graduates in their twenties who just celebrated a friend's engagement party. There's Danica Richards, the bride to be, Teddy Spencer, the groom to be, Ava Brucks, the sensible one, Stevie Ward, the ex-best friend from the wrong side of the tracks, and Milo, Ava's love interest. Of course, on their way back, the group of friends caused an accident, but instead, they're hardly any at fault at all. Sure, one of them drunkenly stands in the middle of the road, but still, no fault I could think of. Their only crime is witnessing the person careening into the side of a bridge. The car gets stuck, and the group desperately tries to save the man, but the car swiftly collapses into a watery grave. And just like the first one, the group makes a pact to not tell anyone about the accident. It gets even more predictable when, a year later, at Danica's bridal shower (she's engaged to someone else now), she receives a mysterious letter. She opens it, and of course, it says, I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER. After a string of murders happens, including the Danica's current fiancé, the group goes to investigate and soon finds out that the perpetrator might have a connection to the 1997 Southport murders. They soon come across the final girl, Julie James, for help. I don't see how Julie fits into the story, but somehow, it makes sense later on when the killer is revealed, and that will contain spoilers, so I'll keep you posted. Once the group dwindles down, the surviving members must find out who's behind the murders before it's too late.

Okay, let's focus on our main characters, shall we? They're really nothing to write home about. I mean, they're characters in their twenties who act and speak like teens. It's really weird, particularly because one of them is about to get married. Not only that, but I find them to be extremely vapid, bland, and self-centered, with Ava being the only one I can get behind. So, let's go through them one by one. But first, let's get the lesser characters out of the way.

We have Wyatt, Dianca's second fiancé. Not much to know about him besides being a young yuppie type. He's the first to get killed and gets a rather bloody death scene. That's all I can say.

Then there's Tyler Trevino, whom I like to call "The Crime Podcast Girl." She's just a girl that Ava hooks up with on her way back to Southport, who's conducting some research on the 1997 Southport murders. The character itself is supposed to be a jab at true crime influencers who often make light of brutal real-life murders. I guess Tyler is supposed to be this comic relief as she talks in this monotone valley girl voice and even wears a t-shirt with Helen Shiever's face on it. However, the most idiotic moment in the movie is her death scene. Just when the killer has her cornered, Tyler says, "I'm a fan! I'm a fan!" Who gives a rat's ass if you're a fan? That doesn't stop the killer from killing you. This is the same problem I had with Scream 4, where a character blurts out, "I'm gay! I'm gay!" before the killer finishes them off. Look, it doesn't matter if you're a man, a woman, gay, straight, or even a fan; the killer's gonna kill you anyway. So yeah, this was a pretty useless character, and she outlived her usefulness.

We have the very handsome Billy Campbell, who's aged very well by the way, as Governor Grant Spencer, Teddy's dad. He's the one who actually covered up the accident and dismisses the townspeople's claims that they're might be a killer afoot, which makes him kind of a morally questionable character. He eventually runs into the killer, and it's safe to say that he doesn't last long.

Finally, there's Pastor Judah, played by Austin Nichols, mostly known for the long-running show One Tree Hill. He's set up as a red herring due to his close relationship with Sam Cooper, the guy who died in the crash. But he's promptly killed off-screen, which lets him off the hook. No pun intended.

Now on to our main five:

First, Jonah Hauer-King, best known as Prince Eric from the live-action Little Mermaid, as Milo Griffin. He's what I like to call a satellite love interest, as he shares most of his scenes with Ava. Milo is just there for the most part. We never get to know his family life or how the accident affected him; he's just the generic everyguy, although Jonah Hauer-King served his role well.

Then there's Sarah Pidgeon as Stevie Ward. She's basically the female version of Ray; the generic everygirl with less money than her friends. She's a bit harder-edged since there's mention of her being in rehab, but other than that, she's a bit of a mystery; however, that kind of fits her character, considering what happens towards the climax, and since I've mentioned that, I will discuss the climax later in the review.

Here we have the stunning Tyriq Withers as Teddy Spencer, Danica's first fiancé before the accident. He's similar to Barry but a little less obnoxious, though he does come off as self-centered and very full of himself. He does get better later in the film; however, his ego gets the best of him.

Then we have Madelyn Cline as Danica Richards. Danica is a delicate, pampered rich girl, the type of friend who you always take care of and check on after they have a bad day. And Danica is going through a lot. She's supposed to be a Helen Shivers expy, but the problem is that the movie never really explores her trauma like they did with Helen's in the original. I mean, all her friends are dying left and right, she has a target on her back, and she just got involved in a terrible accident just a year ago. Instead, the film portrays her as this ditzy blond who's obsessed with spiritual wellness, and the film doesn't really take her seriously. Danica, in all honesty, is kind of like Rachel from Friends before the character development. She claims to have this divine connection to Helen Shivers, which eventually leads to this bizarre dream sequence where Danica has a ghostly encounter with her.

Speaking of, let's talk about the Sarah Michelle Gellar cameo. During pre-production, there have been talks of Helen Shivers returning in the film, but it was nearly impossible considering that she was killed off in the first film. Even Sarah Michelle Gellar was confused. It's like these studio execs are so greedy to the point where their brains don't function well and won't even care to follow the events of the previous films they're trying to reboot. Yet try as they might, they wanted Sarah Michelle Gellar and, dammit, they were gonna have her. Okay, first off, shouldn't Julie be the one to have this dream? I mean, once you know that she kept having recurring nightmares of Ben Willis, it would be inevitable that she would have nightmares of her dead best friend, too. This would also align with her story arc of the past coming back to haunt her, and overcoming her trauma to save the new characters. But overall, I thought the cameo was forced, and it didn't make sense in the narrative.

Finally, we have Chase Sui Wonders as Ava Brucks. One of the many qualities that I like about Ava is that she holds her own, is sexually liberated, and is quite an effective leader when it comes to dire circumstances. The actress actually does a good job here; it's just that the only problem is that she should be in a better movie. Other than the qualities I've listed, there's not much to know about her. We never really know about her home life, her occupation, or even her family lineage. For all we know, she could just be a socialite, living off her daddy's money. Besides that, Ava was the easiest character out of the main five.

Now, we have our legacy characters:

Ray is a much more proactive character this time around. He's not the guy who just hangs around or gets left out until the end; he actually serves a purpose to the story, particularly with the character of Stevie, who's mentioned to be a family friend of his. This time, Ray and Julie are divorced. There isn't any explanation why their relationship crumbled, but seeing how they were in the first two films, I'm not surprised at all. Freddie Prinze Jr.'s acting is mediocre at best. He's a little bit better than he was in the first two films, but he seems to be phoning it in this time around, and I don't blame him; the script doesn't do him any favors. However, Ray holds a deep, dark secret that will unravel in the climax...more on that later.

Last but not least, we have Julie James, who has since become a professor who conducts studies on the effects of PTSD. Initially, Julie is a supporting character, but she takes center stage by the middle of the film as things begin to unravel. Jennifer Love Hewitt did a serviceable job despite the script's shortcomings and the cringy dialogue. I know most people don't really care for her acting in these movies, but at least she tries her best.

The weakest part of the movie for me is the self-aware humor. The appeal of the 1997 version of I Know What You Did Last Summer is how straightforward it was, despite the not-so-great writing and mishandling of its characters. As mentioned, the screenplay is below-average if not outright subpar. There's nothing to keep my interest, and at times, it's a bit try-hard. It's not as clever as it thinks it is, and if it's trying to be like Scream, it failed miserably. For a slasher film, the deaths are creative enough. Although it's nowhere near as gory as the second sequel, they're still quite brutal, but it doesn't save the movie from being underwhelming.

The worst part of the movie for me has got to be the climax. Oh yes, now, it's time for the spoilers.

So out of the main five, it dwindles down to only Ava, Danica, and Stevie. After discovering the dead bodies of Teddy and his father, Grant, Ray urges the girls to escape Southport on Teddy's yacht. But suddenly, the scene cuts to the church, where the police find Pastor Judah's corpse. As they go to investigate, they see a photo of Stevie and the accident victim, Sam Cooper, together, which means...

Stevie is the killer! There seems to be a suspension of disbelief because there's no way a woman of her size would do all these killings herself unless she had some help, that is, and I'm pretty sure there's a second accomplice somewhere, but let's focus on Stevie for now. You see, Stevie met Sam Cooper in rehab, and the two instantly fell in love. After Sam's death, she went into a deep despair and even contemplated suicide. But instead of killing herself, she decides to take her anger out on her so-called friends and thus begins her killing spree. Quick side note here, see how Stevie is supposed to be the wayward one with less money and status, yet she turns out to be the killer? I mean, knowing how the economy is, don't you think that's a teeny bit offensive? Anywho, Ava, Danica, and Stevie have a bit of a struggle until Stevie stabs Danica in the gut and throws her overboard. So, Stevie has Ava cornered until Ray steps in and saves the day. He pleads with Stevie to stop the madness, but she doesn't, which prompts Ray to shoot her off the boat. As Ray comes to Ava's aid, she notices a wound on her shoulder, remembering her first encounter with The Fisherman, where she gave him the same wound. Then it cuts back to Julie, where she finds a picture of Ray and Stevie, realizing that she used to be a bar manager at Ray's restaurant. Somehow, Julie comes to the realization that...

Ray is the main killer! Wow, this literally shocked me, but then again, it doesn't make any sense, especially when in the second sequel, Ray went out of his way to save Julie. It's kind of like if Dewey or Gale turned out to be one of the Ghostface killers in the Scream series. It's incredibly jarring. And I swear, if they pull that crap in Scream 7, I would be officially done with that series and any other horror legacy sequel for that matter. But on to Ray. What is his motive? He doesn't want people to forget the trauma he experienced, so why not project that trauma onto someone else? Again, that doesn't make any sense. You know what, fuck motives at this point. Whenever I watch a modern slasher these days, I wouldn't mind if the killer just likes killing because motives are overrated at this point. By the way, who the fuck wrote this script? Man, it's awful. And it gets even worse when Julie shows up to confront Ray. The back and forth between them is totally corny, and Julie even recites the "what are you waiting for, huh? line. Give me a fucking break.

So with a bit of a struggle, Ava saves Julie by impaling Ray with a harpoon, and all is well.

For some logical reason, Danica survives being stabbed in the gut and thrown into the sea. Not to mention, Ava got stabbed in the shoulder, but despite their wounds, the two seemed to walk just fine.

As they have lunch together, the two just laugh and joke as if they haven't experienced the most traumatic moment of their lives. Then they make a comment like "Oh, this could've been resolved if men had therapy." Okay, did they forget that one of the killers was female? Holy crap, this script is shit.

Then they casually mention that Stevie's body was never found and she could still be alive, as if it was nothing. Hello? This person tried to kill you. Shouldn't you be panicking or something? But this is all just to hype up ANOTHER sequel. My god, make it stop!

After a brief credits sequence, we meet Brandy Norwood as Kara Wilson. Great to see Brandy again, gotta love her, but the scene ends up being stupid, of course. What could've been a cute, nice cameo ends up being yet another sequel bait. Julie appears at Kara's doorstep. How does she know where she lives? I don't know. So, Julie tells her that she received a letter. Kara opens it, and it reads, "It isn't over." Instead of having some sense of urgency, Kara makes a sassy comment as if to say, "Let's go kick some ass, girl!" Yeah, whatever, I'm not waiting for the sequel.

So that was the I Know What You Did Last Summer legacy sequel. Yep, it was a pile of shit. But I will say that it's a hell of a lot better than I Always Know, that will always be the worst in my eyes. This one was more forgettable if anything. Plus, the writing is way worse than the original, which soured any enjoyment from watching this, not that I was expecting much, though. I heard that Mike Flannigan was going to be involved, and since he's seen as the king of modern horror, this would've been way much better than it was and actually could've matched the tone of the novel. But the studio execs wanted to appeal to the TikTok crowd instead.

I just don't see this as a franchise. If there were only two films in the series, I would've been totally fine with that, but these film execs try to make fetch happen, and it's just not gonna happen. However, the film was a moderate success, which means, yes, we might get that fifth sequel. Again, I will not be looking forward to it. If anything, this series is done and should be done.

My last word: watch it at your own risk.

I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (1998)...And A Brief Summary of I'll Always Know (2006)

2025-11-23T09:41:00.000-08:00

After the success of I Know What You Did Last Summer, it was inevitable that a sequel would be greenlit a year later. Lo and Behold, we have I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. For kicks, I decided to read the script, which is nearly identical to the movie, but with a few changes here and there. Yes, I know this is an unnecessary sequel, and yes, I know it is a cash grab, but...and this is a big but... This is a guilty pleasure of mine. Maybe it's the nostalgia calling me; however, I keep finding myself watching this movie over and over again. I don't know why. Sure, this movie is beyond dumb, and the plot twist is so stupid to the point where I ask myself, 'Why would they come up with that? Yet and still, this movie has a hold on me. This is what I call an adventure slasher, and compared to the original, things are a lot more exciting this time around. The story has stakes. HUGE stakes. It's bloodier, gorier, has action, and a few suspenseful moments. It's a dumb popcorn movie, and I'm okay with that.

The movie begins with an overly dramatic opening scene, where Julie walks to the cathedral to confess her sins. It is actually really well shot, and the light blue shadows of the cinematography give it this ethereal yet ominous feel. So, Julie starts to confess her sins to the priest, which is a recap of the events of the first film in case the audience forgot. Then the priest creepily says, "I know..." Julie catches her breath for a moment and replies, "You...know?" The priest turns his head to reveal it's Ben Willis, the killer from the last movie, and shouts this cheesy line, "I Know What You Did Last Summer!" and punctures his hook through the frame. I just couldn't help but laugh; it was so corny.

Of course, this turns out to be a dream, and Julie wakes up screaming in class. This indicates that the ending of the first film was all but a dream and has been a recurring problem for Julie ever since.

Embarassed by her outburst, Julie scurries out of class, where she is then accompanied by her new male friend, Will, played by the very attractive Matthew Settle. To add more to Julie's worries, it's the fourth of July, the day her friends were killed by Ben Willis. Will reassures her that everything will be fine and just a relic in her past. But just as he says that, here comes Ray, Julie's boyfriend, appearing out of the blue.

He tries to lure Julie back to Southport to celebrate the Fourth of July together, but considering that she's still traumatized by the events of last year, Julie refuses. Instead of understanding her plight, Ray gets upset and walks off in a huff. He is extremely whiny and selfish here, which doesn't help that he was a bland character in the first movie, but he soon improves.

After she argues with Ray, Julie drags her feet to the apartment, feeling sorry for herself, and jumps on the bed to sleep off the stress.

Then comes nighttime...

Julie stirs from her sleep and hears a sudden noise. She becomes instantly spooked. Investigating the apartment, Julie senses someone there and, on instinct, she grabs a kitchen knife. She hears ruffling in her closet. Julie creeps closer and closer, ready to strike and then...

Out pops Brandy. Yes, the Brandy Norwood, in her closet. She plays Kara Wilson, Julie's friend and roommate, who encourages her to go to the club with her to dance off the stress of her strained relationship with Ray.

Say what you will about the movie, but one of the best parts, in my opinion, is the chemistry between Jennifer Love Hewitt and Brandy. They actually come off as genuine best friends, and it gives the film a lot of heart. I know I'm pushing it, but I'm just being honest here: if Jennifer and Brandy were in a buddy comedy, I would definitely watch it.

So, then Kara takes Julie to the club where we meet with Kara's boyfriend, Tyrell, played by the very handsome Mekhi Phifer. Tyrell is pretty much Barry 2.0, but he's not as bad, though. His only takeaway is that he's on the snarky side and dismisses Julie's suggestion that there might be a killer a foot.. Kara also invites Will over, unbeknownst to Julie, and it's clear that she is setting him up to be Julie's next love interest. Just when Will shoots his shot, Julie gets distracted...

For some reason, The Fisherman stalks Julie at the club. This is one of the few nonsensical moments of the film, but at least there is an explanation for that later. When Will comes back over, Julie forgives him and decides to cool off at home to shake off her PTSD.

The next morning, Kara gets a call from a local radio station offering the chance to win a vacation to the Bahamas if she answers what the capital of Brazil is. As they scramble to find a clue to where the capital of Brazil is, Julie grabs coffee mix. Yes, coffee mix to figure out the answer. These days, they would just Google it on their phone and presto! But in the heat of the moment, Kara spurts out, "Rio de Janeiro." There's a moment of uncertainty until the radio host says, "Congratulations, you just won a weekend getaway!" The girls are ecstatic and instantly plan out who to invite on the trip. Julie decides to call Ray. Of course, he acts like a whiny self-centered jerk, saying, "Oh, you'd rather hang out with your college friends instead of me." Dude, she WON a vacation trip, and you were the first person that she called. At the end of the day, it's the thought that counts. Be grateful.

When Ray realizes this, he softens and says he'll try to come. His friend and coworker, Dave, convinces him that he should take the work off of him. So, Ray agrees, and the two hang out before their departure. But as they stop near a supposed hit-and-run accident in the dead of night, Ray goes to investigate. Once he kneels down towards the body, it turns out to be a mannequin. Turns out, The Fisherman is alive after all, and he instantly kills Dave with the swift movement of his hook. He goes after Ray in his car, but fortunately, Ray dodges from the car and jumps over a hill, rendering him unconscious.

As they get prepared for their trip to the Bahamas, Julie and Kara hopelessly wait for Ray. Julie tries to make excuses for him, but Kara doesn't budge and figures that Will would be a good replacement for him, to Julie's dismay. From plane to boat, Julie, Kara, Tyrell, and Will finally arrive at the Bahamas to the tune of Esethro's That Girl. Sure, this is a bad movie, but the soundtrack is fire, you can't fight me on that.

Upon arriving at the hotel, Julie and the gang get some bad news. It just so happens that they're in the middle of storm season, which means that they're the only ones left in the hotel. Therefore, that's when the carnage really begins.

Before I continue with the main characters, let's get the lesser characters out of the way, which is basically half of the hotel staff.

There's Darick the Dockhand Guy. He only gets a few lines here and there and...that's pretty much it. The Fisherman kills him before he becomes an actual character.

Then there's the housekeeping lady, Olga. She doesn't get that many lines either, and once she sees there's something fishy going on, she instantly gets hooked by The Fisherman.

Further down the line, we have the poolboy, Titus, played by none other than Jack Black. He is probably the most cringeworthy character in the movie, but he is also the funniest because...he's played by Jack Black. The only thing we know about this character is that he is a hardcore stoner, and that's it. He had a different death scene in the screenplay, but the producer thought his death wasn't gory enough, so The Fisherman gives him a good stab on the hand and some shears to his chest.

We have Bellhop Estes, the all-knowing old man who uses Voodoo to protect our main cast. Apparently, his using Voodoo is a bad thing, and they instantly accuse him of being the killer, though it's obvious it's not him, and the gang is just uneducated on how Voodoo actually works. You see, Estes knew about Ben Willis, and he gave out a hint that he might've killed his wife because of the affairs she had. Although he tries to save the main group, unfortunately, he's no match for The Fisherman.

Then we have Bartender Nancy, played by the criminally underrated Jennifer Esposito. Nancy is probably one of my favorites of the hotel staff because she actually has personality. She's a smart whipper-snapper who holds her own and is also the most proactive of the bunch. If she had the chance, she would've survived the whole movie, but again, The Fisherman has too much of tight a grip on her and she goes down without a fight.

Lastly, we have the cratankerous hotel manager, Brooks, played by cult favorite Jeffrey Combs. He's quick to throw insults at our main cast, and he's not quite as hospitable as he should be. He's definitely one of those characters you root for to die.

Although he gets killed off-screen, his death looks extremely painful. You can tell that The Fisherman did a number on him.

Now on to our main foursome:

First, we have the one and only Brandy as Kara Wilson. Kara could've easily been a throwaway character, but Brandy's personality shines through as I find her to be quite likable and easy to root for. She's seen as Julie's emotional anchor and is the kind of friend who cheers you up when you're having a bad day. That's why I find the chemistry between Jennifer Love Hewitt and Brandy to be so palatable because you actually believe it. Say what you will about the movie itself, but I honestly think Brandy did a good job and made the film a bit bearable, in my opinion.

It's already said what needs to be told about Tyrell. He's basically a Barry clone and spends most of the movie complaining. However, the most frustrating part is that, despite all the carnage, he still dismisses Julie's claims that there might be a killer afoot. Even though he has seen dead bodies, it's pretty obvious that Julie has a target on her back and that the person who's after her will probably kill him too. Just as soon as he says he hasn't seen a psycho killer yet, right on cue, The Fisherman pops out and hooks him in the neck, complete with cartoonish CGI blood. Yelp, that's all I could say about Tyrell.

Then there's Will, who's the typical dogged nice guy, pining for Julie's affections when she's clearly not over Ray yet. But beneath that nice guy facade, he harbors a deep, dark secret that would implode in the film's climax. More on that later...

Julie is a lot more likable this time around and is quite sympathetic, given the trauma she went through in the first film. By the time we get to the film's middle section, you can tell that she has grown tired of The Fisherman's bullshit and finally takes charge. There's this part in the movie where Kara gets pursued by the killer, and Julie bursts in with an ax as if to say, "No, not this time!", and hacks away at the door for Kara to escape. You see, this is what I like about Julie: she makes sure that no friend gets left behind.

Of course, she gets her "what are you waiting for!" moment, but this time, when she sees her name and birthdate spray-painted on a tombstone, she shouts out, "You want me, Ben! Come and get me, but my grave stays empty!" Not as cringy, but it's just as entertaining.

There are a lot of stupid moments in the film. For example, Julie finds a dead body in her closet, and it's quite a bloody mess. But as soon as the rest of the characters come in to check on it, it's gone, and the floor is sparkling clean. Oh, where have I seen this before? Oh yeah, the first movie. Boy, it seems like Ben Willis has super-cleaning skills.

Probably the dumbest moments in the movie have got to be the karaoke scene. I've seen this scene in all the promos and trailers, and I always kept wondering how the killer was able to even program the machine unless he had some supernatural powers to make that happen.

I think I find the tanning bed scene to be most suspenseful, but then again, it's just an excuse to show off Jennifer Love Hewitt's sculpted body for the horny male audience.

Unlike the first movie, the movie goes to the extreme when it comes to the blood and gore. Pretty much the entire film has this approach of bigger, broader, and bloodier with a different location, higher body count, and over-the-top action.

Which leads us to the climax of the film. It sort of hints that Ben Willis might have an accomplice who does his dirty work, and it turns out that this accomplice is none other than....

Will Benson. Will is Ben Willis's son. The name says it right there. Will, Ben's son. He explains this to Julie verbatim. It's just so fucking ridiculous. But what's even more ridiculous is how Julie and the gang got there in the first place. You see, the movie relies on our good ol' friend, the idiot plot. Ben and his son, Will, devised an elaborate plan to lure Julie and her friends to the Bahamas. Will impersonated the radio host who won them the trip, and it turns out, in the middle of the film, Julie and Kara got the answer wrong. Whether they got the answer wrong or right, they would've been screwed either way, but what really gets me about this is the time spent between the first movie and this sequel. So, it's been a year, right? How come Will just spots Julie at her college, pretends to be a student, or rather attend the same school as her, I don't know, then befriend her, somehow got in contact with his father who was presumed dead since then, and for some reason, plan this whole evil plot to get Julie and her friends shipped off to the Bahamas to kill them. That's a little bit overboard, don't you think? I mean, that takes a lot of time and money to actually make that happen. It is beyond nonsensical, unless Ben inherited a million dollars. I don't even know if that's plausible. Now, Matthew Settle's acting was decent until then, but at this point, he becomes cartoonishly over-the-top. He's trying to channel Skeet Ulrich, but it was giving Jim Carrey. So Will brings Julie over to Ben, and just when you think it's over for her, out pops Ray, gun in hand, serving off his big hero moment.

I have to hand it to Ray. He started off a bit whiny and combative, but he actually stepped up and went out of his way to save Julie. I mean, the guy gets run over, escapes from a hospital, takes a bus, and takes a boat through a raging storm just in time to save Julie. That takes a lot of guts.

Ben Willis is no different from how he was in the last movie. Just a generic horror villain who, this time, lets his son do his dirty work in the climax, but this time it costs him.

So he has Will rough up Ray a bit and hoists him up for Ben to give him the final blow. But then Ray hits Will and dodges out of Ben's way, only for him to stab and kill his own son by accident.

Full of rage, Ben goes after Ray and then...Julie finally takes charge, grabs a gun, and blasts Ben's ass away.

Ironically, Ben falls into the same grave made for Julie, the sludge and mud submerging him into a proper burial.

So, all is well. The national guard comes through. Julie and Ray hold each other in an embrace, and thankfully, Kara survives her ordeal.

This should be the end, but the movie feels like it should have one last jumpscare because it's a horror movie. So at the end, Julie and Ray are living the life of young newlyweds in their rather lofty two-story home. The scene sort of takes its time to get through, but finally, we see that Julie still has visions of Ben attacking her. Yes, I said visions. You would think that she was actually attacked by Ben at this point because it was left a mystery for years until the new movie came out. Yes, there has been a recent sequel, or shall I say requel, that addresses that Julie, in fact, survives this and has lived to tell the tale. I will cover that at a later time. But unfortunately, there was a third sequel that was sandwiched between this and the recent one, and trust me, I will get to that soon...

So, what do I think of I Still Know What You Did Last Summer? It's a bad movie. Borderline stupid even. But I can't help to say that I was thoroughly entertained. Maybe it's the nostalgia talkin, but I might count it out as So Bad, It's Good. Am I saying that it's a classic or it's Shakespeare? No. It's a dumbass movie. But it's a fun, dumbass movie. The kind where you get to sit back, get a couple of drinks or some joints, and have the time of your life.

My last word: It's a turn-your-brain-off gory slasher flick. Nothing more, nothing less.

Okay, now it's time to talk about I Always Know What You Did Last Summer. Very dumb title by the way. I only saw this movie once back in high school, and I was bored out of my mind. Not only that, I could barely see anything. This was, of course, the mid-to-late 2000s, when most horror films were shot predominantly in darkness. Shit, you could hardly tell what's going on, and it would often sour the enjoyment of most of those films. However, the most annoying aspect of the filmmaking was the music video flashes, which could cause seizures if viewed for too long. Alright, the story itself goes like this: A group of high school friends hang out at a carnival, and one of them decides to prank another friend by dressing up as The Fisherman (he's obviously an urban legend now). Suddenly, the friend who pranked that friend causes his accidental death, which evokes the ghost, yes, I said ghost, of Ben Willis one year later, killing them one by one. The characters are nothing to write home about, along with some terrible, terrible acting. I guess the lead actress tries to do a good performance, but nothing ever comes out of it. Then you have The Fisherman, who has basically turned into a Freddy/Jason clone. Considering that he has the power to hide and clean dead bodies in record time and teleport out of nowhere, why not make him a supernatural ghost? There's really not much I can say about this movie. It's a cheap, low-budget direct-to-video knockoff with no connection to the original except for the zombie/ghost fisherman Ben Willis. But ever since, this sequel has been forgotten and should be forgotten. Hell, I don't think it's even canon in the film series, so yeah, that's a good thing.

My Last Word: Avoid at all costs.

So those are the two sequels to I Know What You Did Last Summer. Are they great? Hell, no. But will the 2025 reboot be any better? I highly doubt it, but I'll check it out anyway.

I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)

2025-10-24T22:28:00.000-07:00

So, here is the second half of my summer thrillers, even though it's not summer anymore, but, oh well. This time, we're going to explore the lore of I Know What You Did Last Summer, which is also set in my home state of North Carolina. Out of the many times that I've watched this movie, I had no idea this was based on a book. During my middle school and early high school years, I think I was familiar with Lois Duncan's work, but I never really got a chance to read her books. Instead, I've only watched a few TV movies based on her books, more specifically Killing Mr. Griffin and I've Been Waiting For You, adapted from the novel Gallows Hill. I've always wanted to read I Know What You Did Last Summer, but I never really had the chance. Finally, after all these years, I've read the novel, and here are my thoughts:

Of course, the novel is completely different from the film version. It's more like a mystery-drama that slowly turns into a suspense-thriller. The hit-and-run victim in the novel is a ten-year-old boy, which adds emotional weight to the story and makes the perpetrator's motivations more sympathetic. Most of it is character-focused rather than plot-focused. For example, unlike the film version, Julie James is your typical perky cheerleader with average grades. After the accident, she becomes a studious shut-in, prompting her to get good grades, so much so that she gets accepted to a prestigious college at the start of the novel. Helen Rivers, who came from a poor background, eventually becomes a beauty queen and lands a TV gig as a local weather girl, complete with a snazzy new apartment of her own. Ray Bronson was able to collect his bearings and took a trip to California. And then there's Barry Cox, who went on to become a Big Guy on Campus at his local university, complete with a football scholarship. So, the core four are actually doing well for themselves; however, the past comes back to haunt them in more ways than one. The perpetrator's machinations are initially subtle. Not only does Julie get an ominous letter in the mail, but Helen discovers a newspaper clipping of the accident on her apartment door. So does Ray, and so does Barry. The group soon figures out that someone is out to punish them for what happened last summer, and that message becomes clear when Barry gets shot by an unknown assailant. When the walls are caving in and the feelings of guilt resurface, the culprit soon reveals himself to be Collingsworth "Collie" Wilson, a neighbor of Helen's and also the guy Julie was dating after she broke up with Ray. To Julie, he goes by the name of "Bud," which was also the nickname his kid brother David gave him, the same kid brother that Barry ran over. Collie is a soldier who served in Vietnam, and the death of his brother, along with his whole family falling apart, caused him to have a mental breakdown. Seeing Julie giving yellow roses at David's funeral led him to think that Julie was probably mocking him as some sick joke, but in reality, she was genuinely distraught. Unfortunately, Collie's fragile state of mind caused him to plan a revenge plot on Julie and her friends. When I first read this, I was totally caught off guard because all this time I thought he was two people. The book gives out a few hints, but then it becomes clear halfway through. It was actually well done, I really wasn't expecting that. When he goes after Helen in her apartment, she locks herself in the bathroom and eventually escapes through a small window. Soon, Collie has his eyes on Julie and lures her outside to reveal his motives. He starts to strangle Julie, but Ray comes to save the day, knocking Collie unconscious. After their horrible ordeal, Julie and Ray decide to confess to what they did last summer.

Unlike the last book I read, I thoroughly enjoyed this one. It was fast-paced, there was actual urgency, and the characters were well-rounded and interesting. It's a shame that the movie overshadowed the book because it's truly an underrated gem.

Film rights from the book were acquired by Columbia Pictures in 1974, with Producer Ray Stark casting cult favorite Olivia Hussey as Julie and Susan Dey, who was mostly known for The Partridge Family at the time, as Helen. But the production stalled due to a lack of funds. A couple of years later, the project was revived again in 1981 with Jodie Foster as Julie and Helen Hunt as, well, Helen. However, that project also fell through, as the musical Annie flopped at the box office.

Fifteen years later, a little film called Scream graced the movie theaters and became a box-office juggernaut overnight. Kevin Williamson, the screenwriter of Scream, actually penned a script for I Know What You Did Last Summer that was previously rejected; however, after the success of the aforementioned film, studio executives were finally piqued with interest.

Although Scream was known for its self-aware satire of the slasher genre, I Know What You Did Last Summer was written to be a straightforward slasher without a wink to the audience. Instead of being set in a small town in New Mexico, Kevin Williamson changed the setting to Southport, North Carolina, a well-known fishing village. The concept of The Fisherman is based on Williamson's dad, who worked as a fisherman, and the urban legend The Hook, complete with a campfire scene that tells the story in detail.

Then came the casting. Melissa Joan Hart, who also auditioned for Scream, was approached but later declined because she thought it was a Scream rip-off, which, by the way, it is. I'm guessing she was going for the role of Julie.

Reese Witherspoon auditioned but changed her mind. This eventually led to her boyfriend at the time, Ryan Phillippe to be cast as Barry. Maybe she was trying for the role of Helen, but I'm still banking on Julie.

Jeremy Sisto was Jim Gillespie's original choice for Ray, but the studio execs insisted on casting Freddie Prinze Jr. for the role instead. I'm going to agree with Jim on this one; Jeremy would've been the better actor for the role. I'll talk about Freddie's "performance" later in the review.

As the casting for Julie was on thin ice, the executives looked towards the hit teen show, Party of Five, which ironically starred Neve Campbell, the star of Scream. But there was another breakout star, Jennifer Love Hewitt, who was gaining popularity, and I guess the executives thought that this would be good stunt casting. She was initially cast as Helen; however, Jennifer went for the role of Julie, citing that she didn't want her mom to see her get killed on screen.

Lastly, the role of Helen was the last to be cast. Luckily, there was another up-and-coming starlet who had just won an Emmy award from a daytime soap opera and was in the midst of starring in a soon-to-be hit TV show that would become a cultural phenomenon. That up-and-coming starlet was Sarah Michelle Gellar, and her star will eventually rise.

The basic plot of I Know What You Did Last Summer kind of reminds me of A Nightmare on Elm Street. Not in a literal sense, but more like the tropes surrounding it: you have the beautiful, sympathetic blond and her hot but ill-tempered boyfriend, you have the beautiful, resourceful brunette and her hot but useless boyfriend, you have a killer that toys with them, then kills them, and the whole plot revolves around a deep dark secret that comes back to haunt them.

Before I get to the core four, I would like to get the minor characters out of the way.

Max, played by Johnny Galecki, known for Roseanne at the time, is a character invented for the movie only. He's portrayed as this pest who keeps pining after Julie even though she has a boyfriend, and he keeps being constantly bullied by Barry...just because.

Max originally didn't die in the script, but because this is a slasher movie and the killer has to be some sort of ominous threat, the filmmakers decided to make him part of the body count; however, this doesn't make any sense in the narrative, considering that Max didn't have anything to do with accident, nor is he part of the core group. He's just a guy who's always there and nothing else.

Then there is Helen's bitchy sister, Elsa, played by Bridgette Wilson, an actress best known for starring in '90s cult favorites such as Billy Madison and Mortal Kombat. In the novel, she was the plain, overweight older sister who was jealous of her sister's success. She was stuck having to work a dead-end retail job to take care of her younger siblings, while Helen had everything handed to her just because she was beautiful. In the movie, however, Elsa is just as beautiful as Helen, and she seems to have a steady job as the supervisor at her family's retail store, which looks quite lucrative, so we never really know what Elsa's deal is. It could be because she had dreams of being a beauty queen just like her younger sister, but because she had responsibilities of running the family store, she never really got to follow her dreams, though the movie never really gives us an indication of that.

She's just portrayed as the usual asshole slasher victim we root for to die, and nothing else.

Then there's Missy Egan, played by Anne Heche, who only had a few supporting roles before this. The movie builds up Missy as a red herring, and to be honest, that doesn't sit right with me. In the novel, she was just a girl who was trying to keep the family together after her brother's death. She actually came off pleasant, but in the movie, they decided to make her creepy for some reason, even though she's a person who's suffering from grief and loneliness. But at least Anne Heche did a good job with the few scenes she was given.

Now we focus on our four main leads of the film: Julie, Ray, Helen, and Barry. As expected, they are far more different than how they are in the novel.

Let's get Barry out of the way, shall we? He is, by far, one of the most irritating characters in the movie, but it helps that he's played by the handsome Ryan Phillippe, which almost helps me forget how much of an annoying twat he is. Barry in the novel is a lot more tolerable in comparison, and that's saying a lot. He still comes across like a selfish jerk who has no remorse about the accident, even though he was the one who was driving the car, and he contemplates breaking up with Helen, but doesn't exactly go through with it, leading her on and seeing other girls behind her back. But once he hears the news about Helen having a male friend, he freaks out and plans on breaking up with her on the spot. So yeah, he's quite a hypocritical jackass, but at least there's a shred of humanity in him towards the end.

Barry, in the film version, is borderline psychotic. He has this uncontrollable rage, and it's almost comical to watch at times. For starters, let me give you a list of the many crimes of Barry Cox.

When the accident happened, Barry suggested they dispose of the body in the sea rather than have Ray make an anonymous 911 call in the book. Then he grabs Julie in a CHOKEHOLD when she refuses to make the pact, which makes me think he's not above committing violence towards women, or maybe even Helen if she gets on his bad side.

When they suspect that Max might've been the one who wrote the letter to Julie, instead of questioning him reasonably, Barry ATTACKS him while at his job and outright THREATENS him. Then, when he thinks Ray was the one behind their attacks, he sucker PUNCHES him.

And finally, oh my gosh, I'm getting exhausted from this, when he and Helen spot the fisherman, he TACKLES an old man who happens to wear the same slicker. He doesn't even apologize to him.

So yeah, it's pretty laughable that this guy gets away with so much crap, and I start to wonder why the group is even friends with him. He's completely unbearable.

Okay, I have got to take a moment to talk about that shower scene. It's one of those scenes that made me realize that I'm gay, even at a young age. But like I said, Ryan Phillippe is an attractive man with an attractive body, and I just had to acknowledge that.

As for his acting, he does a decent job, even though his character is repugnant. Luckily, he does have a bit of redemption when he swears to protect Helen in one of his final scenes, but I would've liked more of this, So I could at least have some sort of empathy towards him. But besides that, Ryan Phillippe did a good job with his role, and Barry's death was tragic enough to warrant some sympathy, but I felt more bad for Helen if anything. Overall, Barry was not an easy character to root for.

Then we have Ray Bronson, played by Freddie Prinze Jr., who is the weakest link in this movie. Ray was a much more interesting character in the novel, just being a regular guy who wanted to live up to his father's expectations and was a genuine friend to Barry, matching his sensitive side to Barry's manly side.

Ray was actually given more to do and had a lot more development than what they have given him in the movie. Ray is nothing more than the generic everyguy who is utterly useless at any given moment. First, when Barry holds his girlfriend Julie in a chokehold, Ray does absolutely NOTHING. He just stands there like some big dumb dog. Throughout the rest of the movie, he does nothing to help out the group's situation, especially when he was the guy who gave Missy his condolences to her brother, going by the name Billy Blue. Had he told the group that he was in fact the guy who visited Missy, everything would have been solved, and Julie wouldn't have run into The Fisherman's boat during the climax. Ray was never this dumb in the novel, but there would be no plot progression if he weren't.

Nothing against Freddie Prinze Jr., he has grown to be a charismatic actor, and he did a decent job in the film House of Yes, but he is incredibly wooden here. There were times when he "tries" to sell a performance, but still comes off like a deer in the headlights. It may be because he had a beef with director Jim Gillespee, the reason why his performance is so flat, but it's more so the writing of his character. Ray is just a blank slate that fills up space and doesn't do much to be proactive in the story.

