This is going to be a hard one to review, not only because itâs a controversial remake (in name) of a classic, but also because itâs chaotic as a movie, too. The only spoiler that Iâm giving in this review is that a prominently featured unicorn figurine with an extraordinary large horn is disappointingly *not* utilized in any type of maiming or killing, which was a real missed opportunity.
The Plot:
I say that it’s a remake in name because it’s quite different from the original (1974) and remake (2006).
Riley and her sorority sisters are getting ready for winter break as she is still struggling with a sexual assault that occurred in her past. She mentors another sister, Helena, while being friends with Marty, Jesse, and the out-spoken Kris. She begins to get weird texts via their schoolâs notification system after she and her friends perform at a talent show, opening mocking the fraternity her assailant belongs to.
Soon, the strange texts escalate and they realize that theyâre being hunted by a masked figure. They must work together and fast to discover the secrets behind the universityâs history and unravel its dark past, terrifying present, and devastating future…
The Good:
The acting from Imogen Poots exceeded my expectations. It
was not an easy role, and had challenging dialogue to not only convey but to
make believable. Good use of body movement, especially when solitary and during
quiet moments, for example in the blue portrait hallway before the talent show.
I think sheâd be great in an indie horror.
Same with Aleyse Shannon, especially when a lot of her
dialogue was very clunky. I hope sheâs in more Scream Queen parts, especially in
different roles.
Set design is beautiful with the âold traditionâ narrative of the story. Every creak of the floor is real and genuine-feeling, and not a manufactured sound in post-production. Whoever scouted the areas did an amazing job.
Thoughts: Brain Roll Juice
SoâŠ.yeah. Itâs a heavy-handed #MeToo feminist film, so your tolerance and taste for the movie are going to be dependent on your opinions of the #MeToo movement. And itâs not subtle winks and nods, itâs most of whatâs on screen, down to the pink snow shovel and diva cup used as weapons (in different ways).
And itâs told in the lens of Blumhouse Productions, so we get pink cat-ear headbands; Secret Santa vibrators; putting in a tampon in front of a roommate; thong-talk; the phrase âboy-cottedâ; push-up bras; and the many times when people are corrected for using the term âgirlâ instead of âwomanâ. Surprisingly, there was not white wine, yoga pants, or pumpkin-scented candles present. Â Â Â
What Iâm saying, is that while there are things being said, things that rightfully should be said, itâs through a tight and mediocre lens. It felt more like an episode of Riverdale mixed with 13 Reasons Why than a remake of a classic slasher film, including the off-screen deaths and lack-luster ambiance.
Also, thank goodness that the characters had stockings with their names, or literally necklaces of their names, so I knew who was who because they so often blurred together. Which is fine, almost standard, for a horror/slasher film, but not when your message is that we should care about these women from the beginning.
Character-wise, I knew almost nothing about them, any of them. It was even a throw-away line that we learned our main characterâs parents had died, and this was never brought up again.
Advertisement
My wild guess is this: this was not originally a Black
Christmas remake; it was a script about a sorority house that was slapped with
the title to promote it. Itâs so disjointed -plot and script- that I think
there were a lot of scenes cut by the studio because they either got worried by
the message or decided to double-down on the message. I think these scenes
would have made it flow better and given more character development, maybe even
a better ending (which didnât make a lick of sense).
I donât think the changes would have made it a great movie, but I think it would have been a better one. And donât get me wrong â there have a lot of subpar movies made since the dawn of film, and this one is better than most, if just for the effort of trying to say something, especially in a male-dominated field of horror. Props to that. But at the end of the day, will this get more hate/vitriol than Blumhouseâs Uncanny Annie or Truth or Dare, even though they were of equal or lesser value? Yeah. Will a lot that hate/vitriol come from people reading a few keywords and not actually watching the movie? Sure. Maybe that’s the real juice to roll your brain in.
One last thing of note before I sink back into the darkness. I find it odd that with PG-13, we canât watch a human being bleed after getting stabbed in the chest by an icicle, but we can watch a woman be assaulted multiple times, and that meets quality standards for a 13-year-old.
Oh, and Riki Lindhome co-wrote the song for the talent show.
Bottom-line:
Donât watch this as a first date movie – super awkward.