Aw, yes. Now we have Helen Shivers played by Sarah Michelle Gellar, who is the biggest highlight of the movie. In the novel, Helen Rivers came from a poor working-class family, and once she matured, she became a model and landed a gig at a news station. Unlike the novel, however, Helen didn't exactly find success after the events of the accident. Before I go on, I would like to take a moment to talk about Helen's last name. Why did filmmakers change it to Shivers? Is it supposed to mean that Helen shivers in fear? If so, that is really corny. Anywho, Helen really goes through the ringer in the film version. Different from her book counterpart, Helen is already well-off, but with a failed attempt at an acting career, Helen is forced to work for her sister, who clearly hates her. In just one day, Helen is really having the worst of luck. When she tries to reconcile with Julie, she's given the cold shoulder. When she tries to talk to her dad, he ignores her. Then, of course, she gets bullied by her bitchy older sister. And worst of all, The Fisherman cuts her precious long hair.

And from the looks of it, the haircut doesn't look that bad. It wasn't as if the filmmakers were going to put this awful short wig on Sarah Michelle Gellar; the hairstyle is quite flattering and is the right amount of shoulder-length.

It gets even worse for Helen when she witnesses Barry's murder during her beauty pageant recital. The most frustrating part of this scene is that the people kept holding Helen back, and no one would even go up to the balcony to check if Barry was there. Besides that, the scene was very effective and added some much-needed dramatic weight to balance out the horror elements.

When Helen gets escorted by some idiot cop, The Fisherman lurks around a back alleyway pretending to have car trouble, which catches the cop's attention. Unlucky for him, the cop gets gutted like a fish.

Then, The Fisherman sets his sights on Helen...

This leads to one of the most thrilling and suspenseful chase sequences that I've seen in a while. Then comes ANOTHER frustrating situation when Helen races to the retail store and tries to get Elsa to open the door. Elsa takes her sweet little time, even though her sister is in distress, but she doesn't have a care in the world. This made me detest her character even more.

Thankfully, The Fisherman pays her a visit.

After being nearly tackled by The Fisherman and seeing her sister's dead body, Helen makes the great escape. She runs to the dumbwaiter, hoists herself up, jumps out of the window, into the alleyway, and just when she sees a parade down the street...

She stops and turns around. I can tell that the audience in the theater groaned in annoyance at this. Helen could've easily gotten away and hid amongst the crowd, but knowing that the beauty queen most likely won't be the final girl, they make her do something stupid to be unceremoniously killed by the slasher. I was so pissed off at this because she almost, almost made it! We were all rooting for Helen, we were all rooting for you! If the filmmakers had actually given it some thought, they could've made Helen a final girl. How about this? Why won't they make both her and Julie the final girl? Therefore, with all of the trauma they went through, defeating the killer would be a cathartic and full-circle moment for them to overcome the burden in their friendship. But, oh well, I can only dream.

Sarah Michelle Gellar stole the show for me. She was mostly known for daytime soap operas at the time, and Buffy was just picking up steam, so this would be the role that made her a star, and what a performance! She acts her ass off in this movie, even upstaging Jennifer Love Hewitt in certain moments.

I've heard about the early developments of the screenplay, where Helen was described as "having warmth to her, but can still be a bit of bitch." But I didn't get that out of Gellar's performance. She was very earnest in her approach, which garnered Helen a lot of agency. She didn't play her off like a shallow, vapid mean girl; she portrayed her as a real person and I felt that Gellar had a hand in developing her character more. That's why Sarah Michelle Gellar was fan-freakin-tastic and was a shining beacon to an otherwise above-average slasher movie.

Last, but not least, we have our resident Final Girl, Julie James, played by the ever-so-charming Jennifer Love Hewitt. She doesn't get a lot of fans amongst the horror community, mainly because they think of her as self-righteous and holier-than-thou, who's more concerned about the logical side of things instead of the emotional weight of the situation even though it does show that Julie does have some guilt about the accident, it's more so about how she feels and not anybody else. But I'll explore that later. Some might argue that she is a bit more interesting and likable in the book, considering her character development. Before the events of the novel, Julie was a cheerleader, which is far from the character she plays in the movie. However, after the accident, Julie uses this traumatic event in her life to improve her grades and eventually gets accepted to a prestigious college. During this time, she dates a guy named Bud, who's actually Collingsworth, the person terrorizing the core four. Of course, they would cut this subplot out of the final film, leaving Julie to be the investigative final girl who searches for the truth, other than dating a guy who just happens to be her perpetrator.

In the film version, Julie is a straight-A student from the start and is a staunch feminist. Before the accident, Julie was sweet, endearing, and deeply cared about her friends. But after the accident, she's suffering from post-traumatic stress, is very antisocial, and is cold and distant throughout. When it comes to the novel, I liked the moments between Julie and her mom, particularly when her mom has bad premonitions of what's to come. I wished there were more scenes between her and her mom in the movie because it would've added more dramatic elements to the film, which would also explore their complicated yet loving relationship, because I thought the actress playing Julie's mom did a good job with what little she was given.

Speaking of complicated relationships, I would've liked more interactions between Julie and Helen. Considering what Helen is going through, I wanted so badly for Julie to bury the hatchet and give the comfort that Helen truly deserves. I mean, at least she went out of her way to join Julie to visit Missy. But the film never gives them enough time to make amends, and instead wants to focus on the mystery/horror aspect instead of the character study it's supposed to be.

Julie does feel immense guilt, but the problem is that she's not confiding in anyone about it. For instance, there's a part where Julie feels bad about obviously ruining a family's life due to an accident, and Helen is actually right there with her, feeling the same shame and guilt. However, instead of understanding Helen and picking up where their friendship left off, Julie coldly shuns her. Sure, Julie feels crappy about what happened last summer, but she's not the only one who's going through it, and in some ways, it makes her kind of selfish, which made it difficult for me to be on her side. However, as the movie progresses, she's not as bad as initially perceived, and she does receive some redemption in the end.

Soon, The Fisherman starts terrorizing the core four to the point where Julie has a mental breakdown...

Now it's time to talk about that scene. The scene that produced countless of parodies and jokes throughout the 90s and 2000s. Yes, it's the "What are you waiting for!" scene. How this came to be was that a teenaged fan requested it, I guess because they thought it might add more dramatic tension but it came off more corny than anything. Hell, Jennifer Love Hewitt didn't even want to say the line. However, at least it's one of the more memorable parts of the movie.

Despite the flaws in her character writing, I thought Jennifer Love Hewitt did a decent job. Whatever you think of the Julie as a character, at least Jennifer Love Hewitt made her tolerable and likable in some moments. I would even argue that Hewitt makes an effective final girl and Scream Queen, especially in the second movie. Overall, Jennifer Love Hewitt ask what was required of her and did her job well.

Finally, we get to our main villian of the piece, The Fisherman. Although he's a normal human man, The Fisherman apparanetly has the powers to hide dead bodies without a trace and teleport out of nowhere. So, throughout the whole movie, the core four have thought to have hit a guy named David Egan, who's aged up from a ten-year-old in the novel to a man in his early to mid twenties in the film. It's pretty clear when you see the body that that is not a twenty-something year old man, he's obviously a guy in his late forites or early fifties in the least. But oh well. In the film version, David was dating a girl named Suzy whom he accidently killed in car crash. Julie thought that David intentionally went to the sea to drown out of guilt but in actuality he was already killed...

The guy that they actually hit was Ben Willis, Suzy's father. Up until that point, The Fisherman makes for effective slasher villian with cool look and a menacing edge, but once he's revealed, he's kind of generic and his motovations are murky. Sure, you could say his reasons for revenge is sympathetic, he did lose a daughter and after getting run over and left for dead in the ocean, but what did that have to do with Max? Or Elsa? Or even the idoit cop? Oh well, I guess he just loves killing for killing's sake. Muse Watson was...okay. Not great. Not memorable. But just okay. Like I said, he could be menacing but the screenplay doesn't do his performance any favors and he just comes off generic.

One of the weirder aspects of the movie is of course the nonsensical writing. None of it is really Kevin Williamson's fault, the producers probably saw dollar signs and decided to greenlight the first draft.

Like I mentioned above, The Fisherman has teleporatation abilites despite being a normal, human man and then there's the scene when Julie discovers Max's dead body in the trunk of her car and just as she drives to Helen's house, the trunk is completely clean with no body in sight. Let me remind you that the trunk was filled with slimly crabs crawling around and not to mention the smell. Then, on top of that, this was all done during the daytime. How could The Fisherman plant a dead body, put crabs all around it, and by the time Julie and the crew go checking on it, completely cleans it out in a nick of time? Think about it, a man in a slicker, in daytime mind you, puts a dead body in a trunk of a car (how did he get the keys?), decorated with crabs, cleans the car out in a span of seconds, then drags the body out, which is obviously heavy, without a trace. There had to be witnesses, there's no way that's logical.

Then there's the part where the idoit cop makes a joke about Helen's haircut, asking her if The Fisherman was the one that cut her hair. Why would that even cross his mind? She probably just decided to get a haircut one day, who knows?

But the most frustrating part of the movie is definitely the climax. So, you have Julie and Ray going toe to toe with Ben Willis. Ray, being the dumbass that he is, gets knocked around and thrown off at the ocean and Julie is the typical damsel in distress: screaming, running around, and expected to be saved. Sidney Prescott, she is not. Speaking of Sidney, she took out two of the killers in the first Scream film. TWO. The only thing Ben Willis has is this measly fishing hook they could easily knock down with a pole or crowbar. It's just so ridiculous. Just by sheer luck, they were able to get away when Ben makes the fatal mistake of getting his fish hook caught on the boat's ropes, pulling him up, severing his hand, and being swung out into the depths of the ocean. It's so over-the-top that it's funny. Unlike the novel, where Julie and Ray decide to confess to the police about the accident, in this version, they decide to just keep it on the hush-hush in terms of why Ben Willis would be after them. And on top of that, the police never found his body. Do I smell sequel bait?

Then we have our cliched happy ending. Everything's fine and dandy and no lingering trauma. Julie and Ray are living in the midst of their young love bliss and Julie seems to be back to her old perky self until there's a message in the shower...Now, originally Julie was supposed to recieve an email titled, I STILL KNOW but the producers thought it was too anticlimatic, so instead she recieved the message in a steaming shower. Maybe as a homage to Pyscho? Heck, I don't know. It's pretty cheesy but, hey, what can you do? As expected, The Fisherman burst through the shower for one last jump scare and that's the end of the movie.

So, what I think of I Know What You Did Last Summer? It's pretty mediorce to be honest with you. It has it's moments such as the Helen chase scene and some of the acting is pretty decent, however, the story could've been executed better. Yeah, it's a slasher movie but it could've had more substance than that. Lois Duncan was actually appalled that they would turn her novel into slasher movie, especially since her daugther was murder not too long ago, which kind of gives it a bad reputation because of it. It's also a movie that's very much of it's time. The poster alone shows that trend of late 90s/early 2000s teen horror that was all the rage back in the day. You have the cast who was part of some popular show either on the WB, ABC, UPN or what not, all scurnched up on the poster with some mysterious entity or killer lurking in the background. I've seen it all, but then again, I don't mind it. I wouldn't say that I Know What You Did Last Summer is my favorite movie. I watch Scream over this any day but at least it's somewhat watchable.

Eventually, this spawned a cult following. Not only did this get two sequels but it also has a TV series and a requel...a freakin requel! Okay, I'll probably have to save that for another time. But until then, this movie was just mildly okay.

My Last Word: Not good. Not bad. Just Okay.

Cape Fear (1962, 1991)

2025-09-25T12:44:00.000-07:00

DISCLAIMER: This was meant to be published by mid-August, but somehow, I accidentally wiped out my whole review, and now I'm a little behind on my "Summer thrillers," but I'm still trucking on, and maybe sometime in September, I'll post my I Know What You Did Last Summer review. So without further ado, here is my review of the Cape Fear films.

Here, I present to you my summer thrillers, based on books, two of which are set in my home state of North Carolina. In this round, we have Cape Fear.

Now I had no idea this was based on a book, so I decided to take a look at it. The book...was not an easy read. You see, it has this issue of "Show, Don't Tell." Although it's a term used for screenplays, this could also be used for novels. Remember the scene where Max confronts Sam at his car? Instead of "showing" this scene, it's explained to us by Sam while he has a picnic with his wife Carol and the kids. Oh, how very suspenseful. Oh, what about the scene where Carol sees Max stalking the family's house? This is also explained by Carol. You see a pattern here? It just takes out the excitement of what's supposed to be a spine-tingling thriller, especially when Sam and Carol are so casual about a man who's potentially stalking their family.

So the story goes like this: Sam Bowden and Max Cady used to be in the army together, and while on a mission in Australia, Sam witnesses Max brutally raping a fourteen-year-old local girl. Sam testifies against him, putting him away for fourteen years of hard labor. Eventually, Sam moved on, married his wife, Carol, and had three kids. Yes, there are three kids instead of one. Oldest Nancy, middle child Jamie, and youngest Bucky. Max, who was married once with a child, but after he was tried and convicted, his wife moved on and got remarried to a plumber, and his kid doesn't even remember him. So Max has come to collect his just due, and he's itching to wreak havoc on Sam's family.

Yes, the premise may sound thrilling and on the edge of your seat, but the execution sucks. Sure, the family gets shaken up when Max poisons the dog, but it's back to your basic family activities. Max only appears in one scene and never appears again until the finale. I guess the author wanted him to be shrouded in mystery, but it never heightens the panic surrounding his character. Sam seems to treat his encounter with Cady as just another day at the park.

Although she plays a pivotal part in both film versions, the teenage daughter, Nancy, doesn't have much of a role (as well as the other kids) in the novel. She is the typical teenage girl who frets and casually dates boys. Not one time does she share a scene with Max, even though she seems to be his main target.

So we go through the middle portion with nothing really going on until we arrive at a bar and have a chat with a woman to whom I refer as "Woman at the Bar." Before I go on, there is just one more pet peeve that I have with this novel, and it is the constant monologues. It's to the point where I ask myself, "Do people really talk like this in real life?" So in this scene in the book, there is yet another monologue where the Woman at the Bar explains her brutal encounter with Max Cady. So as the story goes, she meets up with Max for a good time. She asks too many questions about who he is and what he does to the point where he gets irritated and beats her half to death. Yes, it's not shown, it's explained. In every detail. It just takes away the suspense of it all. Not to mention, The Woman at the Bar is more annoyed than traumatized by what Max did to her. He beat her to a pulp, and there's not an ounce of fear or even a distrust of men. She seems to just waltz into the bar like it's nothing at all.

So, all of a sudden, the middle son, Jamie, gets shot in the arm. This incident actually happened at a summer camp. Yes, Sam and Carol had the brightest idea to drop off their kids at summer camp while there's a psychopath at large. Seriously, that's how careless Sam and Carol are in the novel. And although there is a grave sense of urgency, nothing ever comes of it. Even the son isn't traumatized by the fact that a grown man tried to murder him. He's too happy about the graze on his arm.

Things finally get going when Max rigs the family car, prompting Sam and Carol to take action. Once we get to the climax, Carol uses herself as bait to lure in Max while Sam and a rookie cop target him. So, the plan works...somewhat. Carol gets roughed up while the rookie cop dies from a stab wound. Sam, however, recklessly shoots all around the house until Max gets shot and bled to death in the backyard. That's it. That's the climax of the novel. Are you freakin' kidding me? So after that, the family goes back to normal, enjoying their summer vacation as Sam and Carol contemplate having another child. THE END.

Wow. What a waste of time. I don't see how this is called a 'suspense' novel when there's absolutely no suspense. I actually had to skip a few pages; it was that tedious to read. Other than that, no matter what you think about either film version, at least it's way better than the novel.

Now we get to discuss the 1962 version and, as you know, there were a lot of changes made from the source material. I'm thinking that the screenwriter for the film read the book and was like, "Oh, I have got to punch this up more." And judging by the opening scene, that's exactly what he did.

The film begins with Max walking his way to the courthouse as the booming film score plays, making him a larger-than-life character. The opening scene also subtly establishes Max's true colors. A woman walks by and drops her books, but Max doesn't even bother to help, which shows his total disregard for women. Then two young girls walk by, and Max leers at them, showing how much of a sleazy creep he is.

Max stalks Sam at his workplace, trying to find the right opportunity to confront him, like a tiger waiting for its prey.

Now, the scene where Max confronts Sam could be easily told through narration as Sam recounts the events. Films of that time had a sort of habit of doing that, but I'm glad the scene plays out as it is with an even pace.

The story in the '62 film version is the typical revenge thriller. Sam was simply a lawyer who put Max away, and Max wants to get even.

Alfred Hitchcock was actually in talks to direct, and considering the tawdry subject of the film, this would've been right up his alley. But scheduling conflicts got in the way, and that's when director J. Lee Thompson, who was a fan of Hitchcock's work, stepped in.

Speaking of Hitchcock, many film auteurs would look towards Psycho as being the precursor to the slasher genre, but I would also like to mention Cape Fear as being an inspiration as well, particularly with the chase scenes involving Max and Sam's daughter Nancy. She, running frantically towards the library while Max slowly saunters towards her, is very reminiscent of the Michael/Laurie chase scene in 1978's Halloween.

The film was produced by Gregory Peck's production company, Melville Productions. So it may, Gregory Peck was cast as the lead. This would also mark his second acting role, playing a lawyer when he starred in To Kill A Mockingbird in the same year. Gregory Peck, of course, does a solid job as Sam Bowden, fitting in nicely into the good guy role.

For the role of Carol, now Peggy Bowden, actress Polly Bergen was one of the last actors to be cast. From what I observe, it's a very passable role that any actress could play; however, Polly Bergen does a good job of what she's given. Though there is one thing that I liked about the book, yes, I'm going to throw a bone here, is the witty banter between Sam and Carol, which seems to be missing in the film version. I also liked the fact that she wasn't the typical hysterical woman, and she had an intelligence about her, which made her and Sam a great team when it came to problem-solving. And another thing, I liked that she was very fearless and gung-ho about killing Max Cady, making her fiercely protective of her family, and quite frankly, an all-out badass to be honest. Sadly, she just wasn't given much to do here.

For the role of Nancy, J. Lee Thompson wanted Hayley Mills, who worked with him in his previous film, Tiger Bay, but she was unavailable, so Lori Martin was cast in the role instead. Unfortunately, Thompson gave her a really hard time on the set, all because he couldn't cast Mills in the role, but this was at a time when she was mostly known for her Disney projects, which would probably be a bit jarring to some viewers to see her in a film where a rapist is stalking her. So, I think Lori Martin is really solid in the role, capturing the innocence and vulnerability of her character, especially in the scenes between her and Robert Mitchum, which are the most effective and bone-chilling moments of the film.

As they were developing the character of Max Cady, the studio execs didn't want to portray Max as a war veteran because it might reflect badly on the military. Even though it was well past the 1940s and well into the early 1960s, this was still a very patriarchal time. As for the casting, actor Telly Savalas screen-tested for the role but eventually went for the role of Private Eye Charlie Sievers instead. From how he's described in the novel, I think actor Yul Bryner would've been good as Max Cady, as he would portray a rather intimidating villain in the film, Westworld. However, Peck and Thompson had their eye on Robert Mitchum, who was known to be a film noir staple at the time. Mitchum wanted no part of it, but Gregory Peck and his production team lured him in with a bouquet of flowers and a bottle of bourbon. Robert Mitchum knocks it out of the park as the sleazily maniacal Cady. He's very slow and methodical, and from that cold stare, you know he's up to no good. Like I said previously, Max and Nancy shared no scenes together, but Screenwriter James R. Webb amps up the tension by adding in cat-and-mouse scenes to really show how much of a dangerous threat Max truly is. Furthermore, having Sam's daughter to be his one and only target adds more to the suspense, considering what he's capable of.

After his fair of stalking and harassing Sam, Max has his eye on at The Woman At The Bar, a drifter named Diane. Instantly enraptured by his southern charm, Diane tags along with him.

But as it follows the events of the book, we know something's bad going to happen.

After her horrible ordeal, the police convince Diane to testify, but, worried about having to recount what Max did to her in each agonizing detail in the newspapers, Diane refuses and gets the hell out of Dodge. The police do a piss poor job of convincing her, by the way. Showing her various photos of Max's victims really didn't help much, and, of course, it would scare her off, so the police really messed up Sam's chances of protecting his family, which led Sam to take drastic measures, such as hiring some thugs to beat Max up at the behest of private eye Charlie Sievers. But they are no match for Cady, as he takes them out one by one. With fewer options available, Sam hides his family in their boathouse. This is where the climax of the film takes place.

It's not long until Max scopes out their location. This is where he slowly transforms into an animalistic caveman as he takes off his shirt and swims towards the houseboat like a shark. He kills the cop on duty and bursts his way in to attack Peggy.

While molesting her and shaking her around like a ragdoll, Max pushes Peggy aside and has his sights on his true target, Sam's daughter Nancy.

The way Max leers at Nancy with that smug look while she cowers in fear is known to be one of the scariest moments.

Nancy tries to defend herself with a firepoker, but Max grabs hold of her. He forces her outside until he sees Sam, his ultimate true target, and pushes her aside to go after him.

The two go at it in this epic battle. Just when Max gets the upper battle and seemingly drowns him, Sam emerges from the water and hits Max with a rock.

He grabs the gun, wounds him with a gunshot, and...doesn't kill him. Sam goes on this long speech about how Max is going to spend the rest of his life in prison, and, just like that, the Bowden family drives off to safety. That's it. That's the end. Wow, what a disappointing ending to an overall decent film. It's actually way more anti-climactic than the book. Now I wouldn't say that the film is perfect. It's very of its time, and it has this moral compass of "Thou Shalt Not Kill," which leaves no excitement in the ending. Not that Sam had to kill Max, but it just needed to be more engaging instead of some half-ass speech.

Now, it's time to discuss the 1991 version, and, spoiler alert! This is my favorite adaptation.

First and foremost, I would like to talk about the amazing credit sequence. It starts off with this liquid, watery effect, superimposed with these unsettling images. The updated score is now accompanied by Elmer Bernstein, and it's freakin epic! This time it comes with a mighty force. Then we transition to Danielle, the Bowdens' teenage daughter, reciting her short story, which sets up the events of the film.

That's when we get to our next transition of Robert Deniro as Max Cady, pumping iron in his jail cell. This comes to show that this version of Cady means business, and he's not taking ANY prisoners.

Of course, there are some changes to the main story, but director Martin Scorsese made sure to make Max's revenge a bit more personal this time. Sam was actually Max's defense attorney, but because of the heinous nature of the crime, Sam concealed the evidence that would've cleared Max. Unsurprisingly, he rots in prison for fourteen years. And what was this evidence that would've gotten Max off the hook? Before I answer that, I'm going to go on a tangent. So, there's your warning. This evidence involved the victim being promiscuous, to which I say, Why the fuck does that even matter? Why would anyone think that just because a woman has had a few sexual partners, she deserves to be savagely beaten and raped? Sure, Sam did screw Max over by not revealing this evidence, but why is that relevant to the case? Why would Max get away with this crime? Because the girl was promiscuous? I don't get it. And that's what makes this version a whole lot more interesting to me. The book and the 62' film seem to uphold the justice system to a higher standard, but in this version, it criticizes it and shows how corrupt the justice system really is. For instance, both Sam and Max use the law to one-up each other; that's how broken the system is. It's misconceived, mishandled, and everybody gets hurt in the end. Diane went through hell in the 62' version. When the police interviewed her, there was no empathy, no comfort. They just pressured her to testify against Cady, not knowing that she had to go through a lot of therapy and counseling just to get through the process.

Then there's Sam's law clerk, Lori, in this version played by Illeana Douglas, who's a very underrated actress, by the way. She's more than just some woman at the bar; she's an actual character.

Lori is witty, bubbly, personable, and overall likable. Sure, she has a crush on Sam, who is a married man and is a bit flirtatious, but it's all fairly innocent, and in most cases, it happens to the best of us. Lori eventually becomes a character you care about.

Knowing that Sam won't reciprocate her feelings, Lori goes to a bar all on her lonesome...until she meets Max. It starts off innocent. Max with his cool, suave, southern charm, Lori with her girlish bubbliness. Oh no, nothing goes wrong here...

But once they hit the bedroom, the worst is yet to come. This time, the scene is not described in heavy detail like the book, nor is it unseen like the original. The scene is shown in full view, and it's disturbing to watch.

Max doesn't just beat her; he utterly destroys her, and I think the reason why he targeted Lori was not because he wanted to get his fix, but because he wanted to send a message to Sam. If anyone's close to him, whether that be a family member or a colleague, he'd hunt them down just to get the message clear. Not only is Lori's suffering disturbing, but it's also sad. The once bubbly, perky law clerk is now battered, bruised, and traumatized. So what would prevent Lori from testifying against Max? Well, the answer is Lori was openly flirting with her employer, to which I say, Why the fuck does that matter? Sure, it could also be that Lori would be uncomfortable being cross-examined by her colleagues, but still, this woman was basically savaged and beaten half to death, isn't that evidence enough? It all just comes to show that the law continues to fail women.

The Bowdens aren't your happy-go-lucky 1950s family like the book and the original. There's actually a lot of angst and turmoil that's hidden beneath their perfect facade.

Sam Bowden is far from a straight-laced good guy. As mentioned above, he is an unsavory lawyer who screwed over his client. Also, not too long ago, he had an affair on his wife. So it shows that Sam is a very flawed character, but it doesn't make him a bad person. Max, in a way, represents Sam's atonement, facing his shortcomings but also overcoming them to save his family.

Originally, Martin Scorsese wanted Harrison Ford in the role, and I can definitely see that. He matches the same energy as Gregory Peck's strong, suave everyman type. However, Ford was more interested in playing Max Cady, I guess, so he wanted to break away from being typecast as the hero all the time. That's when Nick Nolte stepped in, and he actually fought to get the role. Since Nolte is known for playing the tough guy, it's a good change of pace that he plays a less action-oriented and yet still commanding role. I feel like the flaws in Sam's character bring out the best in Nick Nolte's performance. You can tell that he's a man who seeks atonement for the wrong that he's done by fighting off Max Cady's manipulations and winning his family over, which makes Sam a much more interesting character than in the book and original.

Leigh, formerly known as Carol, has a lot more agency than her '62 counterpart. From what we know about Leigh is that she's prone to emotional fits. Still, you really can't blame her, considering that her husband had an affair on her and that the psychopathic Max Cady has poisoned her dog and is stalking her family, again on Sam's accord.

Furthermore, this makes Leigh a very sympathetic character, especially when it's mentioned that she went through a long depression due to her marriage crisis.

In the climax, she tries to reassure Max that she knows what it's like to be in isolation, even though Max is too much of a sociopath to let her get through to him. But at least she tried using her empathy to save her family, which makes her the emotional core of the film.

Diane Keaton was in talks to play Leigh Bowden, but didn't get the part. Eventually, the legendary Jessica Lange, who wanted to work with Martin Scorsese, won the part, and boy, does she act her ass off. By giving Leigh more dimension and more to work with, it gives the opportunity to let Lange's acting prowess shine.

Danielle, formerly known as Nancy, is now an angsty teen with hidden desires. She is not quite the dutiful daughter like in the original, and throughout the film, she's pretty much at odds with her dad. Just like any other typical '90s teen, she likes to smoke pot, listen to rock n' roll, and has a passion for creative writing. The thing about Danielle is that she's an observer. She's not just some kid who hangs around the background; she knows things. She's...curious. And it's that curiosity that leads her to Max Cady. Danielle is not terrified of him; she's more fascinated. I actually find that to be even more disturbing. Yes, I will talk about "that scene," but I'll save that for the Max Cady section.

Danielle eventually takes the wool from her eyes and sees what a monster Cady truly is, which prompts her to take drastic measures for survival. I have to hand it to Danielle; she is quite the ultimate badass during the climax.

Christina Applegate, Shannon Doherthy, Reese Witherspoon, Winona Ryder, and Drew Barrymore were sought out for the role of Danielle Bowden.

Drew Barrymore would've been an interesting choice, considering that she was a troubled teen herself. Had she gotten the role, the part would've been meta in context. However, in Barrymore's words, she totally blew the audition, and it was because she was around a Hollywood Heavyweight like Robert De Niro and got totally nervous.

Enter Juliette Lewis, who did a few supporting roles and was just fresh off a TV movie with her then-boyfriend Brad Pitt. Lewis absolutely knocks it out of the park, and it helps that Juliette herself was 17 years old, which makes her performance more authentic. She's innocent yet intense, and you can tell that intensity is breaking out from the compounds of her childhood to adulthood. This performance shows how versatile an actress she is. Lewis got nominated for an Oscar and deservedly so. When it comes to Juliette Lewis' career, the rest is history. She became a cult '90s favorite, and hopefully, she'll be able to get that golden statue. Fingers crossed.

Now we have crossed into the final boss of the section. Without further ado, here is Robert De Niro as Max Cady. Holy crap! His whole performance is like a hellish rollercoaster ride. I would literally go on and on about how insanely good his performance is, but first, let's explore the many machinations of Max Cady.

In this updated version, Cady is a loud, abrasive fundamentalist who labels himself as the punisher of law and justice. He even has tattoos to prove it. Plus, there is nothing scarier than a psychopathic fundamentalist with a god complex. Max, this time, isn't quiet in his approach; he makes his presence known.

First, he becomes a nuisance, cackling loudly in the movie theater, smoking his cigar, just to fuck with Sam. Then there's the creeping and stalking that soon leads to him poisoning Leigh's poor dog. Soon, Max Machinations becomes more violent and confrontational. First, there's the attack on Lori, and then, Max does the most despicable thing of all...he attempts to seduce Sam's teenage daughter.

Ok, now it's time to talk about "that scene.

Initially, it was going to be a typical chase scene similar to the original, but Scorsese decided to make it a seduction instead, which I find to be twice as disturbing. At first, it does seem like it's building up to be a chase scene as Danielle saunters quietly into the auditorium. When she sees Max, Danielle is scared, but slowly, she is swept up by his impeccable southern charm. Again, I would like to point out how amazing Juliette Lewis' acting is. She's scared, she's shy, she's awkward, she's intrigued. She has all these emotions, and she still comes off as authentic. This was her moment to shine.

But this is when the scene gets really uncomfortable. Now that Max has shown his intellectual and chivalrous side, he has got Danielle hook, line, and sinker. She is now trapped in his web, and that's when he entices her...then kisses her. It got me to wonder that this is probably what happened to the girl he assaulted those many years ago. Just from that encounter, Max leaves a lasting impression on Danielle.

This time, Sam decides to take action and hires a couple of thugs to take Max down a peg.

Not only does Max take them down one by one, but he senses Sam hiding behind an alleyway and makes a long speech about how he will conquer all, beating down any mere man who challenges him. It's a really chilling monologue, and De Niro absolutely sells it. Although he knows he's hiding, he doesn't attack Sam physically. Oh no. He uses the LAW on his side.

Special mention to Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck, who made cameo appearances. This time, Robert Mitchum is on the side of good, portraying Lieutenant Elgart, who's working with Sam, and Gregory Peck is a sleazy, holier-than-thou lawyer who represents Max in his restraining order case.

Yes, you heard that right. Max puts a restraining order against Sam. So not only is Sam's job on the line, but Max has the power to stalk, harass, and possibly kill Sam whenever he pleases. Let's just say that Sam is royally fucked, and he has to try every method to keep Max at bay.

Before we get to the climax, let's talk about the pure awesomeness of Robert De Niro. He is beyond dynamite!

You won't believe this, but Bill Murray of all people was approached to play Max Cady. Murray was known for playing in comedies at the time, so it would've been jarring to see him in this type of role. Not that he would've been bad, he can play well in serious dramatic roles, but playing a heinous psychotic criminal like Cady, I still question that.

Other actors such as Nicholas Cage (very interesting choice), Brad Dourif (another interesting choice), and Jack Nicholson were also considered.

But then there's Willem Dafoe, a definite runner-up, as he would match Max's chaotic, unhinged depravity.

However, Robert De Niro, who was a lifelong collaborator of Martin Scorsese, landed the role, and he gives it his all. He went so far as to go to a dentist to file his teeth in, choosing his own wardrobe, and perfecting his southern accent for at least 2-3 months. Of course, it all paid off in the end.

De Niro's performance is so memorable that it might even overshadow Mitchum's portrayal. Yes, I know that's a controversial take, but I think Robert De Niro's version of Max Cady is much scarier, in my opinion. Think about this, Mitchum is sneaky like a snake. He slicks, he slithers, until he eats his prey. De Niro, on the other hand, is like a wild, feral animal that jumps and claws at your face. He's unpredictable, and that's the reason why he's so intimidating.

This was Robert De Niro's movie, fair and square, and he comes in like a hurricane. He plays a character that you're repulsed by, but at the same time, you can't keep your eyes off him. That's how great his performance is.

Now we finally get to the Rising Conflict as Sam is on the lookout with the help of private investigator Claude Kersek.

But as you all know, as it happened in the book and the original, Max kills Kersek, and even kills Danielle's beloved maid, Graciela. So, this prompts the Bowden family to flee on their houseboat, but just in the nick of time, Max finds them. How, you may ask? He hides under their car. There's a moment where he gets out from under the car, and a woman has a look that reads, "What the fuck?" I just couldn't help but laugh.

Now we finally get to the climax, where the Bowden family fights off Max. It may suffer from ending fatigue, but it's a whole lot better than the original movie's ending. The action takes place in this epic rainstorm, and you're constantly on the edge of your seat.

After Danielle sets him on fire, sending him down into the ocean, Max springs out like a bat out of hell. Now, riddled with these Freddy Kruger-like burn sores, Max has unveiled himself as the monster he truly is, no longer hiding under a suave southern facade.

When the houseboat is completely demolished, Sam and Max duke it out one last time. Just as Sam grabs a rock to give Max the final blow, the raging sea washes him away. I see this as a sort of nature vs. man type of thing. Maybe Mother Nature has its own beef with Max Cady.

Deep into the bowels of the ocean, Max slowly sinks to the surface, his eyes still burning into Sam. But, eventually, that fire has now been extinguished.

Although the Bowden family survived the wrath of Max Cady, the trauma is still there. Well, at least Danielle has something to write in her short story. That final shot of Danielle staring out into the sea is so haunting, and it's an image that will seep into your brain. That is how you do an ending. Not some anticlimactic death or self-righteous speech, but a narration on the exploration of trauma and how to deal with it.

Okay, I'm just gonna say it right off the bat, the consensus says that this is the better adaptation. I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Hell, not even a year later or so, after the film, The Simpsons, yes, The Simpsons did a parody of this movie. If The Simpsons make a parody of your film, you've got a classic on your hands.

Iconic lines, Iconic scenes, great writing, great acting, this is, hands down, one of the best remakes so far.

I heard there was a TV series in development, starring Javier Bardem as Max Cady, Amy Adams as Leigh/Amanda Bowden, and Patrick Wilson as Sam/Tom Bowden. Yeah, those are good actors, and I'll know they'll do an awesome job, but I don't think it will be half as good as the 1991 version. It's at the top of the charts for me, and it's one of Martin Scorsese's best films.

My Last Word: The '91 version all the way. Highly recommend it.

La Femme Nikita (1990) Vs The Point of No Return (1993)

2025-06-01T19:54:00.000-07:00

In film school, I researched the French film movement known as Cinema Du Look. It was a more modernized version of the French New Wave set for the 80s and 90s, with distinct art pop music video-like visuals. The most popular of these films was La Femme Nikita, directed by Luc Besson. Now, just like I said about Roman Polanski, Luc Besson is a bit of a weirdo, but that's not the main topic. After all, I'm only focusing on his directing style, which is pretty iconic. Though there is no denying that Le Femme Nikita is a kickass film. From the screenplay, the performances, the action sequences, and the visuals. Everything about this movie just works.

What I liked about La Femme Nikita was that it didn't go by the usual cliched tropes associated with most female-driven action films. Nikita isn't this overpowered Mary-Sue. She's not overly confident, not highly skilled, nor is she highly moral either. She's a flawed character with a fully realized story arc. It starts with her being this teen junkie who kills a cop in cold blood and soon gets tried, convicted, and sentenced to death by lethal injection. But there's a twist. A government agency, known as The Centre, fakes her death to recruit her as an assassin.

Nikita undergoes genuine character development, getting to experience a new chance at life, but at a great cost. She has to kill to get by, and the whole conflict of the movie is that Nikita is a reluctant participant.

The most riveting part of La Femme Nikita is the underlying sexual tension Nikita has with her very sexy instructor, Bob. Although it's hinted that they might consummate their feelings, Nikita's resentment of him prevents that.

When she's finally allowed to experience the outside world, Nikita moves on to date and later gets engaged to Marco, a humble grocery store cashier. This is one of the best examples of a love triangle put on screen because Bob and Marco represent the crossroads of Nikita's life. Bob represents danger and mystery, while Marco represents normalcy and stability. Therefore, this serves a narrative purpose rather than a run-of-the-mill romantic storyline.

For instance, Bob arrives at their apartment unceremoniously with an ever-growing tension between the three of them. Bob softens the blow by introducing himself as a distant family member of Nikita and tells a very visceral account of her "childhood" days. This ultimately wins Marco over, and Bob rewards them with a trip to Venice...but with a cost. It's all fun and romantic bliss, but this turns out to be a ploy for Bob to give Nikita another "assassination assignment," which was very cruel by the way. Maybe he's jealous?

Nikita is not having it, and she confronts Bob for his trickery. But first, she has to look good doing it, and boy, does she pull it off. Anne Palluriud is dynamite, absolutely stunning! This is one of my favorite outfits in the movie, and it really gives off that art pop feel of the Cinema Du Look culture.

Bob eventually gives in and promises Nikita that the next assignment will be her last. This turns out to be one of her most risky and dangerous missions yet.

Everything went well at first, where Nikita and an accomplice are assigned to steal some secret documents held by The Ambassador, but The Ambassador cannot be hurt. Everything goes well when Nikitia knocks The Ambassador out by forcing him with a sleeping drug while her accomplice puts on a disguise of The Ambassador. But at the very last minute, The Division finds out that The Ambassador uses a password with his guards every day, and he usually changes it. This is a major screwup on The Division's part, and Nikita's accomplice panics, prompting The Centre to call in "The Cleaner."

Here's where the special guest star comes in. Jean Reno, a staple of the Cinema Du Look movement, stars as Victor the Cleaner. He's more like the unstable, unhinged version of his character, Leon from Leon the Professional, another famous Cinema Du Look film also directed by Besson and also starring a young Natalie Portman in her first role. Victor is sent in to clean up the mess that The Centre made for themselves, but the thing about Victor is that he's a bit gun-crazy and isn't afraid to shoot anybody in his way, even if it's his own colleagues. So, Victor comes to dispose of the bodies left behind and... turns out, The Ambassador is still alive, suffocating and melting from the dissolving liquid. Nikita's accomplice is still freaking out and in a moment of a panic, he stupidly pulls out a gun at Victor, which prompts Victor to instally shoot him. With time running out, he forces Nikita to finish the mission, and soon Nikita takes the place of her recently deceased accomplice, dressing up as The Ambassador and sneaks in to steal the secret documents. Now the mission would've gone smoothly if it weren't for Victor's recklessness. Every time a guard stops to question him, he shoots them...just because. This sort of explains how Victor is not as competent as he comes off. Of course, the mission goes awry, and the armed guards begin forcing their way to them. Victor, being the idiot that he is, starts shooting back, not only getting himself killed, but almost getting Nikita killed in the process.

Thankfully, Nikita flees the scene unscathed. After her ordeal, Nikita takes a long, hot shower, as she should, and confesses to Marco about her secret life and that she stole some documents that could put her in jeopardy. Being the understanding boyfriend that he is, Marco supports her. The two of them make love for one last time before Nikita goes on the run.

In the final scene, Bob comes to find Nikita and informs Marco that he must know about her whereabouts because of the stolen documents from The Embassy. Although Marco refuses to put Nikita under the bus, Marco hands the documents over to Bob. Soon, the two men come to realize that Nikita might never come back, and they agree that they'll both miss her deeply.

So that was La Femme Nikita and it's definitely not only a Cinema Du Look classic but also a classic in the French action genre. Inevitably, a remake was underway. First, it was remade as a Hong Kong action film called Black Cat, but the most egregious and the one I'll be mostly focusing on is:

The Point of No Return, directed by John Badham and starring Bridget Fonda.

Now, on paper, this seems like a good idea. You have John Badham, a director known for making classic films such as Saturday Night Fever, Dracula, Blue Thunder, WarGames, Short Circuit, and Stakeout, and then you have Bridget Fonda, who was a rising star at the time. Between the late 80s and early 90s, Hollywood had this trend of remaking popular French films, and La Femme Nikita just happened to be one of them. The result...not so great.

Everything subtle about the original is cranked up to eleven. For instance, let's examine the two opening scenes:

The opening scene in the original film fades into a quiet, desolate street, setting the atmosphere. The intense yet subtle rock'n' roll music score elevates the rising tension as the camera focuses on the gang of hoodlums going on a robbing spree. Again, it's the buildup, the anticipation that makes the scene engaging. Then, once the opening reaches its boiling point, it totally pays off, breaking out into a chaotic frenzy with the police shootout and then slowing back down when Nikita commits her crime. It's truly an achievement.

The opening scene in The Point of No Return, however, is very OVERWHELMING. A lot is going on. There are helicopters, police sirens, people yelling and screaming, not to mention the janky camera edits that keep things out of focus, which makes it hard to tell what's going on. The music score is your typical 90s heavy metal, complete with a female vocalist doing her "oohs" and "ahhs". It's all very generic. The music score was made by Hans Zimmer, and he can be hit or miss sometimes, but this score in particular is probably his weakest.

Then there's Bridget Fonda in the lead role as Maggie/Nina. Although Fonda is a decent actress, I do not buy her as this wayward drug addict turned trained assassin. I think this type of role would've fit well with somebody like Angelina Jolie or a Gina Gershon; a kind of actress that has a "bad girl" edge to her. Bridget Fonda gives more of a Girl Next Door vibe. To further my comparisons to the original and remake, in the 1990 version, the filmmakers went out of their way to make Anne Palluriud really grungy-looking, and once she gets the makeover, the change in her appearance is very effective. But in The Point of Return, there's not much of a difference with Bridget Fonda's appearance. All they do is give her a black wig, no makeup, with a few cuts on her face, and unflattering clothing. That's it. There's nothing that awestruck about her makeover either. The winged hairstyle doesn't really make me believe that she's turned into a dangerous woman; nothing about it screams "mysteriously enticing." Of course, Bridget Fonda is good with what she's given, but I thought she played it a bit too safe in my opinion. It's not as raw and complex as Anne Palluriud's performance.

Gabriel Byrne as Bob didn't cut it for me. Again, his performance wasn't bad, but it was very phoned in. Now, Gabriel Byrne is a handsome man, but he just doesn't have sex appeal. The actor who played Bob in the original had a quiet, suave, mysterious allure to him, which added to his sex appeal, whereas Gabriel Byrne comes off as a concerned dad.

The chemistry between Bridget Fonda and Gabriel Byrne is so non-existent. It's not steamy, not spicy, and really doesn't get that push and pull that was palpable between Nikita and Bob from the original.

The chemistry between her and Dermont Mulroney was much more believable in my opinion. This time, his name is J.P., who is a landlord and part-time photographer. Her romance with J.P. was a lot more invested and spicy, and is probably one of the few highlights of the movie.

The writing is as cliche as you might expect. Adding in these cheesy one-liners and a scene where Maggie and J.P. are vacationing in New Orleans, and, just like any other cliched action film, a group of thugs attempts to mug them, only for Maggie to knock them all out at once. Very typical.

But the most random moment of the film is its third act.

So this is Maggie's supposed last mission. She is assigned to masquerade as Angela, the spoiled girlfriend of Fahd Bakhitar, an Iranian business magnate trading in nuclear weapons. Just like in the original, Maggie has to simply incapacitate Angela, but of course, things go awry, which results in the deaths of two bodyguards and the injury of her partner, Beth.

So here comes a special guest star in the form of Harvey Keitel as Victor the Cleaner who is sent by The Agency to fix the mission but, in actuality, he's sent there to kill Magge and Beth for screwing up. Unlike the original Victor, who was a reckless idiot, this Victor is a ruthless killing machine and is close to being the film's antagonist. He tries to dissolve the bodies only to discover that Anglea is still alive and Beth, just like her counterpart, starts freaking out, which results in Victor killing her even though she did not once pull out a gun on him. Watching her partner die in front of her, Maggie is forced to finish the mission, not knowing what's in store for her.

The mission goes as planned, but the target, Fahd Bakhitar, escapes his assassination, and Maggie is forced to flee.

The tension rises as Maggie and Victor escape the scene. She sees that he has a gun strapped to his side and, upon instinct, starts fighting him off. Victor is a pretty strong dude and almost gets the upper hand, but Maggie pulls down a STARTING vehicle on him, crushing him to death down a deep hill.

After her near-death experience, Maggie finally confesses to J.P. about her secret life, and he agrees to hide her out for her safety. When Bob goes to look for her, J.P. tells him that she's suddenly disappeared and doesn't go any further about her whereabouts. But once he goes outside, Bob sees a silhouette of Maggie in an alleyway. Instead of reporting her, he calls the agency to inform that The Cleaner is dead, and with some hesitation, informs that Maggie is dead too.

So in the last shot of the film, Maggie goes out into the sunset, free as a bird. The End.

Yeah...this wasn't as good as the original. Sure, you can look at it as your run-of-the-mill 90s action movie, but the original was much more than that. It was a thought-provoking, complex character study of a woman being trapped between two worlds, and the American version just didn't hit the same beats; it's not as engaging or organic.

There was a TV series that came out a couple of years later, titled La Femme Nikita, which premiered on the USA Network. I saw snippets of this here and there, but I've never really gotten to watch it the whole way through. But now that I'm a Nikita enthusiast, I might give it a watch a maybe put it up for review one day.

Lastly, there was another TV series that premiered on the CW starring Maggie Q. The plot plays out much differently this time around. Nikita, after working for The Division for three years, is back to bring down the organization with the help of a young recruit. I've watched most of the first season, but I kind of checked out after that. Most of it wasn't that bad, but I wasn't totally invested in it either.

Well, this is where I choose which version is the best. And it's the 1990 French version. Everything about it just works, and it's most likely one of my favorite films of all time. However, The Point of Return just doesn't have the same magic, and that makes it a very forgettable film in my opinion.

My Last Word: Yes, check out Nikita (1990). It's definitely worth your time.

Single White Female (1992)

2025-04-28T08:42:00.000-07:00

I am so excited to be talking about this! I've seen this movie 50 times by now, and my dad actually owned the VHS tape. I watched this at an age when I wasn't supposed to. And boy, was I in for a surprise. Sex and Violence, oh my! This came out during the wave of the "from hell" movies that were very popular during the 90s. For Example: You have The Tenant From Hell in Pacific Heights, The Nanny From Hell in The Hand That Rocks The Cradle, the Best Friend From Hell in Posion Ivy, The Neighbor From Hell in The Crush, The Temp Worker From Hell in The Temp, The Boss From Hell in Disclosure, You even have the Paperboy From Hell in The Paperboy, and let's not forget The Boyfriend From Hell in Fear. So, yeah, these movies were inescapable back in the day and pretty much gave Lifetime a run for its money. In this case, Single White Female is the one who started it all. In this corner, we have The Roommate From Hell.

I had no idea this was based on a novel, but until recently, I finally had a chance to read it. From what I gather, the movie is only loosely based on the novel. Yes, the characters' names are the same, same location, and same scenario, but not quite as similar as the movie turned out. This plays out more like a crime novel than a full suspense novel, and it's not as intense, though it is an easy read. Not the best novel ever, but it's alright.

Allie is a blonde in the novel, and from how she's described, she's kind of a cross between model/actress Lauren Hutton and actress Kate Vernon. Allie's boyfriend, Sam Rawson, while sympathetic in the film, is a scoundrel through and through. In fact, Allie catches Sam and Hedra (wearing a wig similar to Allie's hair) having sex in full view. Sure, you would think, oh well, he's probably mistaken for her for Allie, but no, Sam knew it was Hedra, it's just the sex was too good for him to stop it, which eventually leads to his rather brutal demise. Allie's neighbor and friend, Graham, is not gay and, in fact, was married once. He is now a waiter turned playwright who has a bit of a crush on Allie, though, unfortunately, he gets killed off-screen with a mention that Hedra might've run him over just as he was getting attention for his off-Broadway play while writing a script titled SWF Seeks Same. As for Hedra Carlson, she's much more cunning and manipulative and comes off more like the typical Femme Fatale you see in those Lifetime movie thrillers, unlike the film version where she's bumbling and doesn't think things through. The novel is a slow burn, just like the movie. It starts off with Allie receiving obscene phone calls, which turns out to be one of Hedra's kinky wanton lovers who mistaken her for Allie, of course, but just as the plot thickens in the middle portion, when Hedra frames her for Sam's murder, Allie goes on the run. This section takes up half the novel, and while it was a little exciting at first, it started to drag for a bit. Now, in this version, Allie's slimy boss Mitchell Mayfair (Myerson in the film version) doesn't die, but she does break into his apartment to steal his jewelry and his laptop when times get rough. Allie pawns Mitchell's items at a pawn shop, but the owner's suspicions begin to rise, and eventually, the police come to arrest Allie. From then on, our focus is on Hedra, who initially seems to get away with her schemes and eventually styles her hair like Allie's, but sooner or later, she gets caught once she tries to move into the same apartment. There's a minor character named Detective Kennedy who helps out with Allie's case, but he doesn't appear in the movie, which I think is for the best. With Hedra put away, Allie turns a new leaf and moves back to her home state of Illinois where she enjoys a quieter, simpler life. The End.

This is one of the few instances where I like the movie better than the book, and I feel that the climax in the movie was much more thrilling compared to the rather dull pacing of the novel, which waned my interest far too soon. Overall, it was okay for what it was.

This was the first feature script written by TV writer Dan Roos alongside French New Wave director Barbet Schroeder. Dan Roos added a bit more character development, soap operatic twists, and horror movie elements that made the script more engaging than the book. Speaking of engaging, Director Barbet Schroeder added a certain style and tone that fit well within the erotic thriller craze. Not only is there a mysterious allure to the setting of New York, but there's also a girliness innocence, particularly with Allie and Hedie's bonding scenes. The light before the darkness. That's what I've always loved about Single White Female. It's one of those movies that starts as a drama but slowly builds into a suspense/thriller/horror type of movie.

Now, the really interesting part is the casting of the movie. Now, don't laugh at this one. I totally respect this person, and she kills it as a dramatic actress, but the part of Allison Jones was going to be given to none other than...

Whoopi Goldberg

Now from a business standpoint, this doesn't seem like a bad idea. Whoopi Goldberg just won an Oscar for her supporting role in Ghost, and the "From Hell" movies were riding high at the box office. But I can't help to say that this would've been a completely different movie. This was also the same year when Whoopi starred in Sister Act, a lighthearted comedy about a nightclub singer posing as a nun to avoid the mob. I would imagine that this version of Single White Female can still be a serious film, but with a hint of comedy in it. Eventually, Whoopi backed out, and with Schroeder taking over the movie, he had a different approach, which would lead more into the dark, mysterious, erotic-thriller side of things.

It all went down to the casting of Bridget Fonda, who was, of course, the daughter of award-winning actor Peter Fonda and was also part of an acting family dynasty along with her aunt Jane Fonda. Bridget Fonda would become an award-winning actress herself, starring in either abstract art films or controversial indie films. So she would be the perfect candidate to star in an erotic thriller directed by a French New Wave director.

I would like to take a moment to gush over the fabulous setting of the film, the historic Cody Arms. The building comes off like a character of itself and is the perfect setting for a horror movie. I would even compare it to The Bramford from Rosemary's Baby, invoking that feeling of claustrophobia and paranoia as the walls are caving in on you, where an anonymous figure can pop out and get you when you're at your most helpless. This especially works within the climax, where the suspense is at an all-time high.

Now, on the actual movie. Before I get to our darling leading ladies, I want to get the men out of the way, although all three of the male characters do serve a purpose in the plot.

First, we have Sam Rawson, played by the very attractive Steven Weber. Unlike the complete douchebag that he was in the novel, the movie potrays Sam in a sympathetic light. Instead of just a random hookup, the character of Lisa is now Sam's ex-wife, which explains the connection between them. Lisa apparently wanted some emotional support, which eventually led to Sam cheating on Allie.

Slowly but surely, Allie and Sam get back together, which doesn't sit well with Hedy, who's grown attached to Allie. This causes her to do the unthinkable...

Late one night, while posing as Allie, Hedy sneaks to Sam's hotel room, climbs into bed while he's sleeping and proceeds to give him a blowjob...without his consent. When Sam wakes up, he realizes this isn't Allie that's doing this, and just as he attempts to push Hedy away, he instantly climaxes. Out of all the crimes Hedy has committed, this is probably the worst of them all. Killing a poor, innocent dog might be on the list, too, but this also counts. This is one of the few depictions of male sexual assault that's portrayed as serious. There's another movie called Thursday that also features sexual male assault, and it's not sexy or erotic at all. It's downright disturbing because the male victim is a happily married man. So, in this instance, this makes Sam a sympathetic character. Sam feels utterly violated and rightfully so. Hedy begs him to leave Allie alone, but Sam refuses and is adamant about telling Allie the truth. In a fit of rage, Hedy throws a shoe at him. And just when Sam charges at her...

Hedy stabs him in the eye with the pointy end of her stellitto. Sam has become Hedy's first murder victim...

Then there's Allie's slimebag boss Mitchell Myerson, played by character actor Stephen Tobolowsky, who also had a small role in another erotic thriller, Basic Instinct. Mitchell in the novel was a lot more tame, and that's to put it mildly. He's still a sexist, perverted asshole but he only merely propositioned Allie for sex.

However, in the film version, he almost sexually assaults her. This was also at a time when women in the workforce were going through some rather unsavory situations, such as sexual abuse. Sometimes, the woman is a willing participant, but only because she wants to reach a higher level at her job. This kind of thing still goes on, unfortunately, but unlike the year this movie was made, at least they're people speaking out about it. Allie doesn't want any of it and gives Mitchell a good punch to the balls.

After this ordeal, Hedy feels that Allie didn't get her just due and gets her to wipe out his personal accounts. Mitchell freaks the fuck out and makes a dash to Allie's apartment.

Just as Hedy blocks his way, Mitchell fights her off and actually attempts to save Allie. Though not out of virtue, more out of saving his own ass. He thinks he got the best of Hedy, but it's only his ego. Hedy eventually knocks him out and puts two bullets in his head. Mitchell becomes Hedy's second murder victim.

Finally, we have Graham Knox played by Broadway and Television actor Peter Friedman. Graham is the typical gay best friend, but there's really nothing typical about him. He's actually quite a badass. Sure, he gets knocked out cold by Hedy, but unlike the novel, he is able to survive his attack and ends up saving the day. What makes Graham even more admirable is that he's very protective of Allie and even before shit goes down, he informs her that it might be a good time to go the authorities when it comes to Hedy's unstable behavior. So Graham becomes the ideal hero in the end.

Now, without further ado, we have the two ladies of the hour...but first, let's talk about the iconic hairstyle that starts it all.

As I've mentioned, Allie is a blonde in the novel, and oddly enough, Bridget Fonda is blonde along with Jennifer Jason Leigh, who is...often blonde. But I think it was the director's choice to make Allie a redhead, I guess because red stands out more, and Bridget Fonda does look more striking with the red hair, so it works for me. The hairstyle, as I would like to call it, is the Elegant bowl cut made popular by actress Demi Moore in the movie Ghost. There's a specific scene in the movie that I would like to discuss further because this hairstyle is what broke the camel's back and sets the chains of events.

Allison "Allie" Jones, played by the extraordinary Bridget Fonda, is our plucky female lead. Fonda was asked which role she could play when she was cast in the film. She chose the role of Allie because she thought it would be more difficult, but Fonda pulled it through nicely.

She could've easily played her as this uptight yuppie type, however, Fonda was able to bring more dimension to the character. In the novel, Allie is an independent woman who holds her own. She has no living family members, not many friends, and is mainly focused on her work. There's not much of a backstory on her movie counterpart, but the screenplay softens the character.

There's an intelligence about her in her look, style, and confidence, however, there is a sense of loneliness. The scene where she breaks down in the kitchen shows that Sam's betrayal affected her, and her search for a roommate is to fill the void in her life. Sure, she has Graham, but she yearns for more human connection. This wasn't explored in the novel and was probably more of a letdown because it was hard to connect with her character on a deeper level, yet the screenplay, along with Bridget Fonda's awesome performance, gave the character more depth.

Now is the time to talk about what I consider one of the best villain performances of the '90s. Now present to you...

Hedra "Hedy" Carlson, played by the incredibly talented Jennifer Jason Leigh.

In the novel, Hedy is more of a mystery with subtle hints of a turbulent home life. It's implied that her father may have sexually abused her, which explains why her targets are mostly men, and there's also mention of her staying at a mental hospital for quite some time, but not much is dwelt upon. However, the movie gives her a lengthy backstory to explain why she is the way she is. When Hedy was younger, she had a twin who died by drowning, causing her to have survivor's guilt and a heavy dose of abandonment issues. Of course, there's the age-old Hollywood trope that if a person has a mental illness, they're obviously violent, but, in due time, Hollywood has gotten a little bit better at making this trope less cliche.

When Hedy appears, she catches Allie in a pretty, somber moment. Hedy instantly comforts Allie, and out of the interviewees, she completely wins her over. Unfortunately for Hedy, she mistakes this moment as an actual bond, though the two do become close initially. However, the movie gives off subtle hints of Hedy's obsessive nature, such as buying a pet to bring Allie closer, trying and failing to seduce Sam, and eventually...

Getting a haircut. This is the moment where shit hits the fan. This is the moment where things go down. Hedy has officially "twined" herself. Allie is, understandably, freaked out by this and contemplates kicking Hedy out, even though that was the plan when Sam came back into her life. Therefore, the desperation begins, and once Hedy gets more desperate, she becomes more violent and erratic.

Then there's the scene where Allie follows Hedy to an S&M club. Allie is totally out of her element and wouldn't believe that the initially shy and timid Hedy would be at a club like this. However, this showcases that Allie is now stepping into Hedy's world, and it also reveals Hedy's psychosexual dark side.

During the climax, when Allie says the line, "I'm not your sister Hedy. Not anymore. I'm like you now," this means that Allie shares Hedy's sense of abandonment. When Hedy forces her to write the mock suicide note, Allie is adamant that she was never that afraid, that no one will believe she wrote that, but deep down, that sense of loneliness is still there, and while writing it, Allie can confront that fear of depression and push head-on. It's not just the determination to escape from Hedy's grip but from her own internal struggles.

I would like to talk about the amazing performance by Jennifer Jason Leigh. It's the kind of acting that's indescribable. She's vulnerable yet vicious, sweet yet scary, and I don't think any actress would pull this off but her. It's one of the most authentic portrayals of mental illness because there are times when she would say something harsh, but then instantly regret it, indicating that she might be going through some sort of pyschosis. She's not just playing the character; she understands the character. It's all right there in the performance, and Jennifer Jason Leigh does it brilliantly. I would even go so far as to say that she should've at least gotten nominated for a Golden Globe. Yes, her performance is that good. And again, shout out to Bridget Fonda for handling such a challenging role and doing an awesome job with it.

There was an alternate ending filmed for a test audience but the reception was not well-recieved. There's not much information about this, however, I think they were going for the original ending in the book. Fatal Attraction had a similar treatment when, in the alternate ending, Alex killed herself. I found the scene to be quite poetic and haunting but apparently this didn't work with the test audience and so, the filmmakers decided to go for a typical horror movie climax where Alex attacks Dan and his wife and is ultimatley shot and killed. I guess in the alternate ending of Single White Female, Hedy actually survives but I think the test audience thought Hedy's crimes were too severe for her to survive at the end, so as mentioned before, the filmmakers went for a tradtional cat-and-mouse horror scene and, to be quite honest, I don't mind this change. First of all, the furance room is the perfect horror movie setting. The suspense sets into an adreline high as Allie and Hedy gets into a knock-out, drag-out brawl in the elevator, descending into the hellish relams of the furnace room. Just when you think Hedy has the upper hand by strangling Allie to death, her body disappears. This is when Hedy completely transforms into an all-out horror villian, slowly hunting for her prey. Then as Hedy gets distracted, Allie makes her move and stabs her from the ceiling. Therefore, Hedy's reign of terror is over and Allie tries to cope with her recent bout of tramua.

Single White Female went on to be a cult hit as it rose up in the box office and home movie rentals. So it was inevitable that a sequel would be in the works. But the question is...how?

This didn't happen until 13 years later. Lo and behold, we have Single White Female 2: The Psycho. Really? That's the title they came up with? As you would expect the movie is a piece of shit direct-to-video sequel: Bad wigs, bad writing, and bad acting. It pretty much follows the same beats as the first movie. Hell, even the main character is a redhead! So yeah, I've seen this on Lifetime ONCE and pretend it never happened.

Then there's the Lifetime Movie of the Week, Single Black Female. It's a semi-remake of another movie starring former Destiny's Child member Farrah Franklin, which was basically a cheap knock-off. It is said to be inspired by Single White Female with a dose of All About Eve. All I know is that it stars Amber Riley from Glee as the main antagonist. Haven't seen it and, to be honest, I really don't care to. This was at a time when Lifetime was on a decline, and their specialty was usually these low-budget, cheap so-called thrillers that would put Tubi to shame. Apparently, this has two more sequels, but again, I don't see myself watching this and it's not going to be anytime soon, so...yeah.

Just recently I heard the news that there was going to be a remake of Single White Female. Yes, I said it. A remake starring Jenna Ortega. As much as I like Jenna Ortega, I'm not looking forward to it. This movie already had countless of bad sequels, rip-offs, spin-offs, and I can even argue a remake of its own.

Do you remember The Roommate? Yeah, I didn't either, but it basically follows the same plot points with the only difference is that it set in college with a few changes here and there. This is as close to remake it can get and I can't see how they would replicate the same magic that the original had. From what I've seen lately, we're getting a lot of generic remakes and I don't see how this version of Single White Female is going to be any different. A concept like Single White Female is made for the 90s, it's like lightining in a bottle and it's hard to replicate it.

So despite all its imitators, Single White Female will always be known as the ultimate cult classic of its era.

My Last Word: Defintely Worth Watching.

The Stepford Wives (2004)

2025-03-26T22:54:00.000-07:00

So here we are. The 2004 remake of The Stepford Wives. I actually saw this in the movie theater as a kid because I was curious about how the men turn their wives into robots. Turns out, it's really fucking dumb but we'll talk about that later. I was surprised to see the star-studded cast in this movie: You have Nicole Kidman, Matthew Broderick, Bette Midler, Roger Bart, Jon Lovitz, Christopher Walken, Glenn Close, and freakin' Faith Hill who I had no idea she was in this movie. So yeah, you have a good cast, but sadly, they couldn't solve this film's problems, mostly the script, of all things.

How I would describe this version of The Stepford Wives is that it's a Tim Burton movie, but it's not directed by Tim Burton. The actual director is Frank Oz who was a known collaborator for Jim Henson and he was one of the main voices for The Muppets, most notably Ms. Piggy. Unsurprisingly, this film went through some production hell. Originally, acting siblings John and Joan Cusack were cast as Walter and Bobbie, respectively, but they backed out of the project due to family issues. Then, when Nicole Kidman was on board, she was excited to be working with Frank Oz as she was a fan of Ms. Piggy, but when the film went into production, she, along with the rest of the cast, had some issues with Frank Oz's work ethic. The film was initially conceived as a black, emphasis on "black", comedy, but the test audience didn't like the direction the film was going, so Paramount decided to reshoot the film to give it a more cartoonish, over-the-top tone, which I didn't really care for. Anywho, let's get on with the story:

One of my issues with the film is the characterization of Joanna, played by Nicole Kidman. What I liked about Joanna in the 1975 version is that she comes off as this artsy, laid-back hippy mom type. In this version, however, she is this overly confident, ball-busting, tv executive who screws over men for her own gain. This time it bites her in the ass when a contestant in one of her tv show attempts to kill her after his wife left him for a rendezvous with some adult male stars and a famous male stripper. Yeah, this new characterization doesn't exactly make her sympathetic, which makes it hard for me to root for Joanna, considering that her husband might replace her with a robot.

After losing her job and being blacklisted by the network, Joanna goes into a complete meltdown and is left in the care of her husband Walter played by Matthew Broderick. The difference in this version of Walter is that he's actually supportive, though there are hints of him being a pushover. Now, I do like Matthew Broderick as an actor, but I felt that he came off as "too nice" for the role. Now, Peter Matherson in the '75 version, played Walter in a way where he was fighting for his dominance, like somebody who wants to place things in order but can't quite do it, so that's when he decides to replace his wife. In the 2004 version, Walter is a henpecked husband, and once he moves his family to Stepford, he finally puts his foot down and stands up to Joanna. For me, this totally misses the point of their relationship. Walter is not the one we should be rooting for; it's Joanna. Again, this all comes down to her portrayal as this self-assertive businesswoman. They soon meet up with the head honchos of Stepford, Clare, and Mike Wellington, but I'll go into details about their characters later. Right off the bat, the house is super high-tech. You even have a refrigerator that reminds you when you run out of food and a terribly-looking CGI robot dog. Of course, Joanna is not too keen on the kitschy, saccharine town of Stepford, but eventually, she meets up with Bobbie and Roger, the only two people she considers normal.

Bobbie Markowitz, played by Bette Midler, is now a socio-activist turned author. Bobbie's personality is much more acerbic and outspoken this time, which could be good or bad. In the 1975 version, yes, Bobbie was sarcastic at times, but she was still open, friendly, and vibrant. In this version, Bobbie is incredibly one-note, and even though I'm a fan of Bette Midler and she does have some solid jokes here, she really isn't given much to do in this film.

Roger Bannister, played by Roger Bart, fills in as the Charmaine equivalent. He is the typical gay best friend and nothing more, but there is one interesting aspect about his character. Roger is unapologetically gay, and his partner, Jerry, is deeply uncomfortable with that. Jerry is a little on the conservative side, and he feels that Roger doesn't fit the traditional masculine role he wants him to be. These are the many issues that gay men go through to this day: to prove their masculinity to a romantic partner. Hell, recently, there was this viral interview with a gay man who had to hide that he performed drag to appease his male partner. These are the many interesting ideas this film has but fails to execute.

Kidman, Midler, and Bart do have great chemistry together...if they were in a better movie. Yes, they are fun to watch, but the trio isn't enough to save the really subpar script.

However, the Stepford Wives are portrayed much better in this version. The only minor issue with the '75 version is that the wives didn't come off weird enough to differentiate their personalities. For example, Charmaine and Bobbie are more overly excited than vacant and robotic. But in this version, they present themselves as bubbly bimbos who talk like they're in an advertising commercial, which adds to the campy tone this film is going for. Faith Hill fills in the role as the Carol Van Sant equivalent, Sarah Sunderson. Where the original was more subtle with her malfunctions, the remake has her literally shooting sparks from her neck and twitching like a wind-up toy. The filmmakers make it way too obvious, which kind of kills the mystery of the first half. Later in the movie, when Joanna puts her Nancy Drew cap on, it's discovered that the Stepford Wives were successful girl bosses who owned airline companies, ran judicial systems, and became CEOs of businesses around the globe. But once these empowered women move to Stepford, they are suddenly stripped of their agency and become beautiful hasfraus for their husbands. Seeing the change in Roger and Bobbie, Joanna finally musters up the courage to investigate the Men's Association headquarters.

Meanwhile, Walter is fully accepted into the Men's Association and is not at all weirded out by their strange robotic housewives who serve them hand and foot. The men are portrayed as they are in the original: pathetic, schlubly, insecure, and, this time around, emasculated by their career-driven wives. That's pretty much the whole point of them turning their wives into robots, which in turn convinces Walter to change Joanna.

When Joanna confronts the members of the Men's Association, Mike Wellington, played by the charismatic Christopher Walken, reveals himself as the Dale Coba equivalent and shows her how a Stepford is made in a cheesy how-to manual video.

I would give the scene one compliment, however. At least they pulled off the no-eyes effect this time. Not as creepy as in the first film, but I still give it a pass. Joanna tries to convince Walter that her robot double won't give her the same feelings, emotions as she, but he doesn't budge, tired of Joanna one-upping him. Slowly, Joanna and Walter descend to the experiment room as the members onimusly watch on.

Cut to the memorable grocery store scene from the original, where Joanna is now replaced by her robot double...or so it seems.

Later that night, Joanna and Walter are invited as special guests at the Wellington formal ball. Joanna makes conversation with Mike while Walter goes to fetch a drink for Clarie. But what the Wellingtons don't know is that Joanna has been pretending all along, and Walter sneaks into the experiment room to... deactivate the micro-chips that've been brainwashing the wives this whole time. Yes, I've said it. MICROCHIPS.

Do microchips turn a woman into an ATM machine? Do microchips create sparks from a woman's neck, malfunction like a robot, or make her breasts grow larger? What about the scene when Roger sees his robot double? Is there any explanation for that? Hell, there were even some deleted scenes where Bobbie malfunctions herself, her hands turning into various kitchen objects. But the scene that was attached had her hand on a burning stove. So, do the microchips prevent the Stepford Wives from feeling pain? This film has bigger plot holes than The Stepford Children.

So the Stepford Wives are restored to their normal selves while Clare has a complete meltdown. Wait, I thought Stepford Wives aren't supposed to have emotions? hmm. Anyhow, Mike is not pleased with Walter's deception and decides to teach him a lesson. Just in the nick of time, Joanna grabs a large candlestick before Mike does the deed. She swiftly swings the candlestick over Mike's head and...

It turns out that Mike is a Stepford husband.

The real culprit is Clare Wellington, played by the brilliant Glenn Close. She is a fully realized, flesh-and-bone human woman who had a successful career as a renowned brain surgeon and genetic engineer. But her busy work schedule pushed her husband Mike into an affair with a young research assistant.

After brutally murdering Mike and his wanton assistant, Clare gets an idea to produce a utopia where men can be "men" and women can be "women." So, she creates a robot duplicate of her husband and chooses the state of Connecticut to work on her experiments, therefore, adopting the town of Stepford. Now, there were hints early on that Clare might be human, so the film's not that clever. And although this is a solid twist, the execution sucks. However, Glenn Close really sells it in this scene, and she's one of the few shining beacons in this movie.

With one final kiss to Mike's lips, Clare electricutes herself. As she slowly dies, Clare embraces the head of her once-deceased husband.

A few months later, Joanna, Bobbie, and Roger appear on the Larry King show to promote their projects. Joanna has won a whopping six Emmys for producing a documentary on Stepford, Roger won his State Senate seat as an independent, and Bobbie has written a poetry book. While Joanna boasts about her many accomplishments, she looks over to her husband Walter, who's watching backstage, and she personally thanks him, indicating that the marriage is stronger than ever. As for the men of Stepford, they are put on house arrest and are forced to do domestic chores. THE END.

Wow, what a freakin' mess! Although I appreciated the solid cast, the script was inconceivable. The whole twist with the microchips really ruined it for me. The filmmakers intended to make it more in line with the original, where the wives are killed and replaced by robots, which explains the Tim Burton-like tone but the test audiences felt that the light-hearted campiness of the film didn't clash well with the darker elements. I don't mind Stepford Wives being adapted into a comedy, but had it been done today, I think it would've had a much better reception. However, it would have this off-kilter, A24 feel, a little less cartoony and wacky and more subtle and surreal.

Despite my rush of nostalgia, it's overall a forgettable movie and didn't quite stick the landing like it should.

My last word: For curiosity's sake, it's good for one watch.

The Stepford Wives (1975)

2025-03-20T22:13:00.000-07:00

After the sweeping success of Rosemary's Baby, Ira Levin continued his exploration of the horrors of idle domesticity in his 1972 novel, The Stepford Wives. This was when the Second-Wave Feminism movement gained momentum, as did the divorce revolution of the 1970s. Levin began to dissect the Norman Rockwell 1950s picture-perfect housewife that seemed to clash with the more free-thinking, intelligent, and liberated women of the 1970s. So why not make a horror satire? At first, the project would be a stage play, but since there were too many characters, Levin decided to make it into a novel instead. Then it was going to be a comedy. Still, considering how those women suffered during the seemingly idyllic 50s, whether it be emotional, physical or psychological abuse, Levin decided to take the novel into a more serious approach.

The novel is more so a character-driven story with a bit of mystery and suspense thrown in. It mostly focuses on Joanna's discomfort with suburban life and how the women of Stepford, once upstanding feminists, suddenly devote their entire livelihood to cooking, cleaning, gardening, and tending the children. What Joanna desperately wants to escape from is to not set herself up to be just a wife and mother. If anything, she strives to establish herself as a photographer, which doesn't sit right with her egghead husband Walter. As the novel concludes, Joanna befriends two new women in Stepford: The talkative, sharp-tongued Bobbie and the sexy, shallow Charmaine. Joanna fits as a balance between their distinct personalities. Speaking of which, that's the driving force of her story arc: Seeking the balance between her family and career. However, something seems to disrupt that balance...

Now, at first, the novel shows Walter as a supportive husband. He joins her in the women's liberation movement, helps her tend to the kids, and supports her chosen career. But as the novel continues and as Joanna's suspicions about the Men's Association arise, Walter gaslights her. You see, the women of Stepford had their own association, but strangely, mysteriously, the president of the Women's Association, Mrs. Dale Coba, stepped down from her duties and the other members followed suit. The reason? To cook, clean, and tend to the children. In the early moments of the novel, Joanna and Bobbie attempt to run their own women's group but, unfortunately, most of the Stepford women decline their offer, deciding that cooking and cleaning are more important. Nothing seemed out of the ordinary until there was a sudden change in Charmaine too. Charmaine, an avid tennis player who had a keen interest in astrology, suddenly forgoes her daily hobbies to cook, clean, and satisfy her husband. Bobbie thinks there might be some chemical goings-on in Stepford and suggests Joanna should move out with her in a town in Eastbridge. But when Bobbie goes away for some alone time with her husband on the weekend, there's a sudden change in her too! She pleads with her husband Walter to move out of Stepford, but he vehemently refuses. Feeling the walls cave in on her, Joanna tries to unveil the mysteries of the Men's Association but it's far too late...By the end of the novel, a minor supporting character, a black woman named Ruthanne, runs into Joanna who recently gave up her photography career to...cook, clean, and tend to her children. Ruthanne, a children's author, has a bout of writer's block and feels uneasy about her run-in with Joanna. The novel soon hints that Ruthanne might be next in line...

The novel sparked a cultural wave of both outrage and intrigue from its female audience, which caught the attention of producer Edgar Scherick.

At first, Brian De Palma went on board to take the directing duties, which would've been quite the choice. Carrie is one of my all-time favorite movies and for Brian De Palma to direct an off-the-wall concept like The Stepford Wives would be a match made in heaven. But screenwriter William Goldman wanted nothing to do with De Palma, so Sherick recruited English director Bryan Forbes. However, Goldman would have issues with him, too. Forbes decided to cast his wife Nanette Newman as Carol Van Sant, which didn't sit well with Goldman. Originally, he wrote the wives to be younger and scantily-clad, which was obviously inspired by Julie Newmar's character in the short-lived TV series My Living Doll. Nanette Newman, although beautiful in her own right, didn't quite fit the playboy bunny image Goldman envisioned and looked more like a typical suburban mom, which prompted Forbes to do some re-writing, making them less like pin-up models and more like June Cleaver. Considering that the movie satirizes this type of character, Bryan Forbes' revision works better for me.

As for the casting for the Joanna Eberhart, here are the actresses considered:

We have Diane Keaton who would've been an amazing runner-up but her analyst got bad vibes from the script, so unfortunately Keaton backed out of the project.

Then we have Anne Archer, an underrated actress I've seen time-to-time.

The legendary Jacqueline Bisset.

The sensational Karen Black.

The one and only Stockard Channing.

The riveting Julie Christie.

The highly respected Blythe Danner.

The fabulous Jane Fonda.

The adorable Barbara Harris.

Then there's the captivating cult actress Olivia Hussey who starred in another classic horror film, Black Christmas, which was released the year before. If she had starred in this film, it would make a great double feature for her 70s horror film set.

The always endearing Shirley MacLaine.

Then you have Elizabeth Montgomery who would've been an interesting choice since she's best known for playing the witchy housewife Samantha Stevens on Bewitched.

The imperial Vanessa Redgrave.

Then there's the impeccable Susan Sarandon, who would later star in another 70s cult classic, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, which catapulted her into stardom.

The iconic Jean Seberg from the French New Wave.

And lastly, the ever-enchanting Natalie Wood, who I could definitely see in a role like this.

Also, actress Joanna Cassidy was originally cast to play Bobbie but eventually dropped out in favor of Paula Prentiss. However, she would star in the 80s cult classic Blade Runner years later.

Another fun fact: the movie would be the screen debut of Mary Stuart Matherson, who I've seen in a string of films throughout the 80s and 90s. She plays one of Joanna's daughters and is the real-life daughter of Peter Masterson who plays her on-screen father.

Now on the actual film review...

What I like about these underrated movies from the 70s is how the actors portray these characters as real people, and The Stepford Wives is the best example of that. The main three women have different quirks, personalities, and sensitivities, to the point where the actresses make them as real and human as possible. It makes the audience feel for them more, and once their personalities are stripped from them, it's very unnerving to watch.

Just like in my Rosemary's Baby perspective, the main crust of the film is Joanna and Walter's marriage. Before the credits roll, the camera focuses on Joanna staring at the mirror as she prepares for her move to Stepford. You can tell that she's not too keen on moving out of the city and she's a bit out of her element, though Joanna is willing to make it work if she has to. The city ignites her passion for photography as she observes the strange and unknown, but now that she's moving to the quaint and quiet suburbs of Stepford, Joanna worries that her artistic integrity could be stagnant. Unlike the book, the tension between Joanna and Walter is noticeable. Walter seems to be one to make the decisions without consulting his wife, and it greatly frustrates Joanna. When the family finally settles in, Walter meets up with his neighbor, Carol Van Sant, who greets him with a welcome casserole. When he has a little chit-chat with Carol's husband, Ted Van Sant, Walter mentions that his wife "cooks as good as she looks"...as sinister music plays, which indicates that there might be a conspiracy between these two men.

As we focus on the topic of Carol Van Sant, the film shows hints that something isn't quite right with her. First, she gets into a car accident at the grocery store, and as the ambulance pulls her away she seems dazed and confused. Secondly, when she arrives at a party, she keeps repeating the line, "I'll just die if I don't get this recipe" over and over again. When Carol visits Joanna and the other townswomen, she insists that she has a drinking problem...but again, nothing is what it seems.

When Walter gets back from a meeting with the Men's Association, he has an overwhelming sense of guilt which wasn't explored in the novel. Whether humanizing Walter in the movie is a good or bad choice, it still works here because at least it shows that Walter seems to be conflicted with the choice he's making.

Feeling isolated by the archaic values of Stepford, Joanna finally meets her match: Bobbie Markowe. She's vibrant, expressive, and full of life. A fully realized woman she can connect with. The chemistry between Katherine Ross and Paula Prentiss was totally spot-on as they were friends in real life. You can tell that they can lean on each other for anything, which is why the middle half of the film becomes heartbreaking once you see the change in Bobbie.

Paula Prentiss was just delightful as Bobbie. She's not afraid to speak her mind and she refuses to be put in a box. Just because she's a housewife doesn't mean she's prone to doing wifely duties like cooking or cleaning. She's the type of mom who would order the kids take-out or just sit back and live in a messy house. After all, it's her life. Who needs to be perfect?

They meet up with another independent-minded Stepford woman named Charmaine, a former model and trophy wife. Although Charmaine is meant to be on the superficial side, Tina Louise gives an exceptionally charming performance that you can't but like her. She accepts that her husband Ed doesn't truly love her and just marries her for her looks, pretty much like a typical sugar daddy wanting to show her off as eye candy. And it's also implied that she might've had affairs in the past since Ed doesn't sexually satisfy her.

Although it's a very serious film, there are subtle hints of comedy. There's of course the awkward party scene where the three main women are dressed in their hip, 70s fashion in contrast to the old-fashioned style of the Stepford wives. Then there's the scene in the women's group held by Joanna and Bobbie. While Joanna, Bobbie, and Charmaine pour their feelings out and share their grievances in their marriages, the other Stepford women are more concerned about housework and cooking, as if they were advertising for an infomercial. At the end of the scene, Bobbie's face is priceless.

Nothing seemed out of the ordinary until there's a sudden change in Charmaine. Now dressed in a frilly white frock, she boasts about how selfish she was and now it's her duty to serve Ed as a devoted wife. No more hobbies and no more tennis, just cooking, cleaning, and serving.

As Joanna and Bobbie watch the construction men tear down Charmaine's tennis court, they feel that something's not right in Stepford. So, the two of them decide to conduct an amateur investigation to find out why the women in Stepford are so capricious.

Bobbie thinks there might be a chemical imbalance, and Joanna just so happens to have an ex-boyfriend who is a biochemist. When they meet up with him, Joanna and the biochemist ex-boyfriend catch up on old times when they claim to be "happily" married but eventually confess that's not the case. Unfortunately, Bobbie's theories are debunked but she is determined to leave Stepford and wants Joanna to go with her, insisting that they're a team and should stick together...This eventually will lead to a tragic end for Bobbie. She soon asks Joanna to watch her kids while she goes away with her husband for a little vacation time.

While taking the kids to a summer picnic, Joanna suddenly reignites her passion for photography. There's a key scene where Walter is left to fret over the kids while Joanna works on her photo lab. Walter is totally incompetent in entertaining the kids, so he asks Joanna for help but she waves him off, heavily focusing on her newly printed photos. It kind of implies that Walter, who's a workaholic and an alcoholic, has no idea how to spend time with his own kids, insisting that Joanna should be their caretaker 24/7. But Joanna refuses to be tied down and eventually takes a trip to the city for somebody to purchase her photos. Hope seems to be on the horizon when an art gallery dealer is actually interested in selling her photos.

But as soon as she tells Bobbie the good news, Joanna notices that something has changed in Bobbie too. Her messy kitchen is suddenly spotless, her hip 70s fashion is now an outdated white blouse and dress, and her blunt forwardness is now switched into a sunny disposition, a happy, smiley drone. This unnerves Joanna to the point where she almost gets into a cat accident. She soon becomes paranoid, worried she might become a hausfrau like the other women in Stepford. After getting into an argument with Joanna about leaving Stepford, Walter suggests she sees a therapist, and until then, he might move the family out. Tired of Walter making decisions for her, Joanna insists on choosing her therapist. Which turns out to be a woman since a male therapist could be prone to gaslighting.

This actually turns out to be one of my favorite scenes in the film. Now there really wasn't much going on in this scene in the book but it's played out much differently here. When Joanna finally confesses that she might become a robot like the other Stepford women, the therapist actually believes her. Now she's not thinking that the women of Stepford are actually being replaced by robots, oh no, the therapist might think that Joanna is in an abusive and controlling situation. Throughout her time, the therapist must know what women like Joanna go through and how society treats women. The therapist herself might've fought hard for people to take her seriously as a professional. She actually understands Joanna's goal to be a full-time photographer and not just the pretty kitchen-wife Walter wants her to be. It also reminded me of the scene in Rosemary's Baby because through all the gaslighting she goes through in that movie, Rosemary finally gets to be around friends who empathize with her situation. So I find this scene to be incredibly powerful because there might be hope that Joanna could get out of this...

Before I continue on to the climax of the film I would like to take a moment to praise the amazing performance of Katherine Ross. After starring in supporting roles in films like The Graduate and Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid, Ross really gets to shine on her own here. There is a sense of earnestness in her role as Joanna. She reminds me of a hippy mom. Laid back, carefree, isn't afraid to let her hair down, and can dress a little hip and sexy if she wants to. Now it's easy to see Joanna as a blank slate in the novel but she so easy to root for her here. Thanks to Katherine Ross' terrific range, Joanna becomes a three-dimensional character who can feel all kinds of emotions and it adds an emotional weight to her survival. You as the audience want her to get out of the situation so badly and there's a sense of urgency that you want Joanna to succeed in the end...

Now the last 20 minutes of this film is absolutely bonkers! When Joanna plans to sneak out the kids, they're nowhere to be found. Walter becomes evasive which raises Joanna's paranoia. She knows her time is running out. Joanna makes a mad dash up the stairs while Walter tries to stop her. They get into a physical scuffle until Joanna finally breaks free, locks the door, and sneaks out the window.

This leads to the "I bleed, do you bleed?" scene. Now this happens in the few final moments of the book and it's pretty anti-climatic in my opinion. So, the Men's Association members finally catch up with Joanna. To convince her that Bobbie is not a robot, they lead Joanna to her house. Strangely, loud rock music is playing from upstairs while Bobbie brings out a huge knife, she slowly walks towards Joanna while the members hurriedly run into the house where the scene suddenly ends, implying that Bobbie stabbed Joanna to death. But the filmmakers wanted to give this scene more gravitas and suspense, which definitely works here. Joanna cuts her hand to show Bobbie that she's human, to somehow see if Bobbie is still human too. Out of desperation, Joanna stabs her below the waist but...somehow, Bobbie doesn't bleed! She doesn't even feel the pain of her wound, just slightly annoyed. This leads to one of the creepiest and strangest moments of the film where Bobbie malfunctions, freaking Joanna out.

When she sneaks back home, Joanna gives a good swing at Walter with a fire poker. You can't help but cheer her on because Walter definitely deserved that. She demands to know where the children are and Walter mutters that they're at the Men's Association headquarters before passing out. Little does Joanna know that this is most likely a trap.

When Joanna arrives at the Men's Association headquarters, she hears the cries of her children. Joanna hurries up the stairs as she tries to save them but as it turns out, it's a tape recording. It turns out that this was all a rouse to fall for their trap. And then, Dale Coba, The Men's Association ringleader appears. He claims that the children are safe and sound with Charmaine. He sneakily locks the front door and has Joanna trapped in the mansion. Need I remind you that Joanna does have a fire poker in her hand but somehow, she doesn't use it. She asks Dale why he's doing this of course, and he just simply answers, "Because they can" and imagines a world where the men are men and the women are "perfect." As Dale calmly takes the fire poker from her, Joanna makes a dash for it.

Joanna eventually runs into a strange room where a woman is brushing her hair, which mirrors the same length as Joanna's. As the woman turns around, Joanna stands back in horror. The woman has all her features. From her hair to her lips, and even her body frame except for...her eyes.

The filmmakers originally wanted to give the effect where the Joanna replicant had no eyes but they couldn't quite pull it off and gave her black contacts instead. However, the black contacts are just as effective as they give the Joanna replicant a sort of ghostly, ethereal aesthetic. But what makes the scene kind of frustrating is that Joanna doesn't put up a fight in the end. Hell, even Katherine Ross agrees. But sadly, Joanna gets strangled by her robot Joanna which leads to the grocery store scene.

So all of the robot women of Stepford greet each other in a pleasant but hollow manner, all saying each other's name as if they're in a lineup meeting. There's a brief shot of a black couple arguing in the store, which I assume is Ruthanne and her husband. Obviously, she feels uncomfortable about staying in Stepford but her husband might have plans for her soon. Then there's robot Joanna, dressed in a white lace dress and hat, staring blankly at the camera as the credits roll.

Let's talk about the Men's Association. Early in the film, there are subtle hints that they're up to no good. When Joanna invites them for dinner, although it comes off like an awkward get-together, with the men being super creepy and weird towards Joanna, they're actually examining her like a test subject. Drawing out sketches, recording her voice, and eventually molding her into a robot replicant. Back in the day, there were criticisms that the film was against women. But from my understanding, the film is actually empathetic towards the women and it's men who are being satirized and stereotyped. They are presented as schluby, pathetic, egotistical chauvinists who are workaholics as well as alcoholics. They may have won in the end but not really. There is nothing more valuable than having a soul connection with someone and these men will never have that with these robots. They're not able to feel, just obligated to do, and yes it's valuable to them or at least they think so, but in the long run, they'll become hollow and depressed and even worse than how they started off. Some of the kids may be small now but as they get older, they're going to question why mom looks the same while dad is aging, This was even hinted in the book where Bobbie's older son noticed the change in his mom and he feels uncomfortable about it. So what? Are they gonna switch out the children too? And trust me, I'll explain that later. Anywho, the men may have conquered in the end but it's more of a detriment for them than an accomplishment.

So this was an overall fairly decent film but there is one thing that would've worked better. I wish the Stepford wives were more exaggerated and more animated to really sink into how their personalities changed. However, I quite enjoyed this film and especially the performances of Katherine Ross and Paula Prentiss.

Throughout the years, there has been at least three TV sequels and a 2004 remake. Now with the 2004 remake, that's going to be it's own review. So for the time being, I'll give a brief on the TV sequels.

There's Revenge of the Stepford Wives (1980) starring Sharon Gless (Cagney and Lacey), Don Johnson (Miami Vice), and Julie Kavner (The Simpsons). In this sequel, a news reporter goes out to investigate the strange eldritch town called Stepford. This was the strongest of the three although the filmmakers did make some slight changes. In this version, the Stepford wives are brainwashed not replaced by robots or at least Julie Kavner's character is the one that gets brainwashed but she gets better in the end. However, one of the things that worked in this sequel is that one of the members of the Men's Association actually regrets his decision, as he feels he can't connect with his robot wife on a human level. See what I mean? And it's nice to see that disgusting Dale Coba gets his comeuppance at the end where he gets practically devoured by the Stepford wives. Touché.

Then there's The Stepford Children (1987), which I find to be the weakest of the bunch. Bad dialogue, so-so acting, and a really hacky script really soured my enjoyment of this movie. It stars Barbara Eden (I Dream of Jeannie) joining her whiny, controlling husband alongside her unruly teenage kids to the mysterious town of Stepford where not only the wives are arbitrary, but so are the teenagers. Now the main teenagers are not really all that bad, they're just slightly obnoxious and pretty much overall regular teenage kids, it's just the male adults around them, particularly the members of the Men's Association are extremely controlling if not outright unhinged and psychotic. So in this version, yes, the kids are replaced by robots but...so is their essence? You see, they have the kids hooked up to a machine where the robots slowly take over their minds, bodies, and souls. Well, not actually their soul in which they're still alive yet they become skeletal zombies? Yeah, this was a total headscratcher. So Barbara Eden and her kids escape while her husband, alongside the members of the Men's Association, are killed in an explosion, blowing the Men's Association headquarters for good. So this wasn't at all great but there is one interesting thing about the movie. This actually predates Disturbing Behavior, which I feel is a much better sequel than The Stepford Children.

Lastly, we have The Stepford Husbands starring the legendary Donna Mills (Knots Landing) and the fantastic Michael Ontkean (Twin Peaks) as an artsy city couple who moves to the town of Stepford to gain some inspiration. Little do they know that the women of Stepford might be hiding a secret that involves their husbands...

This was WAY better than The Stepford Children. Sure, it plays out like a typical Lifetime Movie of the Week but I do find comfort in that and to be honest, I had a bit of nostalgia while watching this. And Donna Mills was a staple in these movies and she was a joy to watch as well as Michael Ontkean who was also decent. Yes, they do the whole brainwashing thing but I didn't mind it here. Plus you have Oscar-winning actress Louise Fletcher in a deliciously villainous role as the Dale Coba equivalent, Miriam Benton. Not to mention, Sarah Douglas and Cindy Williams who were also great in their supporting roles. So I've enjoyed this for what it was. Nothing much but just enough.

A concept like The Stepford Wives is still resonant today. You got your Red Pill guys who prefer a woman who's not over the age of twenty-five, always wears a bikini, and serves them sandwiches, which is beyond absurd and nonsensical. But that's the thing, men who have this mindset are beyond absurd and nonsensical. That's what the film was trying to teach us. A Stepford wife is just an idea, not a person you can share your thoughts with or have a mutual understanding with. Feelings are important. Human connections are important. And if you can't find that with someone you love, it leaves a hollow, empty person. So the town of Stepford is a fantasy. And it's a fantasy not worth fulfilling.

My Last Word: Five of the Dime Cult Classic! You should definitely check it out.

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

2024-11-19T01:09:00.000-08:00

Okay, before I start the review, I want to make a disclaimer: I do not support the actions of the director of this movie. Although I deeply praise the film for its artistic direction and impact on cinema, I do not, I repeat, DO NOT support the actions of director Roman Polanski and his crime back in 1977. If you want to look it up, just Google it. Without further ado, here's the review of the all-time horror classic Rosemary's Baby.

Just in time for Halloween, I've decided to check out Rosemary's Baby. It's been 56 years and this movie still holds up, primarily because of its cultural themes surrounding Women's Liberation, Religion, Women's Health rights, and the occult. It was during the early to mid-sixties when the first-wave feminist movement was starting to take heed. The women in this era were straying far away from the confines of the conservative 1950s. No longer did they play the role of the housewife/homemaker, tending to the kids while the husband came home for a five-course meal. These women had agency and a lot more to give to society than just staying in the kitchen and being subservient.

Author Ira Levin took wind of this and incorporated these themes in his 1967 novel, Rosemary's Baby, and another classic gem, The Stepford Wives. Regarding Rosemary's Baby, the film is mostly faithful to the novel, beat for beat. But the novel gives more development to Rosemary's backstory. For starters, Rosemary comes from a large family in a small town in Omaha with a catholic upbringing. It's implied that she doesn't get along with most of her family members and has recently become agnostic due to the strict rules of her religion. When one of her siblings gives her enough money to get out of dodge, Rosemary moves to New York City. In this case, Rosemary is in the same league as Anne from Valley of the Dolls. A small-town girl who wants to break out of the traditions of said small town and goes on a journey of self-discovery in New York City. I also get the feeling that Rosemary is an artsy type as there is mention of her going to a sculpting class and gaining an interest in interior design. Now the most important part of the novel is, of course, the ending. We get into Rosemary's thoughts and her contemplating on whether she should kill herself and the baby or raise it as her own. But given her motherly instincts, Rosemary chooses the latter, seeing how frightened the baby looked despite his demonic appearance. However, there is one part of the ending that stands out for me: I like how Rosemary stands up to cult leader Roman Castevet (Steven Marcato is his real name, more on that later) and says that she chooses the name Andrew for the baby while Roman wants to name the baby after his father, Adrian. Rosemary wins by a long shot and she has the say so on how to raise her son. Although it's basically a downer ending, It's good that Rosemary gains a backbone and there might be hope for Andrew to become a decent person.

Now, let's focus on the film:

Most of the focus is centered around Rosemary and Guy's relationship. It was actually the main topic in my film writing class. At the start of the film, they're sort of in their honeymoon phase. Young, fresh, bright-eyed, and hopeful, Rosemary and Guy set their sights on building a home and eventually building a family. You can see why Rosemary is drawn to Guy. He's naturally charismatic, an actor (which makes him an artsy type just like Rosemary), and promises her a life much greater than her own. There are hints of how self-absorbed Guy is but it's not too bad. But once we get to the second act, that's where things get a little fucked up.

It all starts with a chocolate mousse made by their next-door neighbor Minnie. Rosemary finds it delicious at first but then there's a chalky undertaste, indicating that the mousse might be drugged. Rosemary follows her instincts and discards it right away but Guy is the one who insists and eventually guilt trips into finishing the mousse. Rightfully, Rosemary dumps some of the mousse into the napkin and pretends to eat it. However, the aftereffects have already kicked in and Rosemary passes out into a deep psychosis while Guy undresses her for some reason.

Things start to become sinister when, just as Rosemary breaks out of her psychosis, she sees the eyes of the devil himself, realizing that this is definitely not a dream, this is really happening! This is downright one of the scariest, most disturbing scenes, not only because Rosemary is literally getting raped by the devil, but because of how she's surrounded by these weird, naked people chanting and watching the act. It's some sick shit, even back in the day.

The next morning, Rosemary tries to recollect what happened the other night. Guy admits that he had his way with her while she was unconscious because he didn't want to miss "baby night. This is the moment that ends their honeymoon phase. What's so fucked up about this is how nonchalant Guy is about the situation while Rosemary is deeply disturbed. The topic of marital rape was uncommon, but looking at it in a modern lens, what Guy did was a total violation. Just because you're married to someone doesn't give you the right to own her/his body. This is moreso apparent in the novel as Rosemary justifiably keeps her distance away from Guy by staying at Hutch's cabin. But in the film, although, Rosemary is left shaken, she never contemplates going away to her ease mind though, it would've been appreciated. So this was a huge red flag and showcases how much of a narcasist Guy really is.

But once the news comes of Rosemary's pregnancy, she and Guy reconcile, however, Rosemary reminds Guy that they should be open with one another. Whether Guy reciprocates this is debatable.

To distract herself from the labor pains, Rosemary gets her a haircut. Guy, of course, is not a fan of it and even says that "it's one of the worst decisions she ever made." It's ironic he says that because it's actually one of the most fashionable hairstyles of the 1960s. Even Tyra Banks famously wanted one of her models to sport the hairstyle in her reality show America's Next Top Model. So that is another red flag for Guy. He obviously sees Rosemary a particular way and believes that longer hair on a woman adds to her feminity. I guess Guy is uncomfortable that Rosemary is adapting so easily to the city life, therefore straying from the naive small-town girl she used to be.

Guy's gaslighting is on a roll this time even going so far as throwing away a book gifted by her deceased friend, Hutch. This incident is what triggers Rosemary's paranoia, causing an immense mistrust in Guy.

Well into the third act, she uncovers Guy's conspiracy towards her and his allegiance to the cult. Rosemary was once charmed by Guy's inherited self-absorption, becoming his personal cheerleader and being the dutiful housewife.

But she finds herself disgusted, knowing now that she and her baby are used as a vessel for his success.

Guy has shown himself to be a textbook narcist, charming his way to his own gain. To me, it is sort of like if you picture this young Hollywood couple, working their way up to the A-list but the girl has to do certain favors for a Hollywood Producer for the guy to get a role in a major film. But the producer in question is the Devil himself. I can't think of another actor like John Cassavetes who could play a detestable character like Guy and make him likable. There had been other candidates such as Robert Redford and even Jack Nicholson would've been an ideal choice, but Polanski felt that Cassavetes was the right choice, even though Cassavetes was reluctant to take on such a role. But in hindsight, his reluctance is what makes Guy a more interesting character. Although Guy lures his wife to be a vessel for the antichrist, you can tell he's not comfortable with it. And that's the thing, Cassavetes doesn't play him off like an outright jackass, he's very subtle with it, which the role requires. Not to mention, he and Mia Farrow actually have good chemistry, which makes his betrayal more devastating.

Although the relationship between Rosemary and Guy is the centerpiece of the film, Guy is not actually the antagonist. That honor goes to Minnie and Roman Castevet. Their introduction starts with a tragedy.

Before Rosemary's arrival, The Castevets takes in a troubled young girl named Terry, who recently kicked a drug habit. While doing the laundry, Rosemary meets up with her and the two become fast friends.

But it's not until Terry's sudden suicide that Rosemary and Guy meet Minnie and Roman Castevets, weaving them tightly around their web. At first, both Rosemary and Guy object to their invitations, seeing them as just another silly old couple. But once Roman starts stroking Guy's ego, it all goes down here from there.

Looking into it, Roman/Steven is technically the main antagonist since it's revealed that he is the son of a notorious Satan-worshiper, Adrian Marcato, but he's not the one who drives the story. This leads us to...

Minnie Castevet, played by the amazingly talented Ruth Gordon. What makes the character engaging is that she comes off as a warm and fuzzy grandma who brings cookies and milk and tells stories by the fireplace. Gordon portrays her as a real person and you would never think that she would be a leader of a satanic cult. What I like about the Castevets is that they're dressed in these colorful pastels and not the usual black attire that's usually associated with Satan worshipers. Not only does it fool Rosemary, but it also fools the viewers regarding their perception of them.

What sets Minnie apart from Roman is that she is a master of persuasion. While Roman impresses Guy with stories of meeting with legendary theater moguls, Minnie, on the other hand, tries to have a genuine connection with Rosemary. Therefore, once the news comes of Rosemary's pregnancy, Minnie suggests that she see Dr. Sarpenstien to do further tests on her. Then Minnie starts making these weird milkshakes for Rosemary to consume and even gives her the necklace she gave to the recently deceased Terry, which freaks Rosemary out.

Throughout the rest of the film, Minnie constantly smothers and meddles in Rosemary's life, even if she doesn't appear much on screen. This begs the question: What was it really like for Terry to live with her, let alone put up with her. But beside the point, Ruth Gordon did an excellent job of humanizing the character instead of just making her an outright villain. Gordon was actually nominated for an Oscar for this performance and deservingly so. She has natural charisma and such an enchanting presence that makes her all the more captivating.

The most unsettling aspect of the film is how the majority of the cult consists of nice, gentle elderly people who always know what's best and makes decisions for you before you can even make your own. Particularly when Minnie suggests Dr. Sapirstien.

Dr. Sapirstien represents the medical industry and how women were treated. There's just something about him that seems off. Cold, Clinical, and never by the book, Dr. Sapirstien is one shady character.

Just when Rosemary starts to have complications from her pregnancy, Dr. Sapirstien just waves her off and never listens to her, which causes Rosemary to be in immense pain for quite some time. She feels that she needs a second opinion but Guy and the cult members keep saying how awesome Dr. Sapirstien is and how he's the most popular doctor in New York, again waving off Rosemary's pain, even if she looks like she withering away.

Fed up with the constant gaslighting, Rosemary invites her much younger friends to have a bit of a bonding session. When Rosemary confides in them about her situation, the girls are full of her support. I like how the women take the time to actually listen to Rosemary and console her when she breaks down. It's one of the few heartwarming moments of the film and for once, Rosemary finally has friends she can trust. They suggest that Rosemary goes back to her original obstetrician, Dr. Hill. When Guy gets wind of this, he and Rosemary get into a heated argument. I really wanted to wring Guy's neck in this scene because all Rosemary wants to do is get a second opinion from another doctor. But when Rosemary finally stands up for herself, the pain suddenly stops.

Although Rosemary is relieved from her pain, she still has her suspicions about The Castevets. She soon receives a mysterious book from her good friend Hutch, a novelist and historian who recently died. When she discovers that Roman is in fact the son of a notorious Satan worshiper Adrian Macarto and that the rest of the apartment residents, along with Guy, might be conspiring against her, Rosemary takes action and goes to Dr. Hill for help.

This leads to one of the most frustrating and heartbreaking scenes in the film. So, Rosemary tells Dr. Hill everything, she even shows him the book Hutch gave to her. And for a second there, he actually believes her and takes what she says into consideration. There is hope after all....until Guy and Dr. Sapirstien show up in his office. Dr. Hill betrays her and it's devastating. However, I wouldn't think that Dr. Hill is one of the cult members, that's up to speculation, but he more or so sees Rosemary as just another hysterical woman because that's just how it was back then. However, it was frustrating that he would lead Rosemary on the way he did, which makes him just as despicable as Dr. Sapirstien.

So Rosemary is trapped, not knowing which way to go. The scene in the taxi demonstrates Rosemary's fear and uncertainty while placed in the middle of her two oppressors.

Try as she might, Rosemary is unable to escape from her perpetrators, therefore, falling into their web of power.

This leads to the film's climax and it's one of the best, if not, terrifying moments on screen. There is no demon or big hairy monster, but just the sheer terror Rosemary displays when she sees her child for the first time. Mia Farrow's acting here is purely phenomenal. You can feel the agony and fear in her eyes. But it's also the build-up of the scene, the anticipation that sets it ablaze. It's in this scene where Mia shows her acting prowess, from shock and terror to sadness and contentment, it's hard to believe that this was her first leading role in a major motion picture. So when it comes to the ending, Rosemary does have power over these weak-minded people, and in her hearts of hearts, there is hope for baby Andrew. It's all registered in Mia Farrow's face.

Polanski originally envisioned Rosemary to be a robust, full-figured, girl-next-door type and there were many actresses considered before the casting of Farrow. These include:

Tuesday Weld

Jane Fonda

Goldie Hawn

Patty Duke (who ironically co-starred with Polanski's wife Sharon Tate in Valley of the Dolls)

And of course, Roman Polanski's own wife, Sharon Tate.

When Mia Farrow was eventually cast, she was the star of the prime-time soap opera Peyton Place, which co-starred Barbara Parkins who also starred in Valley of the Dolls, which also Roman Polanski's wife Sharon Tate, which was also directed by Mark Robson, who also directed the film version of Peyton Place. Man! The Peyton Place connections are wild!

Although Farrow was booked and ready, her casting process wasn't exactly easy. She was married to Frank Sinatra at the time, who objected to the idea of Farrow being the lead of her first film. I guess this was a case of art imitating life on Mia Farrow's part. However, she stood her ground and proceeded with the film, and the rest is history.

This was a role of a lifetime and I'm surprised Farrow wasn't nominated for an Oscar. It's hard to picture any of the actresses mentioned to take on such a role and make it believable as Farrow did. Not only is she very captivating on screen, she displays all the attributes of her character. She's vulnerable, eager, humble, and most of all, human. Mia Farrow is what makes Rosemary so enaging and she carries the film on her shoulders.

It's just the way she emotes that gets it for me, and that comes to fruition in the final moments of the film. That is definitely her Oscar moment, not in terms of being a scream queen but a dramatic actress as well. Mia Farrow is, by far, the best thing about this film, and since then, she has become a legendary actress in her own right.

Now when it comes to the writing and the directing, there's nothing to be said because it's already been said. It's incredibly masterful! Now I know there's a saying that terrible people make great art, which is the case here. Roman Polanski captured the feel and tone of the book brilliantly, which focuses on the psychosis of Rosemary and her struggles of adjusting to the city and its inhabitants, being a supportive wife, and eventually an expectant mom, which goes beyond the supernatural circumstances.

Rosemary's Baby is a textbook example of a great horror film.

1. It relies on anticiaption, tension and suspense. Rosemary's Baby is one of the films that doesn't focus on practical effects or gore to make it scary. It's all about the paranoia, the sense of dread that trickles throughout the film.

2. It has a character you care about. I feel like the most scariest of horror films is when they have characters you feel scared for. And Rosemary is one of the those characters. This was at a time where women didn't have much agency and that's a very scary situation to be in. Rosemary feels trapped, with no way out and that's what makes the film suspensful. Not only is it horrifying but it's also heartbreaking.

3. It has an engaging plot with perfect execution. What sets Rosemary's Baby apart from other films at the time is that it has a "real world" setting with characters who act like real people. Sure, a story about a woman who carries a demonic child might sound ludicrous on paper but the outcome is magnificent. It's a very visceral and visual film that focuses on anticipation as the plot thickens. And the beauty of it is that you never see what the baby looks like and with horror movies like these, your imagination is what makes it scary.

Let me not forget the haunting film score by Krzysztof Komeda called Sleep Safe and Warm, which sets the tone of the film. It's a sweet, soft lullaby sung by a mother to her baby but it also brings a chill down your spine. It's creepy yet beautiful at the same time.

Since the release of Rosemary's Baby, unbeknownst to me, there has been a made-for-tv sequel, a novel sequel, a remake, and most recently a prequel. So let's get into it:

There's the 1976 made-for-tv sequel titled Look What's Happened to Rosemary's Baby which starred Patty Duke, who was once considered for the role of Rosemary in the original, but now plays her here. I haven't heard good things about it but I did see that Ruth Gordon reprises her role as Minnie Castevet. However, I'm not too keen on checking it out. The title alone gives off a cheesy low-budget vibe that doesn't sit right well with me.

Then there was a sequel to the novel titled, Son of Rosemary, released in 1997. Its plot is very much similar to Look What's Happened to Rosemary's Baby but kind of different. It starts with Rosemary waking up in a coma in 1999 after an escape attempt with Andrew when he was seven years old. Apparently, the cult members put a spell on Rosemary, rendering her into a coma that lasted for two decades. A little far-fetched but whatever. So Andrew is now thirty-three years old and is the charismatic leader of an international charitable organization. Eventually, mother and son reunite while on the run from the cult members who want to bring forth the apocalypse during The Turn of the Millenium. I haven't heard good things about this book and from what I read, it's pretty nonscensical. But the most baffling thing about the novel is its ending. It turns out that it was all a DREAM and Rosemary finds herself back in 1965 where the original story started. Holy crap, Ira Levin really lost his touch with this one. Nope, I will not be reading this anytime soon.

In 2014, NBC produced a miniseries starring Zoe Saldana as the titular Rosemary. I've watched at least 30 minutes of this and, I have to be honest, I wasn't impressed. There's something about it that seemed stale, predictable, and quite boring. First of all, they changed the setting from New York to Paris. That's interesting enough I guess, but nothing about the setting impressed me as much as the setting in New York. This time Guy is an English professor and aspiring writer. Not as exciting as a working actor but okay. And from what we know about Rosemary, she is a former dancer. Then there's the execution of the plot, which is changed entirely. Okay, so here's how Rosemary meets The Castevets: A hoodlum steals Rosemary's purse and when she catches him, she just so happens to find Margaux's (who is the Minnie equivalent) I.D. in her purse. Coincidence? I think not. Anywho, Rosemary arrives in this big, fancy, smacy mansion and that's where we meet Margaux, who right off the bat, invites her to a party. From what I can tell, the script is kind of rushed. I feel like the inciting incident in the original film was more organic whereas, in this version, it felt too forced. So, Rosemary and Guy arrive at the party and we're introduced to Margaux (Minnie) and her husband, Roman. In this version, The Castevets are this sauve, sophisticated, middle-aged rich couple. Again, this just doesn't work for me. What I liked about the original was how unassuming The Castevets were. They came off like this sweet, gentle elderly couple and in no way you would suspect that they would be part of some Satanic cult. But in the 2014 version, it's WAY too obvious and, for me, they come off like James Bond villains more than anything. Speaking of the party, it's not like your usual get-together with small festivities like in the '68 version, oh no, it's an ELITE party. There might even be a freak-off during the afterparty, who knows. And Speaking of freak-offs, Rosemary sees a man (who might be the devil in human form) in the middle of a threesome. This catches Rosemary in a trance and she gets slightly aroused but Guy catches her just in time. I guess this is supposed to be a foreshadowing of what's to come but again, this. just. doesn't. work. for. me. After that, The Castevets use their charm over Rosemary and Guy, and...you know what happens. I just sort of stopped watching because I was so unimpressed. Come to find out, not only was this an adaptation of the first book but also Son of Rosemary? If the plot alone turned me off from reading the book, what makes you think that this might be a good adaptation? So yeah, I might check this out but not right now, I just wasn't invested enough, and again, it was very, very boring.

Lastly, we have the prequel film, Apartment 7A, starring Dianne West as Minnie Castevet, Kevin McNally as Roman Castevet, and introducing lead actress Julie Garner in the role of the unlucky Terry Gionoffrio. I don't know about this one. Some part of me feel that it's a bit unnecessary to expand on the character of Terry Gionoffrio. The mystery surrounding her character is what made the original palpable and it's the imagination that hooks you in. Just what happened between her and The Castevets that made her want to commit suicide? But nowadays we're plagued with these prequel and remakes that wants to explain EVERYTHING about the original when it really doesn't need explaining. Maybe I'll check this one out but it's not gonna be anytime soon.

Rosemary's Baby works best as a stand-alone story. I can see why Hollywood would want to expand on the Rosemary mythos because it's a classic story that still holds up today. It's one of those movies that was ahead of its time and wasn't afraid to just go there. It's terrifying, frustrating, haunting, beautiful, and bittersweet.

Rosemary's Baby will forever be held as the crowning jewel of classic horror.

My Last Word: Yes! Go watch it right now!

Valley Of The Dolls (1967), (1981)

2024-07-11T00:05:00.000-07:00

For the first time ever, I have watched Valley of the Dolls in its entirety, and...it was an experience. Just like Mommie Dearest, it has very serious subject matter about how women were and still are treated in Hollywood, Drug addiction, Mental Illness, and Suicide but the final result of the film comes off like an unintentional comedy. But first, let's talk about the book that started it all:

I have a confession: I thought the Valley of the Dolls novel was a decent read. Now I'm not saying it was some literary masterpiece or the greatest written book of all time, it was just fairly decent. My favorite aspect of the novel is how the entertainment industry changes over 20 years and how the three main protagonists cope with those changes. I like how detailed the book is regarding the trends of Old Hollywood. From the movie musical of the 1940s, The dawning age of Television of the 1950s, The eventful fall of Old Hollywood, and the rise of New Hollywood of the 1960s. Jacqueline Susann was quite the expert since she was part of the Hollywood game but never achieved the same success as her peers. She based the three main protagonists on real-life starlets that she knew such as Neely O' Hara who is a stand-in for Judy Garland and possibly Barbara Streisand, Jennifer North who is a stand-in for Carol Landis and possibly Marylin Monroe, and Anne Welles who is stand-in in for Jacqueline herself and possibly Grace Kelly. You see the dolls in the title is a code name for pills (the uppers and downers kind). This was a common thing for young starlets to get hooked on because of the amount of pressure the studio would put on them. It is in fact the studios that would prescribe these special pills to keep them floating. One notorious example is how the head of MGM got Judy Garland hooked on weight loss and speed pills on the set of The Wizard of Oz when she was a mere sixteen. So yeah, Jacqueline Susann does not hold back on what goes on behind the scenes of Hollywood, which is all too relevant today. Another controversial element of the novel is homosexuality. This is rather tame by today's standards but since the novel came out in the 1960s, this was quite a scandalous topic, even though, homosexuality was basically an open secret in Hollywood. Even Jacqueline Susann had a love affair with Carol Landis. Speaking of, Carol Landis is a real-life tragic heroine who oddly shares similarities to Marylin Monroe, both sharing the same, complicated quest for love and acceptance, despite being the most memorable Hollywood bombshells of their time. Sadly, just like her character Jennifer, Landis commits suicide after suffering from yet another short-lived love affair. So, Jacqueline wrote this in her memory to solidify her as the kind, caring person she was and not what she was known to be. Finally, we have our central protagonist Anne Welles who shares a few similarities to Jacqueline Susann. As described in the novel, she does have a natural elegance and humility much like Grace Kelly but not too glamorous, which is why she was chosen as a spokesmodel for Gillian. Susann herself was a cosmetic spokesmodel once her acting career died down and that's where the similarities end.

But just like Mildred Pierce, the novel also has a rather, downbeat depressing ending: So Anne has been hopelessly devoted to a man named Lyon Burke. After all, she did lose her virginity to him. At first glance, you can see why Anne would fall for Lyon Burke. He comes off as a chivalrous, charismatic Englishman but the thing is, he's a notorious ladies' man, so much so that even Anne's co-workers warn her. Before Lyon, there was another suitor named Allen (sir does not appear in the film), a mild-mannered salesman who turns out to be a millionaire. Allen even goes so far as to propose to her though Anne is less than interested, fixing her eyes on Lyon. Anne and Lyon finally do get together once Anne breaks off the engagement with Allen. Everything seems swell until Anne's mother dies. Now, in the novel, Anne loved her mother but never really liked her....it's complicated. So, Anne's emotions are a bit numb at the moment, and on top of that, Lyon has dreams of becoming a novelist. He asked Anne if they could settle down in Lawrenceville while working on his upcoming novel. Anne openly despises her hometown and refuses to go back. This, however, causes Lyon to retreat and write a freakin' Dear John to Anne, announcing their breakup where he would reside in London. This should be a warning sign right here and there because when things don't go Lyon's way, he leaves you in the dust. So a couple months pass by, and Anne is still working as a secretary for Entertainment Lawyer Henry Bellamy when an old acquaintance of Henry's appears. Kevin Gilmore, founder of the popular cosmetics brand Gillian, gives Anne an offer she just couldn't refuse: Becoming the spokesmodel for Gillian. Kevin starts to have feelings for Anne and after some time, they begin a loving but passionless relationship. For a few years, Anne had been waiting for Kevin to marry her but since he was already a married man in his early to mid-fifties, he kept brushing it off. Then as fate would have it, Lyon comes back into her life. With a few unsuccessful books under his belt, Lyon works as an entertainment journalist crossing paths with Anne while she does her infomercial special. Spark flies and before you know it, Anne and Lyon begin an affair. Kevin eventually confronts Anne, thus ending their long-term relationship. So Anne and Lyon get married but not without a little scheming on Anne's part. She works with Henry to set up a loan from him to Lyon that was secretly sent from her for Lyon to give up his mediocre writing career to marry her. Talk about some heavy stuff. So Lyon is the new owner of the agency and seems to cross paths with Neely, whose career has gone down in the dumps and isn't in the best shape. When Neely's career is on the upswing, with the help of Lyon, Anne starts to become suspicious about Lyon and Neely's working relationship, insinuating that the two must be having an affair. It turns out that Anne's suspicions were right.

Not only that, Neely is the one who reveals to Lyon about Anne's secret loan which he confronts her about. He claims he feels emasculated by what Anne did. To punish her, he carelessly flaunts his affair with Neely, living a double life. What adds more salt to Anne's wound is that Neely is a close friend. Lyon could've chosen anybody in the world but Neely? How fucked up could he be? This causes Anne to go into a spiral of addiction, trying out the dolls (pills) everyone's so crazy about. Not to mention, this all happens when Anne gives birth to her daughter, Jennifer. Lyon eventually ends the affair with Neely but this doesn't stop him from seeing other women, his most recent one is a girl that old enough to be his daughter. However, Anne numbs the pain by the dawn of New Year's Eve with a bottle of her precious, precious dolls. Holy shit...this ending pissed me off so much. Lyon is a grade-A narcissistic asshole and I can't help but feel bad for Anne, who clearly made a mistake by settling down with him. Yes, she has the money. Yes, she has a husband. And yes, she has a child. But at what cost? Since this was around the 1960s, this was a sort of thing women were facing with. Yes, really messed up but those are the facts.

It was a year later when film executives were clamoring for a film adaptation. As you may know, this was a challenging process. The first of many issues was the conflicting visions between producer Darryl F. Zanuck and his son Richard. Darryl wanted a cool, stylish 1950s melodrama while Richard wanted something more hip and contemporary. This was the battle between Old and Young Hollywood, which most likely caused the production of the Frankenstein mess, Valley of the Dolls. However, the major cause of the issues surrounding this film is director Mark Robson. The thing about Mark Robson is that he has an "old school" way of directing and would give all three of the actresses a tough time. You see, Mark Robson would have this stopwatch, and every time he films a scene, he stops it by pressing the pocket watch. It was a very annoying thing that would irritate the cast and crew and although Robson was a lauded director of his time, he was challenging to work with.

Okay so talk about the cast and characters:

I just want to say that all three of the actresses have a star quality about them but first and foremost, I want to focus on the ultimate scene stealer. The one, the only...

Patty Duke as Neely O'Hara. In a strange twist, the filmmakers actually considered Barbra Streisand in the world but thankfully, she decided to go for Funny Girl, for which she won an Oscar. However, nobody does it like Patty Duke. It's a performance for the ages, though it does come from experience. Patty Duke was institutionalized when she accepted the role of Neely. And just like Judy Garland, Duke experienced a pretty rough childhood while growing up in the spotlight and winning an Oscar at age 16. She eventually became a teen sensation starring in her very own sitcom, The Patty Duke Show. After the show's cancellation, Duke wanted to break into more mature roles and Valley of the Dolls was just it. Although this seemed like a meaty role for her, Patty had no idea how the movie would eventually turn out, so she had to do the best she could and to me, I think she did an okay job. Sure, she was over-the-top in some scenes but I didn't think it was that bad. Besides, I want to get into the depth of the Neely O'Hara character and how she was portrayed in both mediums. In the novel, Neely is a bright, ambitious young girl of 17 who's part of a sibling Vaudeville troupe and gets a small part in a popular Broadway musical called Hit The Sky. However, the lead star, Helen Lawson, gets Neely and her vaudeville troupe out of the show for Helen to get more screen time. But with a bit of push and pull from Lyon Burke, Neely can secure her role and becomes a sensation much to Helen's dismay. Until then, Neely marries an agent named Mel, moves to California, and becomes a star of movie musicals. At this point, Neely becomes increasingly unsympathetic. She begins cheating on her husband with her costume designer, is heavily reliant on drugs (which are called "dolls" in the book), and is an overall entitled, egocentric diva. It's not to say that book Neely has her sympathetic moments when she marries her costume designer Ted Casablanca and becomes a young mom at age 22 all the while Ted is having affairs with both men and women without a care in the world. Therefore, the bright-eyed young girl at the start of the novel becomes a jaded sellout at just 28 years old, delving more heavingly into a drug-induced state. She goes to rehab, gains and loses weight, and gets a career comeback. Unfortunately, it's at the cost of her own morals. She soon has an affair with Lyon Burke, who is now married to Anne. Of course, Neely is way beyond entitled at this point and she just doesn't give a damn. But what comes around comes back around and karma bites Neely in the ass where this time a young starlet (who's also having an affair with Lyon) takes the spotlight.

Neely in the film version is a bit tame. She is still rambunctious and full of herself but not as callous. There are only little bits and pieces of her life, which are usually done in quick montages. This time she is not part of a Vaudeville troupe because...well it's the sixties (or is it the sixties?) and Vaudeville acts at the time would be pretty outdated. So, Neely is a young upstart, maybe around 19 or 20, I'm not sure, and she's already in a relationship with Mel, who's her agent. So right off the bat, Neely gets her part cut from the Broadway play but in turn, gets a TV gig that showcases her singing talents. Thus begins Neely's rise to stardom...through a montage. The film is only 2 hours and a half so it's somewhat understandable. But during this time, Neely marries Mel, becomes a movie musical star, develops a dependency on dolls, and is already having an affair with Ted Casablanca. So yeah, the film never really recounts what year it is or what's trending in Hollywood, her career just sort of comes and goes. There is a mention of her being 26 one time, so I would think by the end of the film, she's in her late 20s or early 30s, I'm not really sure.

Anyways, Patty Duke gave all for what she's got and she wasn't terrible, it's just the script really didn't do her any favors. I can see there is an earnesty to her performance and she really did try her best with what she's given.

Then we have Sharon Tate as Jennifer North, who was quite good actually. Just like Patty Duke's Neely, you can see the earnesty in her performance and I can see that it came from something eternal. Mark Robson was really hard on her, which plagued her insecurities as a serious actress. But through it all, she came out golden and you really feel for her character. Raquel Welch was a runner-up for the role and she was an ideal choice but she backed out of it because she didn't want to be typecasted as a sex symbol, even though that was the grievances that her character was going through and it could've at least showed through her performance but I feel like Sharon Tate was the right actress to give Jennifer a whole new dimension.

In the book, Jennifer is a nice girl with a lot of emotional baggage. She's a 25-year-old masquerading as a 19-year-old at the behest of her agent, has a greedy selfish mother who constantly asks her for money, and has to deal with her immature, pompous, and sex-obsessed fiance Tony Polar, and his controlling nag of a sister, Miriam. What the film left out was, that before she met Tony, Jennifer was in a romantic relationship with a schoolmate named Maria. Now given that this was the 1960s, the producers of the film weren't too keen about having a bisexual as one of the main characters. After her love affair with Maria, Jennifer gets into modeling which eventually leads her to do acting roles. She gets cast in the hit Broadway show Hit The Sky, not for her talent but for her body. So Jennifer is pressured into becoming this wide-eyed starlet who soon gets molded into a sex symbol overnight. Her agents even came up with a fake story to make her seem more exciting, which was kind of a thing in Old Hollywood. When Jennifer decides to leave showbiz behind and marry Tony, the marriage isn't quite as ideal as she imagined. Besides being unfaithful and immature, Tony also has a debilitating mental disorder that might affect Jennifer's baby. Miram urges Jennifer to get an abortion and Jennifer reluctantly obliges. After divorcing Tony, she gets involved with a French director named Claude. Claude's specialty is basically softcore erotic films with a plot and Jennifer seems to be the perfect candidate. So eventually she becomes a sensation in Europe, which leads her to get offers in Hollywood again. But to keep her appearance younger, Claude gets her hooked on plastic surgery and a certain treatment that involves some unorthodox sleep therapy. Tired of Claude's controlling ways, Jennifer moves on to date Senator Winston Adams and soon gets engaged to him. But unfortunately, Jennifer finds out that she's diagnosed with breast cancer. Thinking that Winston only wanted to marry her for her body, Jennifer sneaks out of the hospital and, in probably one of the book's saddest moments, commits suicide by sleeping pills. What makes this even sadder is that Winston genuinely loves her and is ultimately devastated by her death.

When it comes the movie version of Jennifer, there are not that many changes except for the relationship between her and Tony. The filmmakers decided to turn it into a tragic love story, which makes the Tony Polar character much more sympathetic.

The animosity between Jennifer and Miriam is also toned down. Yes, there is tension at first but when Tony's health worsens, they stick through the thick of it and make amends. It's one of the changes from the book that I really like, and just to mention, Lee Grant was a stand-out in her small role as well. So, Jennifer finds herself completely devoted to Tony, even going so far as to do "nudie films" (as Neely would like to call it) to support his medical bills.

Jennifer goes through her own health crisis when she is diagnosed with breast cancer. After being Hollywood's bathing beauty and Tony's number-one girl, Jennifer feels that she has nothing left to offer. So she takes one last look in the mirror and swallows a bottle of pills. And I just have to say, Sharon Tate really sells this scene. You can't help but feel for her.

Sharon Tate was defintely an underrated actress and she was indeed a star in the making. I mean sure, Valley of the Dolls isn't a perfect movie but this showcases her talents as a great dramatic actress and, it's that one final shot, with tears in her eyes, both longing and pleading, that is just so...haunting. It's an image that sticks with you and moves you. May she be missed.

Last but not least, we have Barbara Parkins as Anne Welles, our lead protagonist in the film. Now, Anne isn't given much to do to be honest but at least Barbara Parkins gave what she got and she does capture the look of eloquence and sophistication that Anne embodies in the novel. There were plenty of actresses in the role of Anne such as Cancance Bergin and Julie Christie, but Natalie Wood seemed like an interesting choice. Just like Patty Duke, Wood grew up in the spotlight and became a teen sensation herself with the smash hit Rebel Without Cause. By then, she became one of the most sought-after actresses in Hollywood starring in classics such as Splendor in the Grass, West Side Story, Gypsy, and Love with the Proper Stranger. Wood could've been a perfect candidate for Neely if you look into her performance in Inside Daisy Clover but I think she would easily hold her own as the cool, sophisticated Anne. But Candance Bergin was also the go-to choice because she represented the cool blonde type and could easily mirror Grace Kelly. But the filmmakers ultimately decided on newcomer Barabra Parkins, the breakout star of the popular prime-time soap Peyton Place, in which Mark Robson ironically directed the film version. This was where Parkins was going to make her mark and show the world that she was more than just a TV actress. Well...the problem is, she's not given much to do in the movie and it's not a fault of her own, Barbara Parkins is a capable actress, however, the movie version of Anne comes off more bland than her book counterpart.

In the novel, Anne strives to be an independent woman and desperately wants to escape her boring small town. So off she goes to New York to start a new life and eventually gets a job as a law secretary at an entertainment law firm. Anne was all about not wanting to be tied down, and although she wanted to be married with kids, Anne would rather build herself up and focus on a career. I mean she is 20 years old at the start of the novel. But then again, it was very common for women that age to get married and Anne refuses to be part of that norm. But somehow, the arrival of Lyon Burke changes everything. You see, Lyon represents the passion that Anne yearns for and very much well gives it to her...and then some.

The chemistry between Barbara Parkins and Paul Burke is very lacking and Lyon in the film version just comes off as another generic love interest. Although he was incredibly unlikable in the novel, at least Lyon had dreams and goals the same as Anne did. There is a mention of him wanting to write but it's never expanded upon. We never know if he's unhappy at his job or wants to explore new avenues in his life, he just...comes and goes.

Anne doesn't fare much better either. Sure, she's seen as the film's protagonist but she seems bland and uninteresting compared to the more dynamic personalities of Jennifer and Neely. Anne just sticks out like a sore thumb. All we know of her is that she's a small-town girl at heart who loves her family, got good grades, is very sufficient, blah, blah, blah, blah. Anne in the novel actually had some baggage, probably more emotional baggage than Jennifer and Neely, and she wasn't this perfect cookie-cutter girl; she actually made some irrational decisions that often affected her. Anne in the book came off like a human being where as this version is so...vanilla, at least for the 1960s.

There aren't a lot of specifics on Anne's career as a Gillian girl spokesmodel nor her relationship with Kevin Gilmore. After her breakup with Lyon, the scene starts with her walking into the room while Henry has a meeting with Kevin. Kevin notices her and decides to hire her as his model. It just happens out of nowhere. Anne's start as a spokesmodel is put through montages, which means that she's a natural at what she does. I would've very much preferred her to be a bit nervous at first and then gradually get the hang of it once she started filming her commercials. Instead, we get a full array of montages, which I actually don't mind this sequence, it's very hypnotic and colorful, but, I wish there was more time spent on Anne's development as a model and feeling the pressures of fame. Kevin in this version is nothing more than a minor character and there's no buildup to his and Anne's relationship. He has a crush on her, but she doesn't reciprocate. Plain and simple. And wouldn't you know it, Lyon comes crawling back to her life.

Once Anne and Lyon get back together, it doesn't explain if they're married or not, they're just living together. Also, Lyon's affair with Neely was very sudden and not fully explained. Neely just makes a phone call to meet up with Lyon and she has a sly look in her eye. Again, there is no buildup to this. During this time, Anne starts to develop a pill addiction. Once again, there is no buildup to this. Anne just starts to develop a pill addiction out of nowhere. I wish we got a scene of her catching Lyon and Neely in the act. Then once runs home, she would probably freak out and go searching for the pills to calm herself down. That would've been way more effective, and since this movie is so latched onto time and pacing, this scene would telegraphed everything so confusing in the final few moments of the movie.

So by the end, Anne has hit rock bottom, drowning in a sea of addiction but once she stumbles out into the ocean and feels the water splash her face, then, all of a sudden...she's cured. Anne is cured of her drug addiction. Okay, nothing about this is realistic, especially compared to Neely who's having a really rough time recovering from her own addiction. I guess this was done on the filmmakers' part for Anne to have her happy ending.

Speaking of, Anne decides to go back to her hometown, which Anne in the novel will never ever do. Lyon suddenly pops back into her life again and wants to marry Anne, but she kindly rejects him and goes for a nice stroll in the woods, feeling like a kid again. The End.

Even though I don't mind the happy ending, I love it for Anne, I just wish it would've gone a different way. Everything seemed too rushed, too sudden and there wasn't much development on the situation before Anne's addiction and after.

However, Barbara Parkins did a great job. Sure, she had to work with a lot of stiff, bland dialogue, but that's not her fault. Barbara would hold her own as a leading lady if she was in a better movie. And in my opinion, Barbara Parkins is an underrated actress who has what it takes.

Finally, we have Judy Garland as Helen Lawson...I mean, Susan Hayward as Helen Lawson. Yeah, this is when things get complicated...and sad. First of all, Helen Lawson was based on Broadway star Ethel Merman who had a bit of a reputation of being a diva. When I look into this, it would be kind of odd for Judy Garland to play this type of role because she's not a diva type. Judy Garland was always the girl-next-door and even in her older age, she still played sympathetic characters. So for an unsympathetic role like Helen Lawson, it was definitely going to be a challenge for her.

I don't think Judy Garland was even a fan of the book or the script, but she was willing to take on the role because she needed the money badly at the time. But what made this even worse was how she was treated by Mark Robson. Just imagine if somebody like Meryl Streep, Cher, Glen Close, or Kathy Bates was treated the same way. Yes, I'm putting Judy Garland on that pedestal and she should be regarded as such. Sure, she was going through a rough time at this point but, still, she deserved better.

First of all, this was a stunt casting attempt and the filmmakers only wanted Judy Garland on the film for her name only. Plus, since she was based on Neely in the novel, they said, "Why not?" But just like the screenplay, they really didn't look into how she would portray this character and whether or not, she would fulfill the challenge. On top of that, Mark Robson was a complete and utter jackass. One of the stunts he pulled involved a scheduling conflict. He asked Mrs. Garland to come in at 6 in the morning but the filming of her scene started at 4 in the afternoon. Judy was eager to come on time but Robson pulled a fast one on her, causing her to break down. What an evil dickwad. Incidents like this led Judy Garland to be pulled out of the film, which is heartbreaking because this was her last attempt at the spotlight.

So in comes Susan Hayward, who starred in a few musicals and can sing, but since she didn't have the showy Broadway voice that Helen possessed, the filmmakers dubbed her instead. Hayward came straight out of retirement, whether or not she wanted the role was up for debate, but it was explained by the studio giving her a generous fee. There were other potential casting choices for Helen such as Ginger Rogers and Lucille Ball but Jacquline Susann was adamant about casting Bette Davis, however, I feel like Lucille Ball would've been the perfect candidate because of her natural stage presence and her experience with musicals and comedies, including her very own sitcom, I Love Lucy. But at last, Susan Hayward cemented the role. She reportedly became a Helen Lawson in real life, causing a growing tension between her and Patty Duke, strangely mirroring the rivalry between Helen and Neely.

Now there are some slight changes to her character in the book, such as when we get to figure out why Helen is the way she is. Just like Jennifer, Helen yearns for love and acceptance as she went through several marriages and had ups and downs in her career but, unlike Jennifer, Helen has talent and leeway in the industry. There is an infamous scene in the novel where Helen gets another actress fired from her show, seemingly because she's more beautiful and talented and has more scenes than normal. This was based on an incident where Ethel Merman had Betty Hutton fired from one of her shows. When Helen meets Anne, she becomes rather friendly with her...at first. You see, this is when Anne was engaged to Allen, and Allen just so happens to be the son of a notorious Playboy millionaire named Gino who Helen has an eye for. Anne is oblivious to this, seeing how vulnerable Helen came off to her. But as soon as Anne breaks it off with Allen, Helen suddenly turns on her, besides the fact that Gino wasn't even interested in her in the first place. Since there is no Allen or Gino in the movie, Helen is rude to Anne right off the bat, which establishes her nasty diva streak. The actress that she gets fired from her show turns out to be Neely, which also establishes the tension between them.

By the middle of the movie, we get the hilarious epic catfight between Helen and Neely. Neely eventually wins by grabbing off Helen's wig, revealing her silver-gray hair (in the novel, she's bald from chemotherapy).

She actually doesn't look half-bad and is quite striking with the silver-gray hair but I guess this is the moment where we get to see Helen's "vulnerable" side and just for a while her pride is a bit shattered. But Helen puts her wig back on and spouts out her sharp tongue, she's back to being the "barracuda" she's known to be. Unlike the other girls, she doesn't need pills to keep her afloat, all she has is her sheer willpower.

Although many would consider her role to be on the hammy side, Susan Hayward handled the role in spades. Sure, she doesn't have the same singing vocals as Ethel Merman but her presence alone is what sets her character alight. Each of her dialogue is a like sledgehammer and she can even go toe to toe with Patty Duke, spitting out jabs and quips without a wink or nod to the camera. Two thumbs up.

Now, there is without a doubt that the screenplay is one of the worst aspects of the film. Most issues stem from the really confusing time frame. It would've helped if the movie started out in the early to mid-50s with our main protagonists starting out in their late teens and early twenties, all bright-eyed and hopeful, and once they reach the end of the late 60s, they become jaded and disillusioned.

There is one huge positive about the movie, however, which is the gorgeous cinematography by William H. Daniels. It has this cool, pop art feel that is distinctly 60s, giving the film a personality. The cinematography enhances the three main actresses' model-ready looks and stylishly dramatic costumes. Although Mark Robson was a competent director, I just don't think he was the right fit for this movie. I feel like a more in-touch director who has knowledge of the 60s counter-culture movement would've been a better choice, somebody who wasn't afraid to take risks and who could actually say something with their art. Therefore, the movie would capture the "feeling" that the novel was trying to convey.

Despite the critical lashing, the film was a box office hit and still became popular through the years. A sequel was in the works called Beyond the Valley of the Dolls featuring Anne and her teenage daughter written by Jacquline Susann but was rejected in favor of a more tongue-in-cheek satirical parody that's unrelated to the previous movie but with similar themes. I might check out this movie for another day because it's quite the oddity.

Then there was a 1981 miniseries produced by Jacquline Susann's widower Irving Mansfield. I thought I take a look at it since it was available on YouTube and...I was unimpressed. It wasn't bad or anything, I was just so bored and disengaged. Say what you will about the original, but at least the cinematography, costumes, and set designs gave it this fantastical pop-art feel while the TV miniseries fell flat. There have been some slight changes from the book and film. Of course, this is now set in modern times and the miniseries goes out of its way to reflect that with the addition of some cheesy 70s/80s soft rock. Anne and Neely are now childhood friends and since there was no backstory given to Neely in the '67 film, it's been mentioned that Neely bounced from foster home to foster home all her life, which would probably explain Neely's dependency issues. Helen Lawson is more resentful of Jennifer, a change that I found interesting since Helen Lawson is an aging starlet while Jennifer is an up-and-coming beauty. Instead of a secretary, Anne is now an entertainment lawyer and a little less naive than her book and movie counterparts. That's where I stop there. I just...I just couldn't finish it. I was so bored. I think it was trying to emulate those hit soap operas at the time such as Dynasty and Falcon Crest but this was at the time when they were still trying to get their feet wet and didn't they didn't achieve the widespread popularity they would soon gain in their later seasons. So yeah, this miniseries is kind of mediocre. It's not fun nor campy, just meh. I might return to this one day to give a full review but for right now, it's a pass.

Then there was this really obscure 1994 adaptation that was turned into a daytime soap opera. This only lasted one season and it's really hard to find now but, from what I heard about it, it's not really all that great and it's probably cheesy and not the good kind of cheesy.

So yeah, nothing beats the original, and part of is that it's totally, unapologetically 60s. it's one of those "bad films' that has a lasting impact and when you look into it retroactively, it eerily mirrors the actresses' lives after the release of the film.

Sure, it may not be perfect but there's something about the movie that makes it a captivating, beautiful mess.

Barbie (2023)

2024-03-31T18:38:00.000-07:00

In honor of Women's International Month and Barbie's recent 65th anniversary, I've decided to review the live-film version of Barbie starring Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling. The hype for this movie was inescapable and garnered overwhelming praise, including six Oscar nominations and many, many other awards. I'm telling you, it's a whole slew of nominations on Wikipedia that I can't even count. Now for the nominations for Ryan Gosling's performance? I get it. For the production design and costumes? Definitely deserved and was one of the main highlights of the movie. Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture? No. Just no. Now I didn't think the movie was god-awful or anything but I didn't think it was this modern masterpiece. I would even go on to say that this was one of the most overrated movies of 2023. Besides all that, I thought the cast did a really good job, and I did get a few chuckles here and there, but it's the script that really brings the movie down. There are some really good ideas here that weren't executed well or were just completely abandoned. Anywho, let's get down to the nitty-gritty because there is a lot to discuss.

The first act is really well done. The World-Building, The Set-Up, Barbie's existential crisis, it's all good so far. And just to mention, everyone is perfectly cast in their roles. Besides the wonderful Ryan Gosling as Ken, we also have Issa Rae as President Barbie and Kate McKinnon as Weird Barbie, who were definite standouts.

Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling have amazing chemistry, and it would've been nice to see them together for the rest of the film, but....that's not how things turn out. The film falls apart for me around the middle section of the second act once Ken discovers that men rule the real world, which is ludicrous. Plus, I felt that the men in the real world were portrayed unrealistically. How I would describe them is cartoonish, bufoonish, and absolutely one-note. Ken is the only one considered a nuanced character from the rest of the male cast. And by the first third act of the movie, it becomes the battle of the sexes between the Barbies and Kens. Sure, that's fine and all, but I wish the writing was better.

Okay, now let's move on to the characters and break them down one by one:

The Mattel executives were not needed in this, and I was taken out of the movie every time they appeared on screen. Will Ferrel was really irritating, and I know that's his brand of comedy, but it just didn't work for me. It was like the film was afraid to make the Mattel executives the villains, which would've made the movie more interesting, but since it didn't take those risks, they're just there for the most part.

After the goofy chase scene involving the Mattel executives, Barbie runs into Mattel Secretary Gloria and her daughter Sasha. Barbie soon discovers that Gloria, not Sasha, is the lost little girl she needs to reconnect with. Now, I didn't have a problem with Gloria, and America Ferria was endearingly likable, but she just wasn't developed enough as a character. Gloria serves as the film's heart and is the secondary main character besides Barbie; however, there are only glimpses of her character arc without scratching the surface. It's implied that she's having a midlife crisis and projecting those insecurities onto Barbie. Yes, that is interesting, but the problem is, we never see Gloria struggle with that. Okay, what if she's this put-upon secretary who's gifted but usually ignored at her job. Since Gloria's husband is basically non-existent in the film, why not have her go through a divorce or kill him off. That's a little morbid, but it would've added more weight to her character arc. Therefore, her speech in the middle of the movie would've felt more earned.

Now, we move on to my least favorite character in the movie, Sasha. Holy cow, this girl was annoying! Throughout most of the movie, all she does is bitch and complain, and oh god, it gave me such a splitting headache. She is supposed to be the typical moody, bratty teenage daughter, a character trope that has gotten egregious over time. A character like this could work if she was written better, but we never know what Sasha's damage is. She's just a self-centered, know-it-all teenager who treats her mom like crap for no reason. When Barbie meets her at her school, Sasha is framed as if she's the mean, popular girl, a character that Sasha herself would despise. And when you think about it, this might've been really good commentary because Sasha comes off as the "not like other girls" type of girl when, in actuality, she's no different from the so-called mean girls from her school. Case in point, we have Vivian Kensingston from Legally Blonde. She would be the typical brainy brunette that Elle Woods herself would look down upon, but the roles are reversed. I guess that's what the film is trying to go for, but I digress. In the movie's middle section, Sasha does come around...a little bit. I don't know. I just feel like this character was less developed than Gloria, and the film just didn't do a good job of making her the least bit likable until the end.

Okay, I want to get this out of the way. I thought Gloria's husband was so irrelevant in this movie. He's basically a punchline, and his whole schtick is that he's a white guy trying to learn Spanish. I...just don't get the joke. It's absolutely cringeworthy, and I hate it. Sure, I know the actor was America Ferria's real-life husband. Sure, that's sweet and all, but he was not needed in the story. Like I said before, why not have Gloria go through a divorce or kill off the husband. This brings back the focus on Sasha. Maybe the reason why she's angry all the time is because she doesn't know how to grieve, whether it's through the divorce of a parent or the death of a parent. Then, when we get back to the scene where Barbie goes through her depression mode, SASHA is the one who convinces her to break out of it ("Don't give up," "I still believe in you"). Therefore, Sasha confesses that the reason why she rejected Barbie is because of societal pressures or her so-called friends in high school who keep telling her that Barbie is a bad representation of women and feminism. Then, Sasha confesses to her mom about her growing pains, Gloria makes her speech, and Mother Gloria and Daughter Sasha reconnect again. All I'm saying is that Gloria's husband was not needed, and the plot would've been better for it.

Now, let's talk about Ruth Handler. I just want to get this off the bat: It's kind of disrespectful of the filmmakers to puppeteer a dead woman to serve a plot. There is a case of honoring one's spirit, but I wish they had handled it better. Oh yeah, and second of all, Ruth Handler, in real life, wasn't the typical grandma who made tea and baked cookies; she was a level-headed businesswoman who wanted to break the code. There is nothing against Rhea Pearlman; she did well with the role, but I would've imagined somebody like Glen Close or even Meryl Streep in a role like this. Also, I don't see Ruth in this quaint little kitchen sipping tea, oh no. I see her decked out in a sharp white suit in this slick white office with all the Barbie posters and all the collectible Barbie dolls prepped up like statues. The whole setting would be omnipresent and very cool-looking. Oh, what a missed opportunity that would've been, but the movie has plenty of missed opportunities, trust me.

But let me focus on the positives and talk about the two wonderful leads:

Ryan Gosling was just ah-dorable as Ken. I never knew that he knocked it off the part the way he did, but he totally sold it. Ken's story arc was actually well-developed. I mean, it wasn't perfect, but the one aspect I liked was how he was underappreciated by Barbie and felt inferior next to her. Sadly, I felt his story arc didn't come full circle. Sure, the film takes a turn and makes Ken the antagonist, but I wish the movie would dig deeper into Ken's insecurities and portray them in a way where it's both funny and sad. Okay, for example, Ken turns on the TV and shows Barbie how popular he's become in a scene in the movie. Okay, here's my what-if: What if GI Joe or a GI Joe-adjacent character becomes popular instead. Hell, John Cena made a cameo in this movie; he would've played this GI Joe-type character. On top of that, another good casting choice would be Zac Efron as Max Steel (I'm pretty sure some millennials know about this toy line). Okay, so Ken turns on the TV, and the announcer goes, "Now introducing GI Joe and his sidekick, Ken!" Ken would throw this massive bitch fit and say something like, "Oh, I'm always second best, but at least I'm better than you, Barbie!" that would've been a really good joke. And get this, the part where the Barbies pit the Kens against each other, what if Barbie was forming a faux love triangle between Ken and this GI-Joe character and the Max Steels, of course. Then, the I'm Just Ken sequence would be more palpable. I'm pretty sure there were some kids who had Barbie leave Ken for GI Joe, and that also would be ripe for comedy. This would make Ken feel he's not masculine enough compared to the more muscular, manly GI-Joe doll. So many missed opportunities. So many glorious missed opportunities. Besides all that, Ryan Gosling did a stellar job, and he's an absolute comedic genius without missing a beat. Although Ken is supposed to be the antagonist, you can't help but like the character, and that's due to Ryan Gosling's impeccable charm. And I must say, the man has a clean set of pipes on him. This guy is a massive triple threat. He can sing, act, and dance! Just an absolute treasure. Ryan Gosling's performance is truly the best thing about this movie.

Speaking of, Margot Robbie as Barbie was just darling—truly, truly darling. Not only does she look like Barbie herself, but I also think she captured her spirit and put a lot of heart and soul into the role. As far as Barbie's story arc goes, it's a bit all over the place. Okay, so Barbie is having an existential crisis. Good, that's a nice setup for a character like Barbie. Then, her mission is to find the little girl playing her, who's obviously going through a depression. So, Barbie actually has a purpose, but sadly, it falls flat in the end. There are some aspects of Barbie's character that I did like. I like that she's an empath, representing Barbie as a whole. When you look into it, Barbie is empathic, and Greta captured that well. But I wish her story arc was more compelling. Okay, just to clarify this, I didn't like the ending. Why, oh why, would you end the movie with Barbie seeing a gynecologist. She deserved a better ending than that. What if it ended with Barbie taking control of her image and Mattel as a whole. What if she was the co-founder and Gloria was the new CEO. Then, it ends with Barbie, in a slick black and white striped business suit similar to her 1959 bathing suit, doing an advertisement on the newly revamped Mattel in which she says these words, "Hi, I'm Barbra Handler, the CFO of Mattel. And we girls, we can do anything!" I find that to be a much better ending than we got here, and it gives the whole women empowerment message a new light. But oh well, that's another missed opportunity. However, Margot Robbie did an amazing job, and I can't picture any other actress playing this part other than her. Bonus points for her being the producer of this movie as well. Margot Robbie is a definite class act.

The dialogue in the film is quite strange. I know that Greta Gerwig is trying to make a comedy here, but real people don't talk like that. There are instances where the dialogue could've been sharper and witty, but that's not the case here. Some of this did work in the first act, such as the "Beach You Off" scene. However, this scene goes on a little too long. That's actually the problem with most comedies these days: The jokes go on for too LONG. Will Ferrel does his improv schtick, which would've worked back in the early 2000s, but it's really egregious here. There's also too much of explaining the joke, which makes it less funny. Then you have Sasha's dialogue, which is basically social media buzzwords. Teenagers don't talk like that; they just don't. And that's one of the reasons why I found Sasha unlikable and annoying. So yeah, the delivery of the dialogue was not that great.

Okay, let's discuss the film's writing, which is one of the movie's weakest points. Most of this stems from when Barbie enters the real world and encounters some unsavory men. There's a part where Barbie and Ken are at the beach, and this random guy slaps Barbie on the butt. Barbie, in response, punches him straight in the nose. It's obvious that the guy committed a crime, and sexual assault is a crime. Yet Barbie is the one who gets arrested, and Ken is too? But I guess the film is trying to hone in on the message that the real world is ruled by the patriarchy, and women who get assaulted can't stand a chance. I mean, really? It's clear that there is not any ounce of subtly in this portion of the movie. On top of that, you even have police officers coming onto Barbie. Get real. It would've been nice if they had a female police officer that said, "Hey, that outfit looks great on you." And Barbie would've said, "Oh, thanks." This would probably lighten things up and hone in on the fact that in the real world, some women hold the same power as men yet still look out for other women at the same time. This would've made Barbie's story arc more palpable and added more of the women supporting women message that the film is going for.

The concept of the real is like watching a parody of a lifetime movie. I just couldn't get past it. So, Ken is apparently brainwashed by real-world patriarchy and brings it over to Barbieland. This could work if it was just a small group of men in the real world to give Ken this mindset instead of, you know, the entire state of California populated by men. Again, it's just ludicrous as hell.

The other thing I've noticed is how the Kens treat the Barbies. There's nothing that indicates, "Oh, this is bad." Dressing the Barbies in maid outfits and being subservient to the Kens can be degrading, but I wish there was more conflict with this. Like if the Kens acted like stereotypical obnoxious frat boys compared to their usual sweet selves. Then, we see how Barbie, Gloria, and Sasha get Barbie back to their matriarchy, and...it's really dumb. You see, they get the Barbies to act helpless toward the Kens to lure the other brainwashed Barbies out of their captivity. Then, they have the Barbies to make the other Kens jealous, and then, the whole fight battle and the (the very long) "I'm Just Ken" sequence begins. Therefore, the Barbies get their power back, the Kens get their equality, and all is well. Yeah, sure.

It's weird how this all reminds me of better movies. There would've been many instances when Barbie entered the real world, and the humor could've been similar to The Brady Bunch movies. You have this family who are straight out of a sitcom from the early 70s, yet they're placed in a 90s kind of world. Also, there are movies like Legally Blonde, where Elle Woods, a stereotypical ditzy blonde, tries to make it into Law School, of all places. Lastly, you have the 2004 version of Stepford Wives. Now, I do not find that movie to be good at all, but it's still about these powerful women brainwashed into captivity and later breaking out of that. This sort of thing could work, but it just didn't. It fell flat for me, and it seems that the writers or whoever was running out of ideas at this point.

Lastly, I would like to discuss Greta Gerwig's lack of history concerning the Barbie lore. In her interviews, Greta mentions that her mom forbade her to play with Barbie because...wait for it...she was a poor representation of women. So, Greta's lack of knowledge about Barbie really hindered the film, in my opinion. She seems to forget that Barbie and Midge are very best friends, and Midge is supposed to be married to Alan. But for some reason, they're not a couple in this movie? Barbie also had friends like Christie, Teresa, and Kira. Not to mention her little sisters such as Skipper, Stacie, Chelsea (formerly known as Kelly), and baby Krissie. Even Ken was friends with Allan, who had a friend named Steven and a little brother named Tommy. For some reason, all these characters were left out of the movie. There is a mention of Skipper, and we have a Skipper-like doll, but I don't think she's supposed to be related to Barbie. I get that there were already a lot of characters in this movie, but then again, why not have Chrissie be president of Barbieland, Kira be the physicist, or Teresa be the Nobel Prize Winner. So many missed opportunities. And she seems to forget that there are women on the board of Mattel in real life, and again, there's another missed opportunity with that as well. Wow, this aspect of the movie is really, really disappointing, and it would've worked if they had a Barbie superfan as the creative consultant. It would've definitely enhanced the movie a bit more.

Whew! This was a long review, and it took longer than I expected. But I felt like this movie had so much wasted potential. I didn't hate it, but I didn't think it was great either. And if you like it, that's fine. However, this movie would've been so much better.

I would say one positive about Barbie. At least it feels like a real movie—maybe not a perfect movie, but a movie nonetheless. First of all, the movie is COLORFUL, and it was nice to see practical effects again. I would definitely like to see more of it. It's crisp, clean, and pristine, and not at all fake-looking without shitty CGI. Second of all, it's not some long-extended episode connected to some stupid cinematic universe. And, third of all, Barbie had a beginning, middle, and end, wrapped up in a neat little bow. No sequel hook in sight, and it was so REFRESHING. I can see why this movie was so successful because it was an actual goddamn MOVIE. This is what the audience wants. They don't want a sequel, a prequel, a remake, a reboot, a reimagining, or even a whole goddamn franchise, including a cinematic fucking universe. They want movies with a clear hero's journey. That's what makes a movie successful, and whoever's running these studios needs to understand that.

Okay, here's my final word: it's not great, but at least it's watchable.

Mommie Dearest (1981)

2024-02-17T07:43:00.000-08:00

And now the moment you've all been waiting for... the review of Mommie Dearest. Once a upon time when I was a wee little lad, this movie used to play on TV A LOT. I've always thought of Mommie Dearest as this prestige Oscar-bait film but as the years went by, people kept saying how much of a camp classic it was. I didn't get it at first, but upon watching the film a couple of more times, I can definitely see why. The subject matter is pretty heavy. It's about Child Abuse and Child Abuse is not a laughing matter at all. But what most people found funny about the film is Faye Dunaway's over-the-top performance as Joan Crawford, who is a real person by the way. But I don't think it's entirely her fault. It's more so the direction of the film and how it was presented. Well, let's take a deep dive shall we?

The movie is based on the 1978 autobiographical novel written by Christina Crawford, Joan Crawford's adopted daughter. I feel like the filmmakers really missed the point of the novel. It seems as though they were exploiting Child Abuse instead of making a more grounded psychological film. The novel did a good job of depicting what it was like living with a narcissistic parent. The manipulation, the guilt trips, the humiliation, it doesn't hold back and it's kind of tragic. So it baffles me as to why the filmmakers didn't get this right. At least, Christina Crawford acknowledged her mother as a real person while the filmmakers turned her into a cartoon villain. But I feel like Christina was the one who got screwed over in the end. This novel was written in her words, based on her experiences, whether true or not, and to have the film deviate so much from its source material is downright disrespectful.

As production began, the narrative swayed further and further from Christina. So, it's without a doubt that the true star of the movie is Joan Crawford herself. To add more salt to the wound, Christina Crawford had no involvement in the film, which would've helped it a little bit, I mean these were her experiences. But I guess the filmmakers were more concerned about making a Joan Crawford Biopic instead. There were plenty of actresses up for the lead role but Anne Bancroft, who Joan Crawford accepted the Oscar on her behalf, was the main attraction. Even Mia Farrow was up for the role of adult Christina. But all that fell through when producer Frank Yablans took over. He had his eye on Faye Dunaway. At this time, her career wasn't what it used to be after her Oscar win but she was very much in demand and wasn't afraid to take on risker roles. Faye was sure she was going to win another Oscar nomination for this role. Oh boy, Mrs. Dunaway was going to be in for a surprise. She wanted to go for a more methodical approach to her acting. There's nothing wrong with that persay, but I guess this is one of the reasons why her acting is...a bit over-the-top in certain moments.

I would like to focus on three memorable scenes. Now just to let you know, these scenes are either totally exaggerated or didn't happen in the book at all, but I would talk about these scenes with an analytical view:

First, we have the "gardening" scene. Now according to Christina, Joan was a little OCD towards her gardening but I didn't think she took it to that level. In the movie, Joan has this reaction when she gets let go of her contract from MGM. But in real life, It was only a month later when Joan signed on to Warner Bros. So it seems as if Joan was just OVERREACTING. I mean geez, she had enough star power at the time to sign better deals. But I guess the filmmakers wanted to use this chain of events as dramatic effect.

Then there's the infamous wire hanger scene. Holy shit, this used to scare me as a kid. To this day, I find it hard to watch because it's something straight out of a horror film. The shadowed lighting, Joan's BOOMING voice, and the most horrifying of all, Joan's makeup. Holy crap! she freaked me out. At first, I thought she was a witch. There is absolutely nothing funny about this scene...

Well, except for this shot...Lol, why is Faye Dunaway making that face? But to be fair this was a really tough shot for her and she almost lost her voice. The scene was actually a compilation of a series of events in the novel. The wire hanger scene was treated subtly, still hard to read but subtle. While the "Cleaning" portion of the scene happened on a separate occasion. The filmmakers decided to combine these two incidents into this long drawn-out scene to accommodate Faye Dunaway's Oscar moment. Like I said this scene would've been effective if Faye Dunaway dailed it down just a notch.

And lastly, we have the "strangulation" scene, you know, with the "BARBRA PLEASE!" line. This is supposed to be another harrowing scene where Joan almost KILLS Christina but, again, it comes off unintentionally funny because of Faye Dunaway's cartoonish expressions and, oh boy, this scene is by far her most over-the-top moment. Good god, this woman blows it over. These were actually two incidents compiled into one from the novel. The first incident was when she was caught with a stable boy at age 11 or 12. Yes, she was that young, so that would've been really inappropriate and downright uncomfortable to show on film. The second incident was when Christina became close with the headmaster and his wife, seeing them as a second family. Joan was not having it and pulled her away from school immediately, which is why Joan lied about Christina getting expelled just to spite her.

The movie makes it look like Joan simply overreacts about her teenage daughter getting caught making out with a boy her age. According to Rutanya Alda, Faye Dunaway took this scene really seriously to the point where she injured her and co-star Jocelyn Brando. Again, somebody had to tell Faye to dial it down but I get the feeling that filmmakers were enjoying this too much.

There was a lot of information that out from the book such as the twins Cathy and Cindy, in which they had a very loving relationship with Joan, and most of her early childhood that would become integral to her headstrong nature. If they had at least shown a small portion of her childhood and her climbing out of poverty, it would added more dimension to Joan's character instead of, you know, making her into this maniacal dingbat. Case in point, the whole reason Joan freaked out about the wire hangers is that it was a symbol of her traumatic childhood, working in shop factories and living in poor conditions. If the filmmakers would've added a bit of context to the wire hanger scene instead of just a random event.

In the more subtle scenes where, you know, Joan is portrayed like an actual human being, Faye Dunaway does some pretty good acting. There was actually a scene where Joan tearfully confides to young Christina at a beach to soften her a little but the scene was cut for some reason. I guess the filmmakers thought it would be more "entertaining" to focus on the shocking, sensationalized moments of the screenplay.

What I've also noticed about the film is that it has a unique style to it. It does this thing where in each time period the film sort of emulates the style of the movies from within that time period. That's cool and all, I appreciate the effort but what I liked about the Mildred Pierce miniseries is that although it was set in the 1930s and 40s, Todd Haynes went with a gritty, realistic style of the 70s. Since this was made in 1981, I feel like this kind of style would benefit the movie a bit more.

Even though most of the movie is inaccurate, this incident was very true. You see, Christina tried to make it as an actress herself, and she eventually landed a role in a soap opera called The Secret Storm. When she gets sick, Joan steps in to take over her role. Christina mentions her character is 28 while Joan is way past that age. This is so wrong on so many levels. What parent takes their child's acting job? I feel like this was the moment that broke the camel's back for Christina but that's not even the half of it. But Joan is not to blame here, believe it or not. I blame the producers wholeheartedly. They were probably starstruck by Joan's presence and signing her on into the role, even though she was too old to play the part. From what I gather, Joan was at least in her sixties and was in no condition to film because she was drunk on her ass. So yeah, shame on the producers.

The movie becomes a little understated after except for the "DON'T FUCK WITH ME FELLAS!" line. But besides all that, it's pretty low-key.

There's the part where Christina makes an exceptional speech at Joan's televised tribute special and Joan, while lying on her death bed, is deeply touched. It's actually kind of sweet...well, not for long.

By the time she arrives at Joan's funeral and reunites with her brother Christoper, Christina goes to the hearing to see if Joan left a will. She doesn't. When Christoper says, "She always has the last word. Christina stares ahead with fury in her eyes, "Does she? Oh does she..." Thus begins the revenge of Christina Crawford.

Now do I think this is a terrible movie? It has some merits and I can see what the filmmakers "attempted" to do but the result fell flat. As I said, Faye Dunaway is not to blame here, she takes it too far with her acting and she did cause some tension on the set but she is not the one to blame for this movie's failure. It all weighs down on the filmmakers who instead of making a complex psychological drama turned it into an exploitative romp. It's kind of a shame because it was all there. I don't know what the filmmakers were thinking but at least this film will go down in history as a camp cult classic.

The Two Faces of Mildred Pierce

2024-01-28T23:07:00.000-08:00

Before I dive deep into the phenomenon that is Mommie Dearest, I want to discuss the adaptations of James M. Cain's novel Mildred Pierce. Now, I'm gonna say right off the bat that between these two adaptations, I definitely choose the Todd Haynes version. Now don't get me wrong, the original is one of Joan Crawford's iconic films, but Kate Winslet really knocked this off the park for me.

Let's talk about the novel first. Now although Mildred is a character you can empathize with, she's not exactly portrayed as sympathetic here. First, she seems to favor Veda after the death of her youngest daughter, Ray, She marries a man whom she doesn't exactly care for to please her snobby, elitist daughter, and she embezzles money from her business to please said daughter. So while adapting the 1945 film version, the filmmakers had to make some accommodations to appease the Hays Code.

So screenwriter Ranald MacDougall and director Michael Curtiz decided to take a film noir approach to the story and this is where I make the comparisons to the novel and 1945 version.

Here's the story: After separating from her husband, Bert, Mildred is to take care of her two daughters, Veda and Ray. In desperate need of financial stability, Mildred takes a job as a waitress, at the behest of Veda. But eventually, Mildred learns the ways of the restaurant business and owns a chain of her own. She soon attracts the attention of Monte Beragon, a lazy playboy who's living off his inheritance. Monte sweeps Mildred off her feet and the two begin a love affair. Unfortunately, Mildred's youngest daughter, Ray, dies of an illness, which leaves Mildred in a devastated state. From then on, Mildred grows attached to Veda who becomes increasingly vain and spoiled. Veda even goes so far as to blackmail a boy's family by pretending to be pregnant with his child to receive money from them and when Mildred forgives her after disowning her, Veda has an affair with her now-husband Monty! Talk about some heavy stuff! but I'll stop there.

The movie starts with the murder of Monte. Yes, the murder of Monte and that's one of the key differences from the book. Monte doesn't die in the book. In the end, he gets away scot-free, running off with Veda to New York, leaving a drunken and depressed Mildred and Bert to their own devices. Though judging by the Hays Code, this was unacceptable. If anything, Monte would be considered an immoral character since he does have an affair with his own stepdaughter and he has an overall unscrupulous nature when it comes to his relationship with Mildred. So the filmmakers decided to kill off Monte to shake up the plot and it actually makes the story more interesting that way. In the first few moments of the film, it becomes a murder mystery. It's made to look like Mildred shot Monte and is putting the blame on her business partner and friend Wally Fay (Burgan in the book). But the story goes deeper than that. During her interrogation, Mildred narrates her life, which starts the story proper.

One of the most important elements of the film is the relationship between Mildred and Veda, not just in the story but in characterization as well. There is an archetypal character well-known within the film noir genre called the Femme Fatale. She represents the woman who might lead the male main character into danger. She is a woman of intrigue and mystery and you can never quite figure her out until the climax of the movie. But Mildred Pierce provides a more female perspective. In the opening moments of the film, at first, you would think that Mildred might be this type of character as it is made to look like she shot Monty and is on her way to frame Wally. But when Mildred begins her narration, we slowly figure out who the real Femme Fatale is, which turns out to be her own daughter, Veda. For those of you who haven't read the novel, Veda does have some shades of this in the original source material. It's sort of built up to how Veda became vain and manipulative and in a way just like the Femme Fatale, Veda does lead Mildred to her doom.

On top of that, she gains fame as an opera singer but the Hays Code thinks that this is too dignified for her character and turns her into a chantese instead, which is a common occupation for the Femme Fatale character. Although singing at a nightclub would be out of character for the book version of Veda, it's totally in character for the movie version of Veda. At this point of the movie, Veda is blossoming into a young woman who becomes more stubborn and independent. And also, Veda might use this job as a way to attract possible wealthy suitors and potential managers to jumpstart her singing career.

Just as Mildred and Veda start to reconnect again...Boom! Mildred catches Veda and Monty in a passionate kiss. Without any remorse, Veda confesses to Mildred that she and Monty have been in love all this time and they're having plans to run off and get married. Now this may be accurate in the novel, but not in the movie version.

Monty rejects her on the spot and declares his love for Mildred, whether that may be true or not. When Mildred runs out of the house...Bang! Bang! Veda is the one who shot Monty.

Seeing her daughter for who she truly is, Mildred phones the police but her maternal instincts prevent her from doing so. To add more salt to the wound, Veda gaslights her by saying it was her fault for turning out the way she did. Holy cow!

So as Mildred finishes her story, the police take Veda into custody, and strangely she accepts her fate. After that, Mildred reunites with her ex-husband, Bert and that's where the movie ends.

I like that they took the film noir angle that not only adds layers to the Veda character but also Mildred herself. Joan Crawford would usually star in movies where her character goes from rags to riches with a fierce determination to break out of their working-class life and into the world of the upper class. This was the perfect role for Joan Crawford and she eventually won an Oscar for her performance. Special shout out to Ann Blyth who really nails the role of Veda with viciousness and ferocity. It was a rarity that film noir was shown through a female perspective and that's what makes this an instant classic.

But what I really, really want to talk about is the 2011 miniseries by Todd Haynes and oh boy is it great!

The miniseries goes by the same beats as the novel but in a different context. It's framed as a melodrama but it's actually a character study about a woman going above and beyond the constructs of the time while trying to maintain a relationship with her selfish, manipulative, narcissistic daughter and her lazy, prideful, self-indulgent boyfriend.

Unlike the 1945 film, the setting takes place during the Depression. This was at a time when families were struggling to keep up heap. These boiling frustrations take a toll on Mildred and Bert's marriage, which also stems from his affair with one of their neighbors. So when Burt eventually leaves, Mildred has to go out hand and foot to look for a job, even one she considers degrading. I like how Todd Haynes portrays Mildred's struggles realistically. She literally goes hand and foot to find employment. It's not glamorous, it doesn't pass in a quick montage and Kate Winslet doesn't wear much makeup than usual. Todd Haynes really shows the realities of what people were going through during the Depression and he displayed that beautifully.

Mildred meets up with Mrs. Forrester, a rather arrogant woman who's looking for a new housekeeper. Right off the bat, Mildred is getting bad vibes and declines the offer. Though Mrs. Forrester would become an important character later on in the story.

As much as she tries to fight it, Mildred eventually takes a job as a waitress, however, this turns out to be a blessing in disguise. She starts off a little shaky but Mildred gets the hang of it and befriends a no-nonsense waitress named Ida, played by the very underrated Mare Winningham. Once Mildred sells her famous pies, it's legit. She is slowly climbing her way into being a legit businesswoman.

During this time, Mildred begins a relationship with Wally Burgan(played by an actor-I've-seen-in-every-movie James LeGross), who just happens to be Bert's lawyer and friend. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that they do indeed start a sexual relationship in the novel but I guess the Hays Code vetoed it and left it as a platonic relationship instead. The fling with Wally is more of a friends-with-benefits sort of thing and it's obvious that Mildred was sleeping with Wally to get back at Bert, however, at least she gets a new business proposition out of it.

Although Mildred and Burt are separated, there is still love there. Unlike the 1945 film, Bert is very supportive of Mildred, lending her his car and even going so far as to finalize their divorce so she can jumpstart her business. The scene between Kate Winslet and Brian F. O'Byran where they agree to end their marriage is pure golden and shares that level of complexity that seems to be missing in the 1945 film. The scene is just pure golden.

Mildred's actual love interest is, of course, a debonair man-about-town named Monty Beragon played by the ever-so-handsome Guy Pearce. He arrives at the restaurant and Mildred is instantly smitten. When Monty invites her to his vacation home, things get steamy pretty quickly, showcasing how passionate their love affair is. But this newfound bliss doesn't last long, as Mildred gets a call that her youngest daughter Ray is very sick. As we all know, this doesn't end well...

The miniseries actually focuses on Mildred's grief from this, emphasizing the devastating blow she feels when the doctor informs her of Ray's death. Again, Kate Winslet's acting is phenomenal. The pain and the shock on her face without any dialogue are gripping to watch. Then when the scene ends, Mildred holds on to Veda as she breaks down crying, not to telegraph that Veda was her favorite but in the sense that she doesn't want to lose her too, therefore, her attachment to Veda is understandable.

So Mildred uses this tragedy to empower herself, honoring her late daughter's memory as a blessing to her newfound career as a restaraunter. As Mildred's business begins to boom, so does Veda's defiance.

But beyond that, Mildred recognizes Veda's talent as a piano player, which wasn't expanded on in the 1945 film. Although Mildred sees the potential in Veda, her assigned piano teachers don't and it's up until Part 4 of the miniseries that Veda decides to do opera instead.

On one Christmas morning, Veda's ever-growing defiance takes a turn on Mildred when she doesn't give Veda the piano she wanted. Veda gets a little too big for her britches when she starts to smoke in front of her mother. When Mildred gives her a good slap on the face, Veda slaps her right back! May I reiterate this happens on freakin' Christmas of all days! Veda boastfully tells Mildred that Monty gossips to her behind Mildred's back. Yes, Veda is just shy of 14 at this point. Mildred is disgusted by this and after standing up to her vicious little brat of a daughter, she goes to confront Monty. The pair have been steady for a while, but Mildred realizes that it's beginning to be a take-and-no-give situation and whenever they do have an argument, Monty always finds a way to seduce her. But not this time. Mildred is not having it and asks him why he would even talk to her daughter about their relationship. And you know what his response is? He thinks Veda has the mind of an adult. What? Now as you all may know, Veda seems to have an infatuation with Monty and as she gets older, Monty seems to take notice of her too. You think about it, it's very weird and uncomfortable that he seems to think of her as an adult at a very young age. When Monty constantly jokes about being her gigolo, given that ever since she started her restaurant business, Monty has been a bit of a leech on her finances as his own inheritance has been drying up. So Mildred takes off in a heat of frustration leaving the relationship for good...or at least for now.

Some years have passed and Veda has grown up to be a stunning young woman played by Evan Rachel Wood. Now I'm going to say my piece about Evan Rachel Wood, she is okay in the miniseries. There are times when she is good and I do think she is a good actress, but there were times when she reminded too much of her character from True Blood, talking in an over-the-top posh tone. Anywho, let's continue the story. So Mildred's business has expanded, giving her best friend and neighbor Lucy Gessler (played by the ever-so-talented Melissa Leo) full ownership of a steak and fish restaurant.

After her piano teacher suddenly dies, Mildred goes in search of a new one in the form of Carlo Treviso, a renowned conductor. Right off the bat, he thinks Veda is a lousy piano player. Feeling detested, Veda quits and frets about her future, which eventually leads to her partying with her friends every night. She tells Mildred that she might get a casting call from a director who just so happens to be Mrs. Forrester's husband but little do Mildred know, Veda has something else up her sleeve. While opening up her restaurant, Mrs. Forrester pays her a visit with some troubling news. As we all know, of course, Veda is blackmailing Mrs. Forrester's son but being the good mother that she is, Mildred doesn't want to hear any of it and escorts Mrs. Forrester out of the restaurant. When Mildred confronts her about this, Veda pulls out the I'm Pregnant card, and Mildred, of course, falls for it. But as soon as she gets Wally on the case to have the boy put in jail or at least forced into a marriage with her daughter, Veda outright refuses and wants to take the money instead. Mildred is in utter shock and can't believe her daughter would stoop that low but Veda defiantly tells Mildred that she wants to use the money to get away from her. Appalled by her daughter's coldness, Mildred firmly tells Veda to leave...And a couple of months to a year pass.

There's not a day that goes by where Mildred worries about Veda and begs Bert to tell her about her whereabouts. According to Bert, while she was away, Veda pursued a career in opera singing and is managed by Carlo Treviso, the same conductor who rejected her not long ago. Mildred hopes for a reunion but it just doesn't happen quite yet. However, Bert comes over to present Veda's very first radio appearance and when Mildred hears her song, she is moved to tears.

Determined to win back her daughter, she sees Carlo Treviso to discuss Veda's finances but Mr. Terviso knows better. He warns Mildred that Veda is like a Calcatta, a snake, it's nice to look at but you can't take them home with you. This might hint that Veda is a bit of a demanding diva that's difficult to work with. But Mildred's love for Veda withstands.

While taking a drive in the city, she suddenly sees Monty and before you know it, they start reconnecting again. Their love affair is more passionate than before, to the point where Monty asks Mildred's hand in marriage. Mildred says yes...which is the beginning of the end.

During Mildred's wedding party, here comes Veda, back to her good graces again. So mother and daughter have a heartfelt reunion as Veda becomes the life of the party. She seems to have switched managers at this time and even gets offered a lucrative deal in New York but the new manager blocks her chance of doing so, to which again, Veda is boiling a plan in her head.

On the night of Veda's grand opening, she captivates the audience with her powerful singing, with one final song dedicated to her mother. Mildred cries tears of joy and for a second there it's pretty sweet. But you all know what happens.

So Mildred has been a financial hiccup because of her being distracted by Veda's singing career and also her new married life to Monty. So she has a meeting with Wally and the shareholder concerning her restaurant business when she gets the devastating news that her friend Ida has taken over her duties. She turns to Bert over her concerns about her dealings with Wally and fretting over her daughter's newfound success, which could help her out financially. It's at this point, that Bert becomes very supportive of Mildred as their relationship didn't get much development in the 1945 film. But as Mildred goes to search for Veda, she gets the shock of her life...

Mildred runs into Monty at their mansion and, he seems to be blocking their bedroom door. Put off by his strange behavior, Mildred pushes him out of the way and...

Lo and behold is Veda. And no, Mildred does not catch her in a loving embrace with Monty like in the original. Oh no, no, no, no. Veda is stark naked without a care in the world as if she's glad that her mother caught them in the act. All this time Mildred was worried that something had happened to Veda and something had happened to her alright, and Monty was the cause of it. Veda even smokes a cigarette to imply that yes, the sex was good. The complete nerve of this girl! Monty goes on a rant about how Mildred used him to win back Veda. This is a true statement from the book, this doesn't seem to be the case at all in the miniseries. Mildred seems to genuinely love Monty and it isn't like she was out looking for him, she just so happens to pop into her life again and, therefore, the passion in their relationship to pop into their life again. It seems to me that he was using Mildred to reel in Veda himself.

I just want to give my roses to Kate Winslet here. She absolutely owns this scene and the key to her amazing acting prowess is how she emotes without dialogue. The pain, the devastation, the repulsion, the anguish, the hurt, the betrayal. It's all detailed in her emotions. Kate Winslet, with all her hard work and talent, definitely deserved her Emmy award.

Now Mildred doesn't go softly. She full-on attacks Veda (and rightfully so), choking her until her singing voice goes out. Oh well, Veda, you should've never treated her mother like that. but her knight in shining armor Monty comes to the rescue. Of course, he would defend the younger (at least young enough for him) Pierce woman.

But this all transitions into the finale of the miniseries.

Several months have passed by and Mildred gets a warm welcoming party from her friends after a long trip to Nevada with Bert. Ida feels guilty about taking Mildred's position and wants her to get back in the game again, signifying that there is hope for Mildred after all. But then, Mildred gets an unexpected visitor...

Veda comes to reconcile with her mother but seeing how manipulative and calculating her daughter is, Mildred is not buying it. Now let's dig deep into the main source a bit. The book kind of has a downer ending. Again, Veda uses the reconciliation with Mildred as a marketing ploy and uses her damaged voice to switch to a much more lucrative singing contract. As Veda leaves Mildred broken-hearted, Bert encourages her to say, "To hell with Veda," as they spend the rest of the day drunk and miserable.

However, the miniseries play this out much differently. Once Mildred catches onto Veda's plan, she chews her the fuck out and screams at her to never come back again. It's such a cathartic moment, which was very much well-deserved given what Mildred went through to win back the love of a daughter, who's incapable of receiving it.

When Bert encourages her to say "to hell with Veda" and "let's get stinko", it's more celebratory and less tragic. This dialogue translates as to hell with all the hurt, pain, and betrayal that Veda has caused and now that we're finally done with her, let's give a toast to a new beginning. The ending is very poignant and although tragic, it's good that Mildred is around people who support and care for her, which leaves things on a bittersweet yet positive outlook.

I just absolutely love this miniseries. Todd Haynes is a genius at his craft. The miniseries has the makings of a juicy melodrama, however, Todd Haynes peels into the layers of the characters and situations, adapting the psychological feel of the novel, which he does brilliantly. The cast is phenomenal with some heavy supporting players but the real star of the miniseries is Kate Winslet. She really gives it her all and, again, I give her my roses. I can't imagine any other actress playing this role but her. She got the Emmy and Golden Globe! Definitely, definitely deserved.

So there you have it. Two completely different adaptations but with the same level of complexity. Both are equally measured as classics of their time and go above and beyond the source material's popularity. But the true core of the story is about how far you go for the person you love, even the ones that don't deserve it.

A Nightmare On Elm Street Ranking

2023-12-05T03:18:00.000-08:00

Aw, yes, we have reached to the first boogeyman who affected my childhood, the one and only Freddy Kruger. This is one of my all time favorite horror franchises but sadly, this series also has it's ups and downs. It's a shame because based on the concept of it's premise, it has so much potential. Not to mention, Freddy Kruger is one of the most recognizable villains in the past century and some part of me wished he was utilized well throughout the series. Though I still enjoyed some entries of the list, I have to sort out the good and the bad. So let's begin, shall we:

9. A Nightmare On Elm Street (The Remake) - Holy Crap! This remake is the worst of the worst. It's stale, it's boring, and it's mind-numbingly awful. The filmmakers totally missed the point of what made the original so effective. It's a very slow, methodical, and psychological film, and although the remake attempts to replicate that, it's bombarded with flash cuts, jump scares, and music video edits. It never gives you time to breathe or even engage with the atmosphere. It starts, then it stops, and that's it. It's downright horrible filmmaking and a total headache to watch. Even though I think Jackie Earle Haley is a good actor, he does not make a good Freddy Kruger in my opinion. Though it's not all his fault, it's the awful script that brings him down. Although the main cast aren't bad actors themselves, their characters are extremely bland, the worst being Nancy herself. And lastly, let me repeat, CGI is not scary and there's a ton of it in this film. It just strips off all of the personality of the original, making this the most bland, insipid, uninspired, and unnecessary horror remake of all time.

8. Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare - This was the film that finally put the nail in the coffin for the series. Turning Freddy into all out jokester is not a good idea in my opinion. I know some people are fans of jokester Freddy but I'm not one of them. Freddy is a full-on parody of himself and it's kind of embarrassing to watch. I get that Robert Englund is naturally funny and charismatic but that's not what Freddy Kruger is. He's supposed to be terrifying with a very dark sense of humor. Instead, the filmmakers gave him the Wile E. Coyote approach. There's actually a scene where Freddy sets up a trap and literally looks at the camera. It's fucking ridiculous. Not only that, the writing is equally bad. I just don't picture Freddy as this 1950s family man. It doesn't make sense to the narrative and doesn't make sense to the character who's supposed to be this working-class weirdo who hides out in the depths of the boiler room. Nothing about this movie works. The side characters are goofy, the deaths, instead of creative and elaborate, are cartoonish and silly, the main characters are either bland or unlikable, including the main heroine who happens to be Freddy's daughter, and lastly, it's a dense and unmemorable film. This is, hands down, the worst of the series. Period.

7. A Nightmare On Elm Street 5: The Dream Child - This one is more disappointing than outright bad. This is where the series was going to go back to its darker roots and, in the beginning, it had potential. But as soon as Freddy showed up, it all went downhill from there. The tone is very uneven. It doesn't know whether it wants to be like the original or follow up with the much campier fourth film. Whereas the special effects from the fourth film were the highlights, the effects for this one are its low point. It looks like something out of Pee-Wee's Playhouse or even Goosebumps. Yes, it looks that juvenile and if Claymation can be used to great effect (Like the early Evil Dead movies I might add), it isn't here. Although the deaths are somewhat creative, Dan's being the most brutal in my opinion, the execution is clearly lacking. Greta's death could be horrifying if it wasn't cut and less comical, but the final result is ludicrous. They literally puff up her cheeks to make her look like a Muppet, it's baffling. Mark's death could be great too if the execution wasn't poor. The filmmakers had the gall to have Freddy riding a freakin' skateboard, it was asinine. And Super Freddy? Were they kidding? I think they were kidding. Who thought that was a good idea? Freddy is probably at his most obnoxious. He's not a complete self-parody like he will be in part 6 but he's heading up there. Not to mention, this was one of Freddy's worst makeup jobs. He looks like an ancient old man with clown makeup. The overall rushed nature of the film squandered the potential that this should've had but without any thought process or a finished script, what can you do? Lisa Wilcox's performance is probably the best thing about this movie where everything else such as the character writing, special effects, and Freddy falls flat, she remains unscathed. Other than that, its a forgettable sequel with nothing else to offer.

6. A Nightmare On Elm Street 4: The Dream Master - Although this was an entertaining Nightmare sequel, compared to the previous film, this really isn't all that great. This came out during the writer's strike and just a year after Dream Warriors, so it's very apparent that the movie was going to have some problems and one of those problems was killing off the Dream Warriors in the most unceremonious way. At this point, the fans have grown attached to these characters and the way they're used here was just uncalled for. First of all, they dumb down Kincaid and Joey in order for Freddy to be easy prey for them. For some reason, they don't believe Kirsten when they're actually inside Freddy's house in Kirsten's dream, and, for some reason, Joey thinks that since the pipes aren't hot that means Freddy won't be coming back. Oooookay...Also when Kirsten shows the bite wound from Kincaid's dog, they still don't believe her, and it's kind of frustrating to watch. Second of all, the chemistry between them feels off. Instead of a heartfelt reunion between friends who bonded through trauma, there is this looming tension between Kirsten and the boys. This has to do with the recasting of Tuesday Knight, which didn't sit well with Rodney Eastman and Ken Sagoes. Third of all, when they were killed off, the Dream Warriors were treated more like an afterthought, which was very disrespectful in my opinion. Nancy's death in Part 3, was poignant and heartfelt, and she died with dignity, saving Kirsten from Freddy's grip. But when The Dream Warriors are killed, they die with no dignity at all. Kirsten, the last kid of the Elm Street mob, doesn't even get a funeral scene. Instead, it's a rather cliched scene of Alice looking at home videos and a brief glimpse of her gravestone. What a waste. Now I know the special effects are the film's highlight and it's definitely an achievement but there's this one particular scene that rubs me the wrong way. The dog-pissing fire scene is one of them. Who's idea was that and why? Why not just get one of the cars in the scene to drip oil, creating a ring of fire around Freddy's grave? That would've been way much better. However, one of the worst aspects of the movie is that the Dream Warriors are killed in favor of some bland and forgettable characters. The only character that I was totally invested in was Alice and she's the only one that gets any semblance of character development. The second half gets a little better but the first half is really rough. I know it seems like I'm going on a rant at this point but the flaws in this movie stick out like a sore thumb. Freddy has been officially commercialized and this is the beginning of the end of what was ever good about the series, which was the story and characters. With the exception of a captivating heroine, cool special effects, and a cool soundtrack, Dream Master is a below-average film at best.

5. Freddy Vs. Jason - Like I said before, Freddy and Jason are the best characters in this movie where everybody else is stranded on the waste side. There would've been an interesting mix of the Friday the 13th and A Nightmare On Elm Street characters. But instead, the filmmakers go for the usual cardboard cutouts that don't hold a candle to either one of those characters. Ironically, the two leads are probably the worst of the bunch, particularly the male lead Will. Jason Ritter has become a better actor over the years and he seems like a really nice guy too but he is terribly wooden in this movie. I would much preferred Brendan Fletcher's Mark as the film's lead. Not only does he have the better acting chops but he has just amount of the character development for the audience to give a shit about him to where Will has none. Also, if fate would have it, Brad Renfro would've been a good choice, too. He has the right level of intensity that could've fit the character better. I will stand by my opinion and say that Lori Campbell is one of the worst final girls of either franchise. Monica Keena seems like a cool person too, but she's really not good in this. Though it's not entirely her fault, the script does nothing for her character. Even Monica says the script is terrible and I agree with her. Yes, one of the takeaways from this movie is the script. It's just not great and the only thing that has going for is the special effects, Freddy, and Jason. That's it. So, Freddy Vs. Jason may not hold up well but at least a dumb fun popcorn time waster.

4. A Nightmare On Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge - I know this is a very divided movie for some people but Freddy's Revenge is kind of decent in my opinion. Sure, it breaks a lot of rules and doesn't live up to the original in terms of story, however, the movie is underrated with it's hidden themes. Freddy is still creepy in this and the makeup effects by Kevin Yahger is well-done. Freddy has a little bit of a personality in this one but he's still very sinister here. Now I know most of the characters are nothing to write home about, but I think Mark Patton's performance as Jesse really stands out to me. He's not the typical male hero you see in every horror film, Jesse is quite vulnerable and you can tell he's struggling internally, particularly in that it's not only Freddy is haunting him, but his burgeoning homosexuality is too. Sure, the screenwriter's intention was not pure but Mark Patton really sells the role and it's shown through his own struggles as a gay actor at the time. Now had they got rid of the more campier aspects of the film such as Jesse's dance scene, the demonic parakeet scene, the bouncing balls scene, and some of the pool party scene, this would've been a solid sequel right between the first and third film. Overall, this was an interesting entry. Not great mind you, but still interesting.

3. A Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors - This is the best of the best right here. The all-time great horror sequel to a highly inventive slasher film. It expands the backstory of Freddy without giving too much away and still adds that level of mystery that's needed for a concept like this. Speaking of Freddy, the filmmakers do a good job of balancing out his character, making him both comical and sinister. However, the characters are what made this film so memorable. They bring back Nancy, which I love and she's there to be a sort of mentor to the new kids. And what makes this so interesting is that they're not your typical slasher victims. They're portrayed as real teens with real problems and they're so vulnerable in fact, that you can't help but feel for them. That's what makes this sequel so pure. But to top it all off, the special effects are the real star of the show. The inventiveness on display is just masterful and it shows how you can put any idea on the table with a concept like A Nightmare On Elm Street. This was the sequel that set the series in motion, forever encapsulating the cultural zeitgeist of 80s horror sequels and I love every minute of it.

2. Wes Craven's New Nightmare - This is the top tier Nightmare sequel and one of the true finales of the franchise. All of it is not all perfect but thanks to the greatness that is Wes Craven and the amazing performance from Heather Langencamp, it has this special quality that sets it apart from the other Nightmare sequels. It has all the elements of a "final" sequel: Bringing back a female heroine that we know and love, special callbacks, and honoring the tone and feel of the first film. Craven goes for the meta approach, commenting on the state of the Nightmare films and Freddy's impact on pop culture. But the strongest element of the film is the exploration of Heather Langencamp along with the juxtaposition between reality and fiction. My favorite part of the film is when the script completely takes over the real world where Heather must play Nancy...one last time. It's beyond epic! I like how Wes Craven made Freddy creepy again, without the usual wisecracks. When it comes to Wes Craven's vision of A Nightmare On Elm Street, it's very psychological. So instead of gaudy special effects and disposable teens, it's about a mother protecting her child from Freddy's grip, which makes us sympathize with the central characters easily. There was actual care put into this film moreso than the later Nightmare films. With it's clever commentary and engaging plot, this definitely deserves to be on the top of the list. This is a must-see.

1. A Nightmare On Elm Street (The Original) - There is without a doubt that the first film is the best of them all. The tone, the look, the feel, it all works here. The film is also a great example of less is more, considering that it was made on a low budget yet the special effects holds up really well. My motto will always be less is more when it comes to state of the art effects. I also feel like a horror movie works best is when the monster is rarely shown. Freddy is only seen in darkly lit shadows with very little dialogue and even when he's not onscreen, you can still feel his presence. You can tell that Wes Craven wanted to focus on the psychological horror instead of the usual hack and slash routine that was prevalent in 80s slashers at that time. Freddy is at his best when he's dark and sinister and this one takes the cake. Robert England is very effective in his first outing without a wink or nod to the audience. Furthermore, the characters are utilized well, especially Nancy Thompson. She's more than just an interchangeable final girl who defeats the killer at the end, she's an actual character that we care about and know so much about that we as the audience become attached her narrative. It's a good versus evil story that texturizes the concept without being formulaic. But here's where I'm gonna pull a What If: Instead of Ronee Blakely in the role of Marge, I rather much prefer Abby Dalton from Falcon Crest, who has better chemistry with John Saxon and is a lot more intense than Blakely. With the ending, I would just have Nancy drive away with her friends happily while Freddy attacks Marge out of the blue. So there you have it. Besides all that, this movie is a bonafide 80s classic and remains the top of the horror film food chain.

Friday The 13th Ranking

2023-11-19T23:04:00.000-08:00

I know some consider the Friday The 13th franchise to be "not great" but there are actually some decent entries in the series. Some I would probably consider as cult classics. Yes, sure, the Friday The 13th series is not art, but it's the art of horror filmmaking and some of the film directors of these movies have a mutual understanding of Jason Voorhees being a cultural horror icon with interesting variations that makes him stand out in each entry. So without further ado, let's begin:

12. Jason Goes To Hell: The Final Friday - I did say this was watchable...if you don't view it as a Friday The 13th movie. Now when I think about it, it's actually gotten worse over the years. As a young kid, my expectation of the movie was too high. I've got to admit, the cover of this film was pretty cool. But that's all the good I have to say about it. The directing is very amateurish with the exception of a few good special effects and the writing is equally as bad. When I watch the interviews of Adam Marcus, he seems very out of touch and has no idea what he's talking about. He's more concerned about how fans are complaining about what color Jason's clothes are than the actual issue, which is his lack of understanding of The Friday The 13th lore with the addition of some rather confusing plot points. I would say one good thing about this, I thought the two leads were fine, it's just, unfortunately, they're in a really shitty movie with really shitty writing. There were just too many cooks in the kitchen with this one and it's the worst of the series by far.

11. Jason X - Sorry guys, this was my least favorite of the series. I just don't care when a horror franchise sets its main villain in space. It's such a dumb idea and you know the filmmakers working on it are running out of ideas at this point. For an ambitious project, it has a rather cheap execution. The spaceship is just a set with a CGI backdrop. Nothing about it stands out and it's quite boring to watch. Blade Runner, this isn't. The filmmakers try to do the self-aware thing with Scream and Friday Part 6 before it but it's not as clever. It just feels like I'm watching one of those bad SciFi movie of the week specials. I get why people find this to be so bad, it's good but it's still my least favorite of the franchise.

10. Friday The 13th (The Remake) - I know this movie has its fans, but it's just not for me. Okay, let me start with the positives, Derek Mears did a good job as Jason and is probably the best part of this movie...and that's all. Everything else is forgettable trash. The worst part of this movie has got to be the characters and I know what you're saying, "Well, it's a Friday The 13th film, what did you expect?" But at least the characters in the earlier films were at least likable. The characters in this film are either obnoxious frat boys or vapid sorority girls with the exception of Clay, Jenna, and Whitney. The script is subpar, the gore effects are meh, and although the visual aesthetic is more pleasing to the eye, it still comes off as bland. Overall, I just didn't like this movie and I won't be watching it again anytime soon.

9. Friday The 13th Part 8: Jason Takes Manhattan - Wow. This has got to be the most nonsensical sequel of them all. This was at a time when the series was heading towards a supernatural route starting with Part 6, which made the series more fun in my opinion. This came right after Part 7 featuring a girl with telekinetic powers. So, of course, the filmmakers of this one decided to be lazy. It's basically a retread of Part 7 but worse. I mean the stuff with Jason on a Boat is fun but it soon wears a little thin for a while. The worst aspect of the movie is the supernatural angle. It's never really explained why the final girl keeps having visions of young Jason. I mean sure, it is revealed that it's a part of her childhood trauma but it still doesn't tell us how she has these psychic visions of Jason. Also, Jason suddenly gains the power of teleportation? Again, none of this is ever explained and it makes for a very confusing watch. It's not as bad as I remembered, but it is certainly not as good. Though I would say, The Darkest Side of Night song is quite catchy.

8. Friday The 13th Part 5: A New Beginning - The reason why this is so low on the list is not that Jason's not in the movie, it's mostly for the overall sleazy vibe that makes it less enjoyable to watch. Some part me of believes that something like this has potential. The plot is actually not half-bad with Tommy Jarvis returning as a tortured young man attending a camp for troubled teens. We could've had a Nightmare On Elm Street: Dream Warriors type of story as we get to know the teens and know what their damage is before "Jason" gets them. But no, that's not the story we got here. Nobody gets any character development, not even Tommy. It's just random kill after random kill. And I know what you're gonna say "It's a Friday The 13th film, what did you expect?" But as I like to reiterate, in the earlier films, the characters had a least some shred of personality, and believe it or not, there was a plot in those movies. On top of that, the characters in this film don't act like real human beings. They're either over-the-top theatrical or just plain repulsive and unlikable. To add more to the sleaziness, there's an ample amount of female nudity. Unnecessarily so. Sure, this is the same guy who once directed softcore porn but hear me out. Believe it or not, there's not really much nudity in these films as everybody like to assume. Even the first one didn't have much nudity with only a quick shot of Kevin Bacon's butt. And when there was nudity, it was, dare I say it, tastefully done. In the '70s and '80s, the young crowd would usually go skinny-dipping and in the early movies, it felt natural and wasn't overly sleazy, but, this definitely went overboard, which includes the remake. It's also very out of focus, I don't know who the real main character is, and the story and its plot twist are kind of all over the place. It's somewhat watchable for what it is but it's not the best.

7. Friday The 13th: 3D - Once upon a time, I used to like this movie and would watch it so many times. But over the years I've realized that this movie is incredibly cheesy. The characters have actually become caricatures, including this unconvincing biker gang, the 3D effects are really hokey and soured my enjoyment of the film, and lastly, the pacing slogs through most of the time. There are some positives, however. Even though I find the actress to be melodramatic, Chris' story arc was actually well done, which gives a connection between the killer and the final girl. Speaking of, the whole third act, the climatic fight between Jason and Chris is actually quite thrilling. This is also the entry where Jason wears his iconic hockey mask and the rest is history. This may be dumb, but at least it's dumb fun.

6. Friday The 13th Part 7: The New Blood - There was a point in time when I did like this movie but the novelty has worn off. I guess it's because I was a huge Carrie fan and to see a character with similar powers battle it off with Jason got me really hyped up. To be fair, that's probably one of the best and only parts of the movie. Everything else kind of falls off the rails for me and it's actually a step down from the actionized Part 6, which kept itself apart from the other movies, which are standard slasher fare. But at least this is Kane Hodder's first appearance as Jason and the look of Jason is pretty awesome. But I have to say, the only characters that ever got a hold of me were Tina, Nick, Tina's mom, and maybe Dr. Cruise. Not because he was likable, mind you, far from it, but at least he was interesting. The rest of the characters felt like they were pulled out of an after-school teen drama and had nothing else to offer. And once we get to the middle of the movie, half of the couples have sex and it gets a bit too salacious for me, not as bad as the remake, but still. However, it makes up for a spectacular third act involving a showdown with Jason and Tina. But unfortunately, we're left with a very confusing ending where Tina's dead father comes out and grabs Jason underwater. After that, Tina and Nick are carried out on the stretcher, and...the movie just ends. So yeah, this movie was just okay, not great by any means, but just okay.

5. Freddy Vs. Jason - For all the hype that it's got, this turned out to be a mediocre movie for me. It's not all bad. I think some of the special effects hold up, particularly the practical effects and the battle between Freddy and Jason is pretty epic. But the downside is the characters. Back in the early to mid-2000s, horror films had a habit of focusing on unlikable characters you can't wait to see die. I get the feeling that the writers of this film based these characters on kids that they hated in high school. They're either bland, annoying, or just plain uninteresting, and that includes our leads, Lori and Will. The only interesting characters in this film are Freddy and Jason themselves. I mean their names are in the title, so of course they're the focus through and through. But besides all that, it's a good popcorn flick. Not great mind you, but good on its own.

4. Friday The 13th (The Original) - By today's standards, This would be considered a below-average slasher at best but in my opinion, it's one of the classic examples of the slasher genre. Sure, Halloween set the mold but Friday The 13th made a run for its money, thanks to the beautiful cinematography, artful direction, and last but not least, the amazing special effects by Tom Savini. Sure, the pacing might be a little off, which is one of the film's issues but it makes up for it with a climatic final act that was totally worth it. Although the characters don't stand out in terms of writing and development, at least the cast is charismatic and likable enough to care about whether they live or die. Plus, they're portrayed as real people and not just cardboard cutouts. Not to mention, Betsy Palmer's ballsy performance as Pamela Voorhees. I'm telling ya, that lady can act her ass off! And don't get me started on that ending. Oh boy, what a treat! So, this was definitely one of the more enjoyable entries and deserves the honorable achievement of kickstarting a classic horror franchise.

3. Friday The 13th: Part 2- Okay if the first one kickstarted the series, this sequel is the one that started it all. Holy cow! it's so much more entertaining and dare I say better than the original in terms of characters and pacing. 1981 was the perfect year for this movie to come out. Right on the dime! This movie is actually Jason's first outing. Sure, he doesn't have the iconic hockey mask yet but he's still a very effective killer in this one. He's a bit clumsy and awkward but he's very effective at being a creepy woodsman, which I feel like that's what the filmmakers were going for and the 2009 remake attempted to do. Also, you have the amazingly charming Amy Steel as our final girl Ginny Field. I feel like that should've put her to good use. Maybe they should've put her in Part 5 in place of Pam. Nothing against Pam, she's cool but that would've made that movie TEN times better in my opinion. So yeah, Part 2 is definitely one of my favorites. Better story, better pacing, and a captivating heroine. Just perfect.

2. Friday The Part 6: Jason Lives - Wow! This movie was action-packed! We have a way more charismatic and well-rounded Tommy Jarvis, Megan Garris, a dynamic lead heroine who compliments Tommy, creative kills, likable side characters, and a take-no-charge Jason who can go toe to toe with The Terminator. This is tons of fun and it knows it's fun. It has a well-developed story that actually has a flow and explores the mythology of Jason Voorhees. I like how the director incorporated smoky fogs, ominous dim lighting, vacant cemeteries, and an old-school horror vibe that sets it apart from the rest of the series. I also like the tongue-in-cheek self-aware humor while also taking a big risk by actually inviting kids to the campground for the first time. Considering how supernaturally powerful Jason is, it makes him a much bigger threat and that's what adds to the excitement. This is probably one of the most innovative of the series and pretty much made Jason into a pop culture icon.

1. Friday The 13th: The Final Chapter - This is the definitive Friday The 13th film and I've watched this more often times than I can remember. Jason is at his most brutal here and he's actually quite scary at times. There's also a dynamic cast of characters that are actually well-rounded. You have your typical teens partying it up in a vacation home and a single mother with two kids: lead heroine Trish and our future hero in the making, Tommy Jarvis. We also have horror movie maestro Tom Savini back on the drawing board, creating the most gruesome deaths on screen. Although this marks as the final movie of the series, this was only the beginning, molding the franchise into what it is today. Thanks to this movie, this is where the slasher genre reached it's peak. This is by far one of the best of the best.

Halloween Franchise Ranking

2023-11-07T18:09:00.000-08:00

Here is my ranking for the Halloween series. Like I said before, I am not the biggest fan of this franchise. Most recently, the filmmakers are doing yet another iteration of Halloween. This time as a "cinematic universe" and a television series. Oh my god, can you let this franchise die! There more bad than good sequels and there's a only a few that I can call "decent." However, I'll save my thoughts on the ranking. Anywho, let's move on with the list:

13. Halloween: Resurrection - This is the bottom of the barrel, people. One of the worst horror sequels of all time and what's ironic about it is that this has no reason to exist. The ending of H20 had a finality to it and the whole point of the film was about the exploration of Laurie's trauma and her overcoming that. I think it's one of the best endings of the series: Laurie chopping off Michael's head and, with the ax in her hand, walks triumphantly to the path ahead. Just beautiful. This was the true ending of the Halloween series. But they completely undo this in the first 12 minutes, using tired exposition and plot contrivances. They unceremoniously kill off Laurie in favor of some bland, forgettable, and very unlikable characters. It's also incredibly dated with its use of a reality show/webcam gimmick akin to The Blair Witch Project. This is nothing more than a cash-grab sequel, milking out Michael for all what he's worth.

12. Halloween Kills - You already know how I feel about this one. This is like hilariously bad, truly the low point of the series. That "Evil Dies Tonight" mantra has been stuck in my head since watching this film and not in a good way. Not to mention, the characters in this movie were incredibly stupid on stupendous levels. Laurie is barely in the movie, Karen and Allyson are out of focus, and most of it is just Michael killing random people with some unnecessary (albeit stylishly well-done) flashbacks. It left me feeling hollow and empty, which made me realize that I'm not really a fan of this series. It's basically a filler movie with no purpose at all.

11. Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers - This film is a total mess and there's no other way to elaborate that. I can see that there was a purpose to making this because the previous movie ended on a cliffhanger. So this film was used to explain the cliffhanger in the worst way possible. I just feel like Michael's motives shouldn't be explained. It's not about what he's about, he just is. And it's all summed up in Dr. Lommis' monologue in the 1978 film. If you listen to it, there's the motive right there! Michael is just pure evil. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Having a cult control Michael's killing spree is beyond dumb and nonsensical. It's these horribly acted characters in these stupid robes and that's where the movie lost me. I consider both the theatrical cut and the producer's cut to be equally bad. You can't fix what was already broken. None of this works and, thankfully after this, the series got a much-needed reboot.

10. Halloween 2 (Rob Zombie Version) - This movie was a waste of my time and really hard to sit through. Not because it was disturbing, far from it. It was because of how utterly OBNOXIOUS it was. Holy crap! Every single character, with a few exceptions, is god-awful. Laurie, our precious main character is a complete shrew throughout the whole film. Hearing her constantly yell and scream is like nails on a chalkboard. Well, it was only because I watched the director's cut but that's beside the point. This movie is also nonsensical with the whole psychic connection between Laurie and Michael while he has visions of his dead mother and a younger version of himself (?). And it's like what am I watching? Not to mention, the first twenty minutes is a DREAM. I mean what the fuck?! From then on, it all went downhill from there. Spliced up with nonsensical visions and Michael Myers killing people while looking like a hobo. Rob Zombie didn't even want to do this movie and I can see why. It's totally unwatchable and should be avoided at any cost.

9. Halloween Ends - I know this movie has its defenders, but hear me out. The Corey Cunnigham subplot seems like a good idea on paper, but the execution is terrible. Case in point, the opening scene. Now when I first watched this I thought this was very shocking but then I realized, something was...off. David Gordon Green used a lot of comedy angles for this scene, especially when the kid Jeremy falls down the staircase. I just couldn't help but laugh, god help me. And from then on, we've got some terrible, terrible writing concerning Allyson and Corey's budding romance along with some detestable characters you can't wait to see die. Half of it feels like a horrible Stephen King adaptation where Michael takes a backseat. If it had different writers and a different director with a bit of rearranging, this might come out better than it was. But at the end of the day, I was just plain bored throughout. David Gordon Green did a good experiment with Halloween 2018, but I think he should stay away from horror franchises for right now.

8. Halloween (Rob Zombie Version) - This made me realize that I'm not the biggest Rob Zombie fan and his style of filmmaking doesn't translate well as a Halloween film. Even the original director John Carpenter agrees. First, Rob Zombie takes too much of his time developing the character, who starts off like a typical kid. Not particularly normal, but typical. Secondly, his appearance is that of a two-ton wrestler which misses the point. He basically body-slams his victims like it's WWE. What made Michael effective in the original is that he's an average-sized man blending in with society. That's what made him scary, he could be anybody. Lastly, half of the characters in this movie are total scumbags! It just loses the tension for me. Plus, it's kind of strange that Rob Zombie would add his usual hillbilly characters in a Halloween film. Haddonfield is supposed to be this mom-and-apple pie type of town and having his usual brand of weirdo characters just doesn't blend well. Overall, it's not that great.

7. Halloween 5: The Revenge (?) of Michael Myers - This was quite a tedious watch and not to mention, mildly confusing at times. The director was trying to add in these ideas that would stick but it doesn't land. Rachel, the final girl from the last movie, is killed off in favor of Tina, who's barely a character. And to retcon the cliffhanger from Return, they give Jamie a psychic connection to Michael. Oookay. On top of that, Donald Pleasence is extremely over-the-top, turning Dr. Loomis into a blubbering maniac, we have these two useless comic relief cops that serve nothing to the story, annoying teen characters, unnecessary jump scares, and very weak pacing. The only saving grace is Danielle Harris who gives a very sympathetic performance as Jamie and one of the few characters that I emphasized with. Other than that, this was a forgettable, subpar sequel.

6. Halloween 4: The Return Of Michael Myers - This film was kind of mediocre. It has some things going for it, but the end result is left to be desired. I do like Rachel's story arc of becoming Jamie's protector but the love triangle subplot takes up most of the film. It feels like I'm watching a lame teen drama. The directing is sort of hit or miss. It has some effective scenes yet the rest is nothing to write home about. The first act starts off fine, and the second act is a little sluggish, but it picks up speed by the climax and that's where things get interesting. The positives of this movie go to Danielle Harris who gives a believable performance as Jamie. You really feel for her and the movie becomes much more suspenseful when a child's life is at stake. I would say that Donald Pleasance is still quite good here and gives a balanced performance that seems to be lacking in the later films. Anyway, I don't think this film is all the way awful, it still feels like a Halloween movie but, it's not my top favorite.

5. Halloween 2018 - I know this is a controversial spot right here but it's a slightly above-average movie at best. The directing is well done, one of the highlights is Michael rampaging through the neighborhood of Haddonfield just in one take. The acting isn't half-bad either with Jamie Lee Curtis being the shining beacon of them all. But it's the writing that keeps it from being great. The whole Dr. Sartain twist was a total step down and ruined the pace of the movie. Quite frankly, the entire middle section is kind of a mess and it isn't until the climatic battle between Laurie and Michael that things start to pick up. It's got some good ideas going for it but it's not well-executed enough to keep this higher on the list.

4. Halloween 3: Season of the Witch - Now I have to be honest, I think this is just an okay film but at least the plot is engaging. Now I want to focus on the negatives first. Some of it is kind of cheesy. The acting from the female lead isn't all that great, the writing is kind of sluggish at times, and the pacing from the first act is really, really slow. But there are major positives, such as Tom Atkin's performance as a flawed but relatable everyman and Dan O'Herlihy's turn as an evil toymaker. However, the special effects take the cake. It's actually way gorier than Halloween 2! I can also see that there was a lot of thought and care put into this than the rest of the sequels that came after it. It's quite an inventive premise and it raises the stakes more in terms of storytelling.

3. Halloween 2 1981-Although this has its issues, it's still a solid Halloween sequel. The biggest highlight of the movie is the directing. Rick Rosenthal did an amazing job capturing the look and feel of the original that actually kept me engaged. There are a few missteps, such as the writing and characters. Laurie is bedridden throughout half of the movie and our focus is on the less-than-stellar hospital staff with zero personality. But it makes up for it with some inventive kills and a suspenseful chase scene between Laurie and Michael. It may not be a perfect movie but it's a perfect Halloween movie.

2. Halloween: H20 - This is hands down one of the best Halloween sequels. Again, it's not perfect but at least it focuses on Laurie's character development in a very real and honest way. It's less about the body count and more about the effects of Laurie's PTSD. There are some issues such as the tired jump scares, which is a big pet peeve of mine in horror films, and, once again, the writing of the characters, such as John and Molly's forgettable friends and LL Cool J's character who has some agency but is basically a glorified cameo. Besides all that, this is Jamie Lee Curtis at her best. After all, this is her movie through and through. The climax is probably one of my favorite parts. I love how Laurie just walks up to the school with an ax in her hand, ready to battle it out with Michael. It's so badass! But the ending takes the cake, wrapping things up with a neat little bow. This would've been the perfect trilogy too, with the theme being based on Laurie's trauma and her overcoming that. Starting with Halloween, Halloween 2, and H20. All in all, this film is the true finale of the original franchise. Locked and sealed.

1. Halloween - This is it. The forefather of slasher films and easily one of the best horror movies ever made. What works about Halloween is its simplicity and that's what lacking in the other films. This is also the best rendition of Michael Myers where he is presented as a normal-sized, normal-looking man who just happens to be an evil killing machine. When it comes to the suspense, it's not about the kills, it's about the anticipation of the kills. That's what makes Halloween so effective. You don't need blood and guts to make a horror movie engaging. It's all about the technique. The style of direction, the chilling music score, and the characters that we empathize with. Now, Annie and Lynda are nothing to write home about on paper but at least Nancy Kyes and P.J. Soles are charming in their performances. Although it's her first starring role, Jamie Lee Curtis is still riveting as Laurie Strode. With just that look in her eye, you know she's a star in the making. Lastly, Donald Pleasance gives a legendary performance as Dr. Sam Loomis, who's the Van Helsing to Michael's Dracula. Major props to John Carpenter who turned this low-budget B-flick into an all-time classic.

Scream 6 (2023)

2023-11-02T00:03:00.003-07:00

After the success of Scream 5, the filmmakers decided to release yet another sequel early next year. From what I gather, most of the issues that I had with the last are still present here...and then some. This time, the filmmakers are going for a bigger, broader approach by switching the setting to New York. Okay, I guess that's an interesting choice. They also decided to bring back fan favorite Kirby as well. I can accept that. But let's talk about the elephant in the room, shall we? Neve Campbell, the main star of the Scream films is not in this sequel. Do you want to know why? Salary disputes. Can you honestly believe that? Neve Campbell is the soul of the series and the studios won't even pay her the salary that she deserves? It's baffling. Yeah, in a narrative sense, Sidney has moved on and has a quiet life with a husband and two kids, not wanting to get involved with the Ghostface murders but it's kind of odd to not have Neve Campbell in this outing. But anywho, what do I think of this movie? Kind of disappointing. Though it's not all bad. The opening scene was very promising, the New York setting gives away some really cool suspenseful scenes we haven't seen before, and they added some much-needed character development. Is it any better? Not quite, but at least Melissa Barrera has some much-needed range this time around. Other than that, the rest is kind of forgettable. I get that the filmmakers are trying new things but in the end, it's kind of formulaic. I never thought I say that about a Scream movie but here we are. Oh well, let's begin shall we?

The Story: After the ordeal she experienced back in Woodsboro, Sam Carpenter decides to move to New York with her sister Tara, who's starting her first year in college. But it seems as though the past always comes to haunt those who run from it and Sam's situation is no different. With an unsalvagable reputation and a crippling mental illness, Sam must stop another Ghostface from threatening her and sister's lives.

This cast of characters is...okay. That's all I have to say. It's a shame because they bring back fan-favorite Kirby and even Gale joins in on the action too. But something's lost here. The vibe this time around feels off and it feels like a completely different movie, which is the point but nothing seems to gel well.

First, let's talk about the opening scene...

The scene starts with University professor Laura Crane (get it?) played by Scream Queen Samara Weaving who starred in The Babysitter films and Radio Silence's own Ready or Not. She's at a busy New York restaurant waiting for her date when she gets a phone call....who turns out to be her date. He apologizes for being late and wants to meet her in the alleyway. And you know what? She actually goes there! I get the feeling she never met this guy physically, so it's impossible to believe that this professional, seemingly intelligent woman would want to meet some random guy she met online in an alleyway. It just doesn't make sense for her character but, then again, this is a horror film, and in horror films, something has to happen. So yeah, she walks in the alleyway and hears the guy getting attacked on the phone. She runs out until...there's a familiar voice on the phone. It's none other than Ghostface luring Laura into her doom...Then, out of nowhere, he strikes!

And Ghostface really goes to town on her as if it's really, really personal. However, the scene doesn't end there. The camera stays steadily on the Ghostface Killer and then suddenly, he reveals his mask...

It turns out to be a random guy. Okay, I guess I'll go with that. But here's where things get really interesting.

He runs into Tara (yes, Tara Carpenter) and they have a friendly little chit-chat before he goes to his dorm. Oh yeah, the guy's name is Jason by the way. How convenient. Oh and get this. Once he goes inside his dorm room, guess what he's playing on TV. You guessed it! Jason Takes Manhattan. And that's where I was like, "Okay, this movie is a little too on the nose."

So, Jason calls up his partner in crime Greg, gloating about his killing of Laura, all because she gave him a C- on the subject of Giallo. Wow, is it that serious? But the person on the other line isn't Greg. But Jason doesn't know that considering that Greg is just fucking around with his Ghostface voice. During this back and forth, we figure out that Jason and Greg are conducting an evil plan to stalk Tara and Sam and kill their friends. But that all seems to come to a close when the voice on the other line tells Jason to check the fridge...

When he opens it, Jason sees Greg literally stuffed in the fridge, and out comes...

The actual Ghostface, giving Jason a taste of his own medicine.

Wow! What an opening! They sort of do the bait-and-switch thing, which I totally love. What makes it interesting is that the killers are revealed right away only to be killed off by the REAL killer of the movie and it plays into the notion that there might be a cult of Ghostfaces. Well, at least that's what I thought it would turn out to be. But it just goes completely left field. More on that later.

Before I get to the "Core Four", as Chad would like to call them (oh god), I would like to focus on the lesser characters.

Here we have Danny Brackett played by Josh Segarra. All that we know about him is that he's really good-looking and Sam's love interest. Though Danny is not totally useless, he does help around but he's just there for the most part with very little screentime. And whatever chemistry Danny and Sam have is so non-existent. The relationship just comes out of nowhere, there's no build-up or anything. They just kiss and they're suddenly a couple. Oh well, I guess it's part of the really rushed nature of the film.

Then we have Anika Kayoko, Mindy's girlfriend, played by Devyn Nekoda, who really doesn't have any scenes of her own. She is always around Mindy, which makes her kind of like a satellite character. So yeah, that's all I got to say about her. She's Mindy's girlfriend and that's that.

Then there's Sam's roommate Quinn Bailey, played by Liana Libertero, who is the daughter of Detective Wayne Bailey and has a habit of sleeping around. Quinn does have her moments but she barely gets any screentime, though I will say that Liana Libertero is naturally charismatic.

Lastly, we have Ethan Landry, played by Jack Champion, who is barely a character. He's just there where jokes are usually made at his expense because he's a virgin and a nerd. That's all. That's all that we know about him.

Okay, now we're working towards the more interesting characters:

There's Wayne Bailey, played by Dermot Mulroney, the detective who's investigating the murder case which somehow involves Sam. Dermot Mulroney does okay with the role. At times, he's kind of phoning it in but he gets a little better once his character becomes more proactive but oh boy, once we get to the third act, it all goes downhill from there. More on that later.

In the place of Sidney, we have the one, the only Kirby Reed played by Hayden Panettiere. Would I call it a triumphant return? Um, I don't know. She just doesn't seem like the same type of character this time around. I just see her as this hard-boiled FBI agent since her entire character in the fourth film was about how she was a horror film fanatic. What if she was a screenwriter writing the new Stab film based on her experiences. That comes off much more organic to me. To put the cherry on top, she can collaborate with Gale. Anywho, I thought Hayden Panettiere did an okay job. She doesn't have the spunk that she has from the fourth film but it was passable.

Then have the quick-witted Gale Weathers, played by Courtney Cox, who's always on the case. Did she learn anything in the last film? Not really. She was going to write a book about Dewey but instead, she goes for the "If It Bleeds, It Leads" approach, which is a detriment to her character development. She writes a book about Sam and the Woodsboro murders from last year as if Sam has enough problems on her belt. Like I said with the Kirby segment, it would've been more organic if she was a consultant for Kirby who's making the next Stab film, you know instead of banking on controversy. Despite all that, Gale still does have a heart and she helps out the Core Four with sharp investigative skills. She gets a close call with the killer and gets almost killed as a result but, as always, Gale gets better. Courtney Cox is great as always. There may be a few mistakes with the writing of her characters but she pulls through fine.

Okay, now we've made it to the Core Four and we're gonna start with the Meeks Twins:

Mindy Meeks, played by Jasmine Savoy Brown, is still pretty likable here but there are times when she comes off a bit annoying. There's the whole horror movie rules monologue that was built off from the last film that felt so unnecessary here. It just wasn't needed and it dragged the film down a bit. Then after somebody that she was close to dies horribly, she instantly blames Ethan. I get that she's traumatized but it makes her come off as irrational and I don't like it. Oh and here's a slight spoiler here, there's a moment where she gets stabbed in the subway and her reaction is, "Fuck this franchise." Really? You just got stabbed two times and that's all you have to say? And that's when the movie went down on the hills of cheesetopia. Ho-ly crap! Anywho, despite the (very terrible) writing issues, Jasmine Savoy Brown still does her best with the role.

Then there's Chad Meeks played by the very gorgreous Mason Gooding. He's relegated to being Tara's love interest, which is fine, I do like the chemistry between them but it comes out of nowhere. Just to mention, there was no interaction between Chad and Tara in the last film, so it comes out of left field when they suddenly have feelings for each other. But besides all that, Chad is still the loveable, adorable jock that we all love and Mason Gooding is still his sweet and charming self.

Now we focus on Tara, played by the ever-so-talented Jenna Ortega. This time around, Tara tries to move on from her past and starts a new life in college but her constantly paranoid sister Sam keeps hovering over her, but then again, her first scene starts with her almost getting date-raped by a college jock so she's lucky that her sister and friends were around at all. That's pretty much the core of Tara's arc is how she wants to take control of her life and let the past die. As always, Jenna Ortega kills it (no pun intended) and it would be nice if she became the ultimate heroine in the next sequel.

Lastly, we have Sam, played by Melissa Barrera. The filmmakers give her a lot more to do this time and it gives Melissa Barrera a better acting performance. Sam's character is actually explored, which was definitely needed from the last movie. Now I never really jived with her being Billy Loomis' daughter. It was cheesy then and it's cheesy now but at least the filmmakers made Sam a more complex character. She frets over her sister's safety, goes to therapy to deal with her mental illness, and deals with the scrutiny of being a serial killer's daughter. It gives a lot of weight to her situation and it makes Sam more...tolerable. Not better but tolerable.

The biggest draw of the movie is the amazing set pieces that are made for some tight-knit suspenseful scenes. The highlights are The Convenient Store Scene, The Ladder Scene, and The Subway Scene. Let's talk about the Convenient Store Scene. Oh man, that was intense! This was actually the first time a Ghostface killer used a gun. And gives the clue that maybe this Ghostface is skilled at what he/she does. They're not clumsy, they're not bumbling, they're a true hunter looking for their prey. Then we have the Ladder Scene, which was done extremely well. So, the characters are trapped with the Ghostface who sneaked in and killed one of their friends. They barricade the door and from across the street, Danny takes out a ladder that reaches towards the window. The entire scene is agonizingly suspenseful as the characters have to slowly climb on the ladder without falling. Holy shit! I was totally on the edge of my seat! My favorite scene of all, however, is the Subway Scene. Maybe I'm in the minority but subways are the best settings for horror films. What I also like about his scene is that there are special little horror easter eggs. Since this is set around Halloween, people are dressed up in all sorts of costumes, including our favorite slasher movie villains, Michael, Freddy, Jason, and especially Ghostface. That's the real kicker of the scene and that's why it's so suspenseful.

Okay, out with the good and in with the bad. I have to say, the dialogue this time around is...kind of cheesy. I would never say that about a Scream film but here we are. I could probably count about 50 f-bombs, some daytime soap opera dialogue, terrible quips, and the usual movie references. It's not all bad but it gets a little grating at times. However, the real kick in the balls has got to be the third act.

Since this is set in a big city, it would be impossible to have two Ghostfaces running around, so it would've been an awesome concept to have a cult of Ghostfaces but...this is not what we get here. It's far worse than you can imagine.

There are at least three killers in the movie, and those three killers are:

Quinn, Ethan, and Wayne revealing themselves to be the sister, the brother, and the father of Richie Kirsch. So it's basically a retread of Scream 2. The climax is even set in a movie theater. Wow, just wow. I never thought the writing could be that lazier. First off, I don't give a fuck about the character of Richie and I don't even know why this is a thing. Secondly, the acting from these three has gotten extremely over-the-top, especially from Dermot Mulroney. He is hella hammy and not in a good way. Lastly, how the hell can he afford a theater with years worth of police evidence on a detective's salary? Again, it leaves more plot holes than it should. So Tara and Sam go toe to toe with the family of psychos and there are a lot of punches, beatings, and stabbings until Tara takes down Ethan by stabbing him in the mouth and Sam takes down Quinn with a shot in the head. Finally, Sam makes her move on Detective Bailey where her CGI ghost dad Billy (yes they bring him back and I don't know why) convinces her to put on the Ghostface costume to give Bailey a good stabbing. And that, Sam does, practically mutilating the guy. It seems to be all over but Ethan (who just got stabbed multiple times including the mouth, mind you) runs out to attack until Kirby smashes him with the very same TV that killed Stu Macher. Woop di do.

So everybody's reunited, which also includes Chad, who was stabbed multiple times by two killers, somehow survives and is pulled out on a stretcher where Tara runs into his arms in a romantic embrace. There's also Mindy, who was also stabbed two times in the stomach, but for some reason seems perfectly fine, running across two feet without a limp or no pain. What the hell is going on here? Shouldn't this take place at the same hospital where Gale is? And even though, I'm glad that Chad is alive, there's no way anybody could survive his attack. I'm pretty sure they've hit an artery somewhere but oh well. Like I said this series is getting a bit cartoonish at this point where everyone can just have casual conversations while having bloody open wounds. It just makes me appreciate how realistic the first two films were. So as everything comes to a close, Sam gazes at the Ghostface mask, hinting that she might get the thrill of being a serial killer after all...

Wow, what a movie. The sad part is that it had so much potential and it went crumbling down once it got started. The really rushed nature is pretty much evident and the fact that they couldn't afford Neve Campbell is ludicrous to me considering that each of these movies makes a substantial amount of money. Even in the worst box office openings, they still make money, including merchandise. Oh and just to mention, half of the movie is not even set in New York because of budget reasons. Shocker! Plus, the writing issues are very apparent here, so I can see why they would have those amazing setpieces to distract us from the not-so-good writing. Like I said, it's not bad but it's sure as hell disappointing.

They're making yet another sequel, this time replacing the Radio Silence team with Christoper Landon (the director of the Happy Death Day films and Freaky) to which I might check those movies out for reference but until I hope this is the last one because this series is balancing on a thin line of self-parody. Let's just hope the eighth film won't involve time travel like the Stab films...

My Last Word: Not bad but not great either. It's probably good for a rental.

Scream (2022)

2023-06-20T23:21:00.001-07:00

In 2011, Wes Craven confirmed he was contracted to work on a fifth AND sixth installment of the Scream franchise. This would take another ten years for the fifth film to be materialized. During this time, Craven was the executive producer of the Scream television series (never watched it) and had his focus on that. Sadly, however, on August 30. 2015, Wes Craven passed away, leaving the franchise in limbo. On top of that, The Weinstein Brothers were facing numerous sexual misconduct allegations, shutting down any plans for future films. Thankfully, in November 2019, Spyglass Media Group acquired the rights to make a new Scream film. This time, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillet would take over the director's chair while Kevin Williamson fills in the role of executive producer. With the addition of the Triumphant Trio of Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette, the production of Scream 5 was set and ready to go. The result is...pretty mediocre. There are some positive things to be found in Scream 5, but the majority of the film just feels off and the writing is not all that great. Most of these issues have to do with Sam Carpenter, and oh boy, I have a LOT to say about this character. I don't know...It just doesn't seem like a movie I want to latch onto. As much as I would like to examine the glaring issues in Scream 5, I appreciate the effort of the filmmakers trying to honor Wes Craven's legacy but, it just doesn't hit the mark for me.

The Story: After her sister survives a brutal attack, Sam Carpenter returns to her hometown of Woodsboro. But as a deep dark secret comes back to haunt Sam, her sister's attacker strikes again. With the help of Sidney, Dewey, and Gale, Sam must unveil the killer behind the Ghostface mask.

To keep up with tradition, let's examine the opening scene:

We open to Tara Carpenter texting on the phone with her friend Amber, planning a get-together. Then, she gets a phone call...As we all know, it's the voice of Ghostface, asking the simple question: "What's your favorite scary movie?"

Tara answers The Babadook because it's "Elevated Horror." Elevated Horror is a term used for horror movies that has a more psychological and intellectual meaning. According to Tara, The Babadookis the examination of motherhood and grief. This is in regard to how Elevated Horror has become popular over the years and is often the topic of every social media post.

Things get a bit sinister when the caller quizzes Tara about the Stab movie once he puts out a threat on Amber's life. The question: Who were the two killers in the first Stab movie? Since Tara wasn't born in the nineties, she has no clue what the Stab movies are about. In a moment of panic, she pulls out her to look up the Stab movies on IMDB. Tara actually gets it right by saying the actors' names but the characters' names.

Unfortunately, Tara gets a visit from Ghostface. She puts up a pretty good fight but this Ghostface is no-holds-barred and the takedown of Tara is pretty brutal. And as the killer makes their final blow, the title card flashes on the screen. Then all of a sudden, Mrs. Jackson by Outcast plays. That was a pretty weird tonal shift. But here's the twist. Once we're introduced to Tara's sister, Sam, we learn that Tara actually survived her attack. I gotta be honest with you, I did not see this coming.

Anywho, this is where we meet our new main characters. So before we get to the important characters, let's get the side characters out of the way.

First, I would like to present to you our weakest character in the movie, Liv McKenzie. All that we know about her is that she's the girlfriend of Chad (Meeks)-Martin, has a volatile ex and is a bit of a drama queen. She throws a massive bitch fit when Chad rejects her for sex and I'm like, "Take it easy, girl. It's not that serious." So yeah, that's all I got on Liv. She's just a bland character fading in the background.

Kyle Gallner is totally wasted as Vince Schneider, the supposed nephew of Stu Macher. When did Stu have a sister? Anywho, Vince is nothing more than a stereotypical bad boy who just so happens to be the ex-boyfriend of Liv. Throughout most of his screentime, all Vince does is cause trouble for Chad and his friends.

Vince is promptly killed with a blink of an eye and Kyle Gallner only has two or three lines to thank for. I actually consider him to be a good actor and would've preferred him in the role of Richie Kirsch.

Then we have Wes Hicks played by the very handsome Dylan Minnette. Wes is a nice enough guy but all that we know about him is that he's the son of Town Sheriff Judy Hicks and has a crush on Tara though, I would've preferred them to be an official couple but that's just my suggestion. But here's where the plot hole comes in. So, you mean to tell me that during the events of Scream 4, Judy Hicks had a six-year-old son? There wasn't even a hint that she was a single mom, so it was kind of confusing.

Speaking of, let's focus on Judy Hicks for a bit. She is now the sheriff of the town, which is admirable but the downside of it is Dewey is left in the dust. More on that later. Judy seems to have animosity towards Sam for some reason because of all the trouble she caused in Woodsboro. Sure, you can understand Judy's frustration but now that Sam is a grown woman, it seems strange for a character like Judy to hold a grudge for that long. Anywho, both Judy and Wes get some extremely gruesome deaths. The build-up of the scene was pretty well done for the most part.

Judy gets a threatening phone call from Ghostface on her car phone. When Ghostface references Psycho, the scene cuts to...you guessed it:

Wes taking a shower.

Judy makes a sharp U-turn and races to the finish line. Just when you think Judy makes it on time...

BAM! Ghostface gets her and it's pretty shocking to see Judy, the loveable deputy from the fourth film, go out in such a bloody way.

Wes is no match for Ghostface either when he gets a REALLY slow stab through the neck. Yeesh! This scene as a whole was incredibly suspenseful and also, the bloodiest so far.

Then there's Amber Freeman played by Mikey Madison, who seems to be a little too overprotective towards her friend, Tara. There's not much to know about her after that. The filmmakers try to give off this mysterious aura about Amber but she is just not developed enough for me to care.

Richie is the boyfriend of Sam Carpenter and he does nothing for me either. Don't get me wrong, Jack Quaid is very charismatic but he's given the worst dialogue and what makes his character even more unbearable is that the filmmakers prep him up to be this comic relief. His jokes are just terribly flat. If they would've took out the cringy dialogue, made the character a bit more serious, and cast Kyle Gallner, I would be singing a different tune.

Then we have the niece and nephew of Randy Meeks, Mindy and Chad played by the handsome, charismatic, and sexy Mason Gooding and the funny, charismatic, and adorable Jasmin Savoy Brown.

Oh yeah, a special shout-out to Heather Matarazzo as Martha Meeks, the little sister of Randy and mother to Chad and Mindy. It's a small little cameo with only one line but Heather Matarazzo makes it work just by the way some comes in like a nice suburban mom with baked cookies in her own adorable way. But anywho, back to Chad and Mindy. They really don't have that much screentime, but when they are on screen, it's totally worth it.

Chad is the loveable jock type and is far from dumb. He's quite the gentleman, has a witty sense of humor, and is an all-around nice guy. He's actually the one who rejects Liv for sex and not the other way around. Furthermore, Chad is quick to defend his friends which adds more to his likable qualities.

Chad gets a close call from the killer but he makes it out okay. And I'm totally glad he did.

Mindy is probably one of my favorite characters in the movie. The scene where she gets to shine is when she lays down the rules of the "requel." Just like her dear uncle Randy, Mindy knows her shit and Jasmin Savoy Brown really gives it her all here. With just a small amount of screentime, she leaves a pretty big impact.

Mindy also gets a close call from Ghostface but just like her brother Chad, she makes it out okay. Now that is the true power of twining!

We have now come to this, our Triumphant Trio. They're a little older, a little wiser, and a lot savvier.

Let's start with our favorite TV news anchor/bestselling author Gale Weathers played by the ever-so-incomparable Courtney Cox. In the years of dark, sensational tabloid stories, Gale has regressed into the safe compounds. I guess at this point, Gale wanted to soften her image after being branded as the 'His Girl Friday' of the Woodsboro Murders but that doesn't mean she's still hot at her game. When the Ghostface killer is on the prowl, Gale is right in the field mines, ready to make her mark. Sadly, Dewey won't join her this time...

Dewey and Gale are no longer together. But I do think the chemistry between Courtney Cox and David Arquette still works here and their reunion was painstakingly bittersweet.

Speaking of, let's move on to Dewey played by the criminally underrated David Arquette. The characterization of Dewey is one of the main issues that I have with the film. After the events of Scream 4, he's divorced from Gale, has resigned as sheriff, and lives in a ramshackle trailer with an obvious drinking problem. Seeing how the character evolved throughout the film series, it's kind of disheartening to watch knowing that this will be...Spoiler Alert! His Last Screen Appearance.

So here's how it goes. When Sam and Richie ask for Dewey's help, he firmly dismisses them. He's been down that road before and without the person he loves, he doesn't want to go back.

But as you do, Dewey comes to his senses and grabs his badge and gun. With some words of encouragement from Gale, Dewey becomes the hero we know and love. But this is where something stupid happens. When he joins Sam and Richie to rescue Tara, Dewey stays behind to finish off Ghostface. His reason? He has to shoot him in the head... because he always does. Worst. Writing. Decision. Ever.

And this ladies and gentlemen is the moment where Dewey dies! why did this have to happen? Okay, if you wanted to give Dewey his final farewell, why not have him sacrifice himself for Tara's life? That would've come out so much better. And why not throw some of David Arquette's wrestling moves, make it more badass. Oh well, this is Dewey's swan song and he will be missed.

I would also like to mention the heartbreaking scene of Gale discovering Dewey's dead body. Courtney Cox really sells it here, invoking Gale's shock and devastation. I consider this one of the better scenes in the movie just based on how tragic Dewey's death really is. All I can say is, David Arquette had a pretty good run and he's one of the reasons why this character is so memorable. Au dou to you good, sir and may god speed.

Now, we have reached to the one and only Sidney Prescott played by the legendary Neve Campbell. In the years since, Sidney has settled down, got married, has two kids, and lives in a quaint, suburban neighborhood. There's a quick little reference that she's married to Mark Kincaid, the detective from Scream 3. It would've been nice to have an on-screen cameo from Patrick Dempsey but I digress. But the most important part is, Sidney is living the life she's always wanted: A life of normalcy...until she gets a phone call. No, it's not Ghostface. It's from our dearly departed Dewey, prompting Sidney to get back in action. Though considering her Final Girl experience, Sidney is fully prepared.

But just as she arrives for another heartfelt reunion, sadly, Dewey isn't there to lend her a hand. By this time, Dewey's death brings Sidney and Gale closer than ever, forming a close-knit bond they never knew they had. This is actually the first time Sidney and Gale work together and they make quite a formidable team.

Although Sidney makes a triumphant return, she doesn't have as much screentime. I guess to make way for newcomer Sam Carpenter, which I will get to shortly. But besides all that, Neve Campbell gives the character a self-assured toughness but gives this protective Mama Bear energy that I love. Although I think this film is rather subpar compared to other Scream films, Neve Campbell will always be the best part of it.

Now is the time to discuss our new main characters, the Carpenter sisters.

Here we have the youngest of the two, Tara Carpenter played by the lovely and extremely talented Jenna Ortega. Although Tara is an important part of the story, she is more or less a supporting character, which is a shame because Jenna Ortega is a very effective Scream Queen.

I would've preferred her to be the main character instead of Sam or better yet cut out the Sam character completely. It would be a great twist if you'd suspect Tara to be the opening victim but turns out, she's the movie's final girl. For most of the film, Tara is used as a plot device to make way for Sam's story arc. This is a bummer because Jenna Ortega would've made a very compelling lead. This girl is definitely a star in the making.

Now we have entered into the forgone conclusion to one of my biggest, I mean, biggest issues of this movie, and that is the character of Sam Carpenter. Let's just get the elephant out of the room. Sam Carpenter is the supposed daughter of Billy Loomis. I consider this to be a major plot hole but at least the movie tries to explain it to us. You see, Sam's mom had her back when she was in high school. I'm guessing that Sam's mom is probably the bitchy cheerleader from the first movie (In which, the actress just so happens to be Skeet Ulrich's girlfriend at the time). Okay, this is where this subplot is becoming more complicated than I expect. So apparently, Billy was with Sidney and the unnamed mom at the same time? Considering that he was the mastermind behind the Woodsboro murders, I don't see how he would balance out a love triangle at the same time. But the real question is, how does Sam know all this? The good o'l diary in the attic. How cliche. Sam found all this out when she was a mere teen and just like that, she became rebellious and left town, leaving Tara behind with an emotionally absent mom. I guess this explains why the mom doesn't check up on the girls, especially Tara.

But this is when things get really dumb. Apparently, Sam has some sort of mental disorder where she keeps seeing her dead biological dad in the mirror. Okay, I appreciate the Skeet Ulrich cameo but I thought this was completely unnecessary. It would've been good if the filmmakers had a hallucination/dream sequence similar to Sidney's nightmare in Scream 3 but no, they kept using him and using him to the point where it became cheesy and redundant. Oh and one more thing, I can totally see the CGI backdrop on Skeet Ulrich. Was it worth it? This is by far one of the dumbest decisions in the movie. Period. Point. Blank.

Okay, let's talk about Sam's personality. Oh wait, she doesn't have one. I get why the filmmakers wanted to make Sam a blank slate but where do you go from there? They try to pull the "mysterious" card on her but it doesn't work either. I don't buy that she's this former teen rebel. There's just not much of an edge to her, and maybe it has something to do with her acting. Now before I go on, I just want to say that I am not attacking Melissa Barrea, she seems like a really lovely person, I pray for all of her endeavors but she just wasn't good in this movie.

For example, there's the hospital scene where Sam confesses to Tara about her biological dad. Jenna Ortega knocks it off the park. Melissa...not so much. I just didn't feel enough emotion. Though, it's not really her fault. The screenplay writes her as a flat character with flat lines.

And does anyone notice that the chemistry between Melissa Barrea and Jack Quaid was off? Maybe if they had Kyle Gallner. Just maybe.

Alright, this is the moment where I pull a What If. Let's say instead of Sam being his biological daughter, why not make her Billy's half-sister? What if, after the events of Scream and Scream 2, Billy's dad moved on, got remarried, and had two more kids, Sam and Tara. Therefore, Sidney can throw in a reference about her half-brother (Roman from Scream 3) and then we're sold. This comes out so much better than the script asked for.

I thought the directing was much better than Scream 4, going for a gritty, stylistic style similar to Radio Silence's own Ready or Not. But as you know already, my main complaint is the writing. Sam's story arc is something straight out of a cheesy soap opera. It was so uncalled for. I just have a feeling that this wasn't Kevin Williamson's idea but somebody had to greenlight it, right? But in my humble opinion, if they would have went with the aforementioned What If, Sam's story arc would be much more organic.

Now is the moment you've been waiting for...Who is the killer behind the Ghostface mask? It's not Sam. Oh no, that would be too easy. But it is someone close to Sam and Tara...

Yep! You guessed it! It's Richie and Amber. Being lifelong fans of the Stab franchise, they hate of what it's become. So they make their own real-life Stab film to connect the dots to the relatives of the class of Woodsboro High circa 1996. I think this is a commentary on toxic fandom but I can point out the obvious clues, such as Richie watching a bad movie review of Stab 8 and Amber's obvious obsession with Tara.

So right into the third act, Sam, Tara, Sidney, and Gale go toe to toe with Richie and Amber. Mikey Maddison's acting becomes incredibly hammy and so does Jack Quaid's. There's crazy and then there's doing a little too much.

Sidney and Gale overpower Amber who is quite strong for her small stature but she is no match for the triumphant duo. Drenched in sanitizer, Sidney and Gale shoot Amber into a firey blaze.

Meanwhile, Sam goes head-to-head with Richie but she's able to take him down. When she has Richie cornered, Sam spouts out a cheesy one-liner, "Never mess with a daughter of a serial killer." Sorry, Sam, you are nowhere near Sidney's level. And just like that, Sam goes to town on Richie, stabbing him multiple times. She then slits his throat and shoots him in the head. Talk about overkill. But the girls aren't finished yet. Amber, her face horribly disfigured, lunges at them with a knife, and then...

BANG! Tara shoots her in the head. "I prefer the Babbadok," is her badass line and Jenna Ortega sells it.

As the Triumphant Girls (Sidney, Gale, Sam, and Tara) step out of the house, wounded but not broken, the police arrive. Out comes the Wonder Twins, Chad and Mindy, being wheeled out in their stretchers. Then there's the Carpenter sisters in mutual rejoicing; Sam coming to terms with her past and, Tara safe and alive in her arms. Zen Survivor Sidney sits proudly beside her former frenemy and now best friend Gale Weathers. As their story arc comes to a close, Gale tells Sidney that she might write a book about Dewey, The Unsung Hero of Woodsboro. Okay, I'm going to pull another What If:

Let's say if the filmmakers had Kyle Gallner cast as Richie, it would be kept a mystery that he's actually the nephew of Stu Macher. Therefore, that would hype up the fans who wanted Stu to return. See? Maybe Richie would be obsessed with Sam being the half-sister of Billy Loomis, so much so it becomes toxic. Along with Amber, he sets his sights on reigniting the Woodsboro Murders.

If the filmmakers would've kept that version of the story, the screenplay could've had a better flow. Just my opinion.

So yeah, that was Scream or Scream 5 or Scream 2022, it doesn't matter. I just think it was an okay film but it had so much potential to be better than it was. I've heard Scream 6 has been released and judging from what I've seen in this movie...it might take a little while for me to review. Trust me, I've seen it and...I have a lot of thoughts. Anyway, Scream 2022 might not hold up well for me.

My last word: Not bad but not great either.

Candyman (2021)

2023-05-08T23:43:00.001-07:00

After the disastrous reception of Day of the Dead, it would be over a decade for a Candyman sequel to be produced. In 2004, Clive Barker was involved with a 25 million budget. This would've actually been great, considering that Clive Barker is the writer of the source material, but unfortunately, that never came to be. In 2009, filmmaker Deon Taylor was set to direct the film, which would've taken place at an all-women's college during the winter, thankfully ignoring the events of Day of the Dead, but the film fell apart due to rights issues. Fast forward to nine years later, it was announced that Jordan Peele, the director of Get Out and Us, will be producing the sequel with the help of Nia DaCosta filling in the role of director. This seems to be like a match made in heaven. So, by 2019, pre-production for the fourth Candyman sequel was on the go. And the result is a...pretty mixed bag.

The way I can describe Candyman 2021 is an almost perfect movie. The directing? Amazing. The acting? Top-notch. The writing? I'm afraid I have to go with a...meh. I would say that the build-up of the story is well done but up until the third act, it's a bit of a mess. And there is so much to uncover with that, so let's start the review.

The Story: Anthony McCoy, a renowned painter in the Chicago art scene, is seeking inspiration. With the help of his girlfriend, gallery owner Brianna Cartwright, he's hard at work on his next project. After hearing about The Legend of Helen Lyle, Anthony investigates the now-gentrified Cabrini Green where he meets Laundromat owner, Willam Burke. Forty-two years ago, as a young boy, William witnessed the police beating and eventual death of Sherman Fields, a mentally-challenged homeless man who was wrongfully accused of giving a white girl candy filled with razor blades. He was soon proven innocent, long after his death, though in the afterlife, Sherman has ingrained himself as a "Candyman" legend. As Anthony becomes more and more obsessed with the Candyman mythos, he would later uncover a secret from the past that would change the course of his life forever...

The cast is phenomenal, hands down, and it was one of the few things that got me invested in the film. The strongest of the bunch are Yahya Abdul-Matten, Teyonah Parris, and Colman Domingo. So, I would gladly share my perspective on these fantastic actors, starting with:

Anthony McCoy, played by the very sexy and very talented Yahya Abdul-Mateen. Not that anybody knows yet, but the mystery surrounding Anthony is that he is the son of Anne-Marie who got kidnapped as a baby and eventually saved by Helen Lyle. I thought it was quite an interesting touch to have him as the main character. Another interesting callback is that Anthony is an artist himself as if Candyman has christened him to be the next big talent. However, it seems as though Anthony has some self-absorbed, self-destructive tendencies that get in the way of his success.

But once he discovers the Cabrini Green projects, Anthony gets stung by a bee as if he's been marked. When he gets more and more obsessed with the Candyman lore, Anthony literally starts to become him! It's kind of like a pseudo-Nightmare on Elm Street 2 situation. This actually got me invested but, unfortunately, that's not all to the story. I'll talk more about the third act later.

Though I would say that Yahya Abdul-Mateen did a really good performance. The first choice to play Anthony was actually Lakeith Stanford and I would've loved to see that. He is an intense method actor and would've knocked it off the park, splendidly, however, Yahya really honed it in and gave a more vulnerable approach to his character . he has just the right amount of range to balance out the drama and horror of Anthony's situation.

Brianna Cartwright played by Teyonah Parris was the showstopper for me. Not only was she incredibly likable and relatable, but she was also believable in what her character was experiencing. Brianna takes the role of the audience surrogate, even to the point where I wanted her to be the main character instead. I just have to say it, she has a more compelling story arc than Anthony's, which ties into the movie's theme about trauma.

As a little girl, Brianna witnessed the suicide of her father who was an artist himself. As Anthony becomes more engrossed with the Candyman mythos, affecting his mental state, Brianna begins to distance herself until she uncovers the ugly truth.

Teyonah Parris was fantastic as Brianna. Furthermore, I like how she portrays her character as an actual human being, reacting to the horror in a realistic way. For one instance, after witnessing Anthony's psychotic meltdown, she decides to smoke a joint with her brother and his boyfriend. Something that I would do in a situation like that. So, not only did Teyonah Parris give a top-tier performance but she also played a character I would totally hang out with too.

Then we have William Burke played by the also sexy and talented Colman Domingo. William's trauma starts with the opening scene of the film when he encounters Sherman Feilds before his eventual death and lives to tell the tale. After his experience, he studies the Candyman mythos that trickles down to generation after generation. There's really not much to know about William after that. He's sort of like the exposition guy who gives Anthony the historical context surrounding the "Candyman" spirit. He's kind of mysterious and mostly hides out at the laundromat in which he owns but there's much more to talk about in the third act. Oh boy, just wait.

However, Colman Domingo was really great in the role. He has this smooth, storytelling voice that's almost equal to Morgan Freeman's. He also adds a level of complexity to the character where we emphasized with his trauma. In one of the film's most powerful scenes, William breaks down in tears, explaining the cycle of abuse that black men like Daniel Robitaille experienced, expressing how this hits home for him. Colman Domingo really did for me in this scene and it's one of his shining moments.

The most breakout role goes to Troy Cartwright played by Nathan Stuart-Jarret. He's the film's comic relief with a healthy dose of dry humor to balance out the horror. In the first few scenes, he is the one who tells the story of Helen Lyle, though the events are not particularly accurate to what we saw in the first Candyman. The news article (according to Troy) paints Helen as this nut-job who was so obsessed with the Candyman lore that she beheaded a dog and kidnapped a baby as a sacrifice, and whilst seeing Candyman, in a disillusioned state, sacrifices herself in the fire. Though according to the people who witnessed the bonfire, this news article is 100% percent false. Somehow, this sparks an interest in Anthony, not knowing that he was the baby that Helen supposedly kidnapped. Therefore, Troy fits into the inciting incident by diving into his fascination with urban legends.

There's also Troy's boyfriend, Grady, who he shares incredible chemistry with. Their comic timing is always on point. But aside from being the comic relief, Troy is usually the voice of reason, too and he and Grady give Brianna the emotional support she needs. Overall, Nathan Stewart-Jarret's performance as Troy was one of the most entertaining parts of the movie.

Then we have the exceptional Vanessa A. Williams as Anne-Marie McCoy. I just want to say Vanessa looks incredible for her age and on top of that, she really knocks it off the park in her one and only scene. It shows how much impact her character had in the original.

This is by far one of the film's best scenes, Vanessa and Yahya are at their top form here, honing the emotions and devastation the characters are feeling. It's a very effective scene and a testament to how great the acting truly is.

Lastly, we have the eponymous Candyman...Sherman Fields. First off, I just want to say although the actor Michael Hargrove has a creepy presence about him and plays the character well, I just don't see how Sherman Fields fits into the Candyman timeline.

Okay, I'm going to get into spoiler territory here:

So, William mentions that there is actually a Candyman hive, morphing into the faces of black men who were killed by injustice. But from my understanding, in the original film, the residents of Cabrini Green only thought of Candyman as one entity. When you examine the timeline of the 1992 film, I just don't see how Sherman Fields fits into it. So was it possible that people were talking about two Candymen? Okay, you know what, I'm not gonna dwell too deep into this because this has a lot of plotholes, trust me. But I will say this, I wish they would've had Tony Todd as Candyman, again. He's the only one that can embody this role perfectly and it was such a missed opportunity. Technically, he is in the film but I'll talk more about that in the third-act segment.

Let's get the so-called victims out of the way:

We have the arrogant, pretentious art dealer Clive Privler and his equally arrogant, pretentious girlfriend Jerrica Cooper. Let's keep this short and simple. Clive is whiny and self-observed, and Jerrica is a stereotypical goth dominatrix. By the way, their acting and dialogue was so cringe that I couldn't wait for Candyman to come and hook the hell out of them. Their death scenes are very reminiscent of Miguel and his girlfriend's in Day of the Dead but that's all I gotta say about them.

Then you have the snobby art critic Finely Stephens who was dismissive of Anthony's latest project. She promptly gets killed when Anthony leaves her apartment. Me I say more?

Finally, we have a teenage girl (can't recall her name) who attended Anthony's show, fucking around with her friends in the bathroom as they prepare for the Candyman ritual. Before they do this, a timid black girl enters the bathroom and they start teasing for no reason.

When the black girl hides in the bathroom stall, the snobby teenage girl and her minions/friends continue their ritual and...just as you guessed it. Candyman slaughters them mercilessly, leaving the black girl as the only eyewitness.

Having unlikeable characters in a horror film isn't always a bad thing but the problem is you don't feel scared for them. I think horror movies work best when you empathize with the victims. Sure, they don't have to be perfect but by making them apathetic, slightly racist assholes kills the tension for me. And that's the main problem with the movie: it barely has any tension. I guess the only tension it has is Anthony becoming "The Candyman," and most of the suspense can be seen in the third act but that's all I got here.

Now, let's talk about the film's social commentary. It goes into the cycles of trauma but also the exploitation of trauma. Although Anthony "thinks" he's making a good cause by painting portraits of brutalized black men, he is just like Helen Lyle, in the fact that he's unknowingly exploiting peoples' trauma for his own gain. Then there's the apathy of African-Americans who suffer from trauma, which is why Candyman exists at all. But there's much more to add to the commentary once we...yes, of course, get to the third act.

I want to start by saying that Nia DaCosta's directing is masterful! First, lets talk about the opening credits. Remember when in the first film, the opening credits were overhead? Now it's down below with a mirroring effect. Here's a comparison:

Candyman 1992 Opening Credits:

Candyman 2021:

(click on the picture)

Tell, me. How cool is that?

I also like the addition of the shadow puppets. It's very effective and creepy, standing out as one of the film's visual highlights:

Okay, there is one issue I have with the visuals. These days, filmmakers have this habit of inserting CGI into horror films. I'll say this once and I'll say again, CGI is not scary! It would be nice to realistic blood in horror movies again. There is hope when it comes to the low-budget horror movies but as for the mainstream, I don't know. The worst of these types of effects is shown in the bathroom scene and the climax. It was probably a last-minute thing to get the film completed but It could've been done way much better.

Now I did say that the film didn't have any tension, that's just in terms of the screenwriting. The film itself is an examination of Anthony slowly becoming Candyman, complete with some gross body horror. That's where the tension works for me, not for the so-called victims.

May I present to you the travesty that is the third act:

When she goes to look for Anthony, Brianna seeks out William at the laundromat. Then, out of nowhere, William abducts her and places her hostage at an abandoned church.

All of a sudden, the scene switches back to a young William arguing with his older sister. I hate to say it but the child acting is...not great. But anywho, his sister conjures up Candyman (Sherman Fields) and he kills her and all of her friends. When William opens the door, he sees Candyman standing over his sister's dead body. I felt like this should've been the opening scene instead. It feels so disjointed. And yeah, it gives William a motive for his madness but nothing ever comes of it.

Brianna breaks out of consciousness as William goes off on a psychotic rant about resurrecting the Candyman hive. Colmon Domingo's acting is...really over-the-top in this scene and it gets a little grating at times. So William unveils Anthony and initiates him into the hive. Anthony's body is completely covered in beestings and to put more salt in the wound, William saws off Anthony's hand and impales a hook, right in the stump (with CGI blood by the way).

Brianna eventually breaks free from her ropes and makes a run for it. William chases after her. The two of them go on a cat-and-mouse chase until Brianna stabs William to death (CGI blood and all). Anthony stumbles through, collapsing into Brianna's arms.

Suddenly, a horde of police officers comes out of nowhere and shoots Anthony unprovoked. For some reason, they arrest Brianna while a police officer sits in the car with her. The police officer tries to intimidate her into agreeing that Anthony was indeed the killer and that their shooting was justified...Woah, woah, woah, wait a minute. Who is the true villain of this film? Is it William? The Candyman? Or the Police officers themselves? Let's continue. So instead of complying with the police officer's demand, Brianna uses the rearview mirror to conjure up Candyman. All of a sudden, The Candyman, or shall I say, The Candyman "Hive" goes into an all-out bloody massacre, murdering all of the police officers in total (to which all of their blood organs are made of CGI. I hope this trend ends).

So after the deed is done, we see The Candyman morphing into the faces of black men who were killed by injustice, one of them being Daniel Robitaille played by the one and only Tony Todd in a one-shot (CGI remodeled) cameo. His last words: "Tell Everyone."

What. The. Fuck. Okay, it's time to go on a rant. Well, not particularly a rant, but more of an autopsy report.

First off, I would've loved to see Tony Todd reprise the role of Candyman instead of some lousy tacked-on 20-second cameo.

Also, they gave the lead actress of the original, Virginia Madsen, a voice cameo. Just a voice cameo. Didn't the first film end with Helen becoming a creepy urban legend herself? What happened to that? This actually harkens back to Benard Rose's original idea about having Virginia Madsen and Tony Todd reprising their roles in a prequel as mentioned in the Farewell to the Flesh review. What if Helen became Candyman's bride after all? It would've been so cool if they included that in this sequel. It's such a missed opportunity.

Second of all, is Candyman an anti-hero now? I don't know, it just doesn't work for me. He's more of a deeply complex anti-villain in my eyes and the changing of this takes away his imposing, mysterious mystique.

Lastly, the whole message behind the film is to showcase how corrupt the police system is. I get the message but it's executed terribly. Though I would say, the commentary is handled a lot much better than what the filmmakers of Day of the Dead were trying to accomplish.

But what takes me out of the film is it's lack of subtly. The third act alone just ruins the entire film, stripping away any potential it has.

For me, Candyman 1992 is above and beyond the best of them all. It's a film that really holds up for me and the execution of the social commentary is superb. It's a bonafide classic, which still leaves an impact in the horror zeitgeist.

The 2021 sequel tries to hold a candle to the original but there's just no way. Candyman 1992 is a lightning in the bottle. Instead of paying homage, Candyman 2021 crumbles in its shadow.

Last Word: It's a mess. But it's a beautiful mess. It's good for one watch.

Scream 4 (2011)

2023-03-24T01:37:00.073-07:00

In July 2008, The Weinstein Company announced that a fourth Scream movie would be in the works with Wes Craven taking the directing seat once again. Though it wasn't until two years later that Kevin Williamson made his grand return, this time, with the recycling of his first outline of the third film. But the production had a rocky start.

In May 2010, Cathy Konrad, who produced the first three films, filed a $3 million lawsuit against The Weinstein Brothers. The suit accuses the Weinstiens of unscrupulous behavior and a scheme to force her to walk away from the Scream franchise without compensation and cutting the cost of hiring someone else to produce. Judging by their notorious reputation behind the scenes, I'm totally on this woman's side.

But anywho, the show must go on and once again, Craven and Williamson recruited The Triumphant Trio to make the fourth Scream film. Williamson picked up the leftover notes he made for Scream 3 but with an entirely new spin. You see, this was at a time when horror remakes were running rampant (and still are), so, Willamson reinforced this commentary into his script, blending in the old cast with the new cast. Furthermore, Williamson and Craven made sure that this time the production was not going to have any more mishaps like they had in the previous two films.

And the final results turn out to be...a pretty solid sequel. It may not be as good as Scream 2, but I found myself really enjoying this and I thought the final twist was very effective. I was definitely impressed by the breakout performance of Hayden Panettiere, who stole the show in my opinion. There seems to be a perfect balance of humor and horror that leans into a parody at times but an affectionate parody nonetheless. I would say that this is one of the more comedic Scream films but it still handles its serious moments well too.

So, overall, I dig this movie. It may not be at the top of my list but I still think it's a fun time.

The Story: After the events of Scream 3, Sidney Prescott, now a successful author of her autobiography, has returned to her hometown of Woodsboro during her press tour. Coincidently, it just so happens to be the 18th anniversary of the Woodsboro murders. Unfortunately, this incites the murders of two high school girls, which ties back to Sidney when the evidence is found in her car. She then retreats to the residence of her long-lost cousin Jill, who, along with her friends, becomes the killer's main target. With the help of her longtime companions, Dewey and Gale, Sidney must face The Ghostface Killer once again.

In this go-round, we have not one, not two, but three opening scenes:

The first opening scene starts with two young girls being targeted by the killer with...Facebook messages of all things. When I first saw this I was like, 'Oh my gosh! This is going to be a hoot!' But thankfully, it turns out to be a Stab sequel as a meta-joke. The two young girls are hilariously played by Shenae Grimes and Lucy Hale, who were known for their popular teen dramas such as Degrassi, 90210, and Pretty Little Liars, respectively.

This jump cuts to Anna Paquin (Sookie from True Blood) and Kristen Bell (the titular Veronica Mars, The Voice of Gossip Girl, and Eleanor from The Good Place). Anna and Kristen are two types of film critics: The Cynic and The Optimist. Anna is harshly critical of the movie's nonsensical plots and meta-humor. Kristen, however, likes how the film adapted a true story and did its own thing.

Tired of Anna's constant criticism, Kristen pulls out a knife and stabs her! While Anna slowly dies, Kristen simply turns on the movie and eats her popcorn. Bravo! Comedy Gold!

But it turns out to be yet another Stab sequel when we jumpcut to the actual opening scene with two high school girls, Jenny Randall, and Marnie Cooper. They're similar to the girls in the first scene, except they're blond and portrayed more realistically. Also, the two girls share the same dynamic as Anna and Kristen, the cynical film critic and the optimistic film critic but their friendship is genuine.

Jenny, who's an avid fan of the Stab franchise, innocently pranks Marnie but suddenly, Marnie is attacked through the phone.

Jenny frantically rushes down the stairs to save her friend but it's too late. Marnie's corpse crashes through the window.

Out comes the Ghostface Killer, closing in on Jenny and she dashes to the garage. Of course, Jenny trips and falls, crawling her way to the garage entrance but the Ghostface Killer gives her a painful rendition of Tatum's death scene, only this time, the garage pins down her spinal cord, leaving Jenny totally helpless before the killer makes his/her final stab. Yet another clever twist on the opening scene, only this time it's three.

Now let's examine our cast of characters. First, let's start with our new cast of characters who somehow share similarities to the cast of the original.

First and foremost, we have Olivia played by Marielle Jaffe. I just don't think she was developed enough as a character. Nothing against the actress, she's good with what she's given, which is very little. But she does get a really brutal death scene, which I found to be incredibly intense.

Adam Brody and Anthony Anderson are just cameos in my opinion. They play the stereotypical bumbling cops who get easily dispatched. They are supposed to be comic relief but their dialogue is not really all that funny.

Now, this is when the characters get a tad bit more interesting...

We have Puesdo-Final Girl Jill Roberts, who seems to have issues with her cheating boyfriend, Trevor.

He's played by the very sexy Nico Tortorella. He's more akin to Billy, sexy, and smooth, but with a dark side. However, in this case, it's a "playboy" side.

Now back to Jill. As if deja vu is starting over again, she gets threatening phone calls from the Ghostface Killer because of her connections to Sidney but I'll get back to Jill later in the review since she is a really special case in this situation.

As we go along, we have Woodsboro Film Club President Charlie Walker and his tech-savvy best friend Robbie Mercer as the pseudo-Randys. The movie plays around the notion that they might become the next Billy and Stu but it's fairly subtle. They really get into the heavy facts about the Stab franchise and how it connects to real-life murders with Charlie hosting a screening party of the first Stab movie.

In the film's more comical moments, Robbie comes out as gay, thinking it would save himself from the killer...

Spoiler Alert! It doesn't and Robbie sadly meets his end.

There's more than meets the eye with Charlie...we'll get to him later.

Then we have a pseudo-Dewey who becomes a female counterpart in the form of Judy Hicks, played by the underrated Marley Shelton. She is the town deputy and Sidney's former classmate. She means well but her lack of social skills and her offbeat personality makes Sidney suspicious of her. But it turns out that she is a hero after all and saves the day.

Then we have the pseudo-Gale Rebecca Walters played by the very talented Alison Brie. She's probably way worse on the bleed-if-it-leads mentality and the ironic thing is Rebecca is a big admirer of Gale Weathers. Though by this time, Gale has evolved into a well-rounded character and, at this point, Gale doesn't stand for Rebecca's bullshit, striking her down with her natural Gale prowess. And when it's clear that Sidney can see through her callousness too, she promptly fires Rebecca on the spot.

She gets a rather stupid death scene where she could've easily survived but I felt like the script made her stupid on purpose.

But at least Alison Brie did a stellar performance as the hilariously catty Rebecca.

Last but not least, we have the honorary scene stealer Hayden Panettiere in the breakout role of Kirby Reed. She's sort of like a mashup of Randy and Tatum but it's done to great effect. I'll even go so far as to say she is the best thing about this movie. What's appealing about Kirby is that she has this too-cool-for-school attitude but is also an avid film buff with a keen knowledge of classic horror films.

I have to say, Hayden Panettiere killed it in this role. Her snarkiness and comic delivery are so spot on and I was here for it. But there is this one particular scene where she really shows off her acting chops but, unfortunately, this scene involves a major spoiler. So, I'll save it for later.

Now let's catch up with the triumphant trio, shall we?

First, we have Gale Weathers, now living the simple quiet life in the suburbs in a "seemingly" happy marriage to Dewey but there's something missing. And that's her sense of excitement.

Not only is she jealous of Sidney's success as an author but Gale also suspects that Dewey might have the hots for, none other than, Deputy Judy Hicks, his female counterpart. How ironic.

But that's not the only problem in the Riley-Weathers clan. Now that Dewey is the town sheriff that sort of leaves Gale as the sheriff's wife and not The Gale Weathers.

She finds herself writing mystery novels but they're nowhere near as successful as The Woodsboro Murders series, which causes Gale to have a serious case of writer's block.

When the murders start to happen again, it reignites her flame. Gale Weathers is back on the call! However, her independent nature almost gets her killed such as sneaking into Charlie's screening party where she gets attacked by the killer. But she gets better eventually.

After Gale's close call brings Dewey back to his senses and the Riley-Weathers clan has come to a rejoicing.

Courtney Cox is a force to be reckoned with. She has fully embodied this character and then some. This will go down as one of her most iconic roles ever and that is a worthy achievement.

Next, we have Dewey Riley who has upgraded to become the sheriff of Woodsboro. Dewey has come a long way from being the put-upon dogged nice guy, and eventually, being praised and rewarded to become the Protector of Woodsboro. And that is truly awe-inspiring. Now that Dewey is enjoying the perks of his career path, Gale finds herself shoved into the background. We all know that their dynamic together is papable but now that they're living the married life, there seems to be trouble in paradise (which sadly bleeds into real life as David Arquette and Courtney Cox were going through a divorce at the time). On top of that, Gale begins to suspect that Dewey has a 'thing' for Deputy Hicks since they have such strong similarities to each other.

Though eventually, when Gale gets injured at the screening party, here comes Dewey to the rescue to defend her honor. And therefore, the ballad of Dewey and Gale lives on again.

David Arquette is a one in million. Throughout the series, he has explored many facets to this character. From being the put-upon, clumsy goof to a respectable town hero, which makes him an interesting subversion of the Cops are Useless trope. He still has the loveable, affable traits that he's known for but he can definitely hold his own as a competent leader.

Last but not least we have our all-time favorite final girl Sidney Prescott. Sidney's transformation has now been completed. From Lost Little Girl/Tortured Victim to full-on Zen Survivor. Sidney has finally overcome her demons, transmuting them into a creative endeavor.

She is now the best-selling author of her self-help book, Out of Darkness. In contrast to Gale Weathers' sensational The Woodsboro Murders, Sidney incorporates her actual experiences and uses that to help others, which is a true testament to her character. Sidney has completed her final stages of trauma: acceptance and re-evaluation.

Both Kevin Williamson and Wes Craven have reconstructed the Final Girl into a three-dimensional character, making her less interchangeable than usual. One of the earlier examples was Nancy Thompson in Wes Craven's A Nightmare on Elm Street. She's introduced as the typical, goody-two-shoes Final Girl but as we look deep into her home life, it's not as perfect as it seems. Then we move on to Sidney Prescott who has become quintessential in her role as the Final Girl. Sidney will always be the glue that holds this series together. With the exceptional writing of Kevin Williamson and the amazing performance by Neve Campbell, Sidney Prescott has made her mark as one of the most definitive final girls of all time.

She has become clever, crafty, and can easily outsmart the killer. And in this sequel, she puts those skills to good use. Sidney Prescott is a prime A warrior woman, solidifying her status as a Zen Survivor and she sums it all up in this kickass one-liner...which I will save for later in the review.

The directing this time is...okay. It just looks very glossy looking and it feels like I'm watching a TV movie. Don't get me wrong, Wes Craven is still a master at his craft here but I just didn't think the directing was as strong as in the previous films. However, The deaths in this movie are hella brutal, specifically Oliva's, which I can't show because it's really that graphic. I mean the girl's guts were literally hanging out. Good Lord!

Kevin Williamson's writing is still in its top form here. Although there are a couple of humorous moments that didn't work for me, the sharp dialogue and witty banter still have their perks. Also, mixing in the old and new characters elevates the film's commentary on horror remakes, however, the new characters are just as interesting as the legacy characters and the mystery is just as palpable. It adds to this mirror effect that keeps me invested throughout in which the who-done-it aspect of the story still works here and keeps you guessing about who's behind the Ghostface mask.

Speaking of, this leads to the main antagonist. Who's behind the mask you may ask? Well, let me start by telling you about the insane climax. Spoiler Alert!

So, the killer has trapped Kirby into their web, in a recreation of the Casey Becker opening scene where her new boyfriend Charlie is tied up in a chair. The killer gives her the horror movie challenge but this time, Kirby gets every single answer right. Not to mention, Hayden Panettiere acts her ass off in this scene, which adds to the intensity of the situation.

When Kirby rushes to save Charlie, in a sadistically cruel twist, he stabs Kirby. I knew there was something off about Charlie but oh no, it doesn't end there (by the way, Kirby is still alive and kicking when Charlie leaves her).

As Sidney goes to look for Jill, out of nowhere, the Ghostface Killer stabs her in the stomach. And then, the second killer unveils their mask...

It's none other than Jill herself. Holy cow! So, Jill starts gloating to Sidney about her big grand plan: she wants to be the Final Girl that Sidney is and she just hates being overshadowed. So, she goes out of her way to get her friends killed, including her own mother, seduces Charlie to join in her plan, frame her boyfriend, and to become victorious in the end.

She pulls out a bound and gagged Trevor, shoots him right in the ballsack and straight to the head, execution style. Woah boy! this girl is brutal!

Then she turns over to Charlie and says, "Sorry Charlie, there's only one survivor in this story and that's me!" and proceeds to stab him to death. This girl does not play!

Last but not least: Jill faces off with her competition, Sidney Prescott, and gives her one good final stab in the stomach. She falls down to the ground and slowly bleeds out...Could this be the end of Sidney Prescott? Well...let's talk about Jill for a moment.

Out of all the Ghostface Killers, Jill Roberts is a bonafide Sociopathic Narracist. Now the previous Ghostface Killers had shades of narcism but not on the same level as Jill. Her whole entire plan is about her jealousy of Sidney and how she gets all this press for being a victim. The truth is, Jill wants a piece of that fame pie, too. First of all, who the hell would want to be in Sidney's shoes. Time and time again, this woman has been hunted by psychos, had to change her name, and eventually go into a security hideout to avoid danger. That is not an easy life to live and Jill must be seriously off her rocker if that's her whole entire goal in life. So yeah, Jill is the definition of a narcissistic sociopath, casting anyone aside so she can have the spotlight herself.

To demonstrate this, Jill has to make herself look injured. This leads to one of the most darkly comedic scenes of the movie. This girl scratches herself, gets her dead ex-boyfriend to pull out her hair, stabs herself, runs into a wall, and finally crashes on top of a glass table. Holy moly! This girl is committed!

When the police rush in at the scene of the crime and the paramedics cart off Jill to the hospital, a stampede of news reporters and cameramen horde around Jill, giving her the attention she oh so craves for. While at the hospital, Gale and Dewey pay Jill a visit. She makes a wry comment about sharing matching scars with Gale, to which Gale lets it sink in for a moment. But when Jill hears that Sidney is still alive, she is not having it. She quickly gets out of her hospital bed like a woman on a mission.

When Jill breaks into Sidney's room, she's like, "Fuck it!" and starts to choke her out. But Sidney gets the best of her and puts up a good fight. Once Gale realizes that her and Jill has the same exact "scars," she tags Dewey along to save Sidney.

Deputy Hicks comes in just in time but Jill swoops in, grabs the gun, and shoots her. Dewey is no match for Jill either and she quickly subdues him. She holds Gale at gunpoint, ready to make her aim but Sidney incapacitates Jill with a defibrillator. And with this, gives her a word of advice:

Hell yeah! Sidney has never said any better. Deputy Hicks pops out of nowhere, revealing her bulletproof vest and she seems to be doing fine. As for our fearless trio, they may be a bit battered and bruised but they're still triumphant, living to see another day. But that pesky little Jill just keeps going and going and going. I'm telling you, this girl is made of steel! I mean she's like the freakin' terminator at this point.

But Sidney swiftly turns around and shoots her dead. Just like that. Therefore, Jill lies there lifeless, succeeding in her life's goal of being admired, even through death.

Oh boy! What a sequel! I never thought I would enjoy it as much as I do now. Again, it may not be as good as the first two movies but it's a total step up from Scream 3 and the writing is still top-notch. This is by far one of the better sequels in the franchise.

My last word: give it a go. it's totally worth your time.

The Long Road Ahead Exclusively on Wattpad

2023-02-14T20:23:00.002-08:00

Yes! I have finally finished my novella, The Long Road Ahead, just in time for Valentine's Day. It is a rough draft mind you, it's not exactly official. But you can check out the link down below if you want to give it a read:

https://www.wattpad.com/story/314502737-the-long-road-ahead

P.S. I'll keep you posted on the Scream 4 Review coming soon.