(2.5 / 5)
When not ravaging through the wilds of Detroit with Jellybeans the Cat, J.M. Brannyk (a.k.a. Boxhuman) reviews mostly supernatural and slasher films from the 70's-90's and is dubiously HauntedMTL's Voice of Reason.
Aside from writing, Brannyk dips into the podcasts, and is the composer of many of HauntedMTL's podcast themes.
âThe Demon of Deathâ is the season 3 premiere of the supernatural dramaEvil, created by Michelle King and Robert King. The central cast includes Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi, Michael Emerson, Christine Lahti, and Andrea Martin. As of this review, itâs available through Netflix and Paramount+ and its add-ons.
The assessors investigate the weight of a soul. Father Frank Ignatius (Wallace Shawn) agrees to participate in this test despite his growing disillusionment. David (Mike Colter) and Kristen (Katja Herbers) deal with the ramifications of their confessions. Kristenâs girls go on the warpath with Leland (Michael Emerson). Andy (Patrick Brammall) signs his death warrant.
What I Like about âThe Demon of Death”
As season 2 ended with a cliffhanger, âThe Demon of Deathâ picks back up with an interesting addition. The episode provides a more obvious stopping point that Season 2 should have taken advantage of. It dumbfounds me because this addition makes for a more interesting and darker cliffhanger. The added context would have made the cliffhanger more palatable. However, itâs a nice twist for the episode.
Dr. Boggs (Kurt Fuller) and Sister Andrea (Andrea Martin) make an interesting pair that adds complexity to both. We even explore some of Sister Andreaâs character flaws, best displayed by her interaction with Kristen in the next scene. Few wise sage characters that display flaws, making this addition appreciated.
Father Ignatius’ introduction adds layers of interest for a character who will play a recurring role, tying into Monsignor Korecki directly. The yet-to-be-explored relationship between Father Ignatius and Monsignor Korecki (Boris McGiver) evokes an interest.
Advertisement
While “The Demon of Death” isn’t a haunting episode, but explores the mysteries and terror of death through science to provide an interesting environment for an episode. It introduces a new character that adds to the cast.
Tired Tropes and Triggers
Thereâs not much to report here that particularly crosses the line and what teeters on the line holds a dark comedic tone.
Perhaps Sister Andreaâs flaw might rub some the wrong way, as it deals with her overwhelming faith. However, itâs a minor point at the moment. Again, I lean on liking some complexity for the wise sage archetype.
What I Dislike about âThe Demon of Deathâ
âThe Demon of Deathâ still plays it safe with its supernatural elements, but that does seem to be Evilâs standard. At this point of the series, it seems a strange restraint. However, the new normal remains functionally paranormal.
While the premiere starts with an interesting procedural plot, it doesnât direct the season like prior premieres. This episode doesn’t deliver a massive refocus as season 2’s premiere, but that’s because its conclusion doesn’t deliver as focused of a direction. Regardless, “The Demon of Death” is still an episode that slips away despite its premiere status.
Ben (Aasif Mandvi) seems needlessly hostile as they investigate a soul’s potential weight. The study delivers a thorough scientific process, which makes his resistance linger on the âangry atheistâ archetype.
The demon shown on screen certainly isnât the demon of death the title suggests. While the plot revolves around the mystery of death, there is a demon with a more carnal domain. As future episodes dive into their respective demons, it does seem to be an inaccurate title. However, the demon of the episode will get further focus in a different episode.
Advertisement
Final Thoughts
âThe Demon of Deathâ doesnât stand out as a premiere but provides an interesting procedural episode. As Father Ignatius will become another key character in the series, giving him an entire episode to introduce him is a nice strategy. While itâs not a haunting episode, it still provides a level of camp with interesting characters to pull it off. (3 / 5)
Released in 2010, Rare Exports asks an important holiday question. One that no one else has dared to ask.
What if Santa was a ten-story-tall monster buried under the ice for centuries?
The story
Rare Exports is the story of a little boy named Pietari. After doing what is frankly too much research for a little boy, he realizes that Santa is not the jolly old elf we all think of. He is, in fact, a monster who eats bad children. And it turns out that Santa was trapped in the ice near Pietari’s little town. All this would be well and good if a Russian mining team weren’t in the process of cutting him out of the ice. So it’s up to Pietari to convince everyone of the dark, horrific truth.
Why were the Russians digging in the snow to find Santa? What was the plan there? What happened to Pietariâs mom? And who did they sell the elves to? Do the elves need air or water to live?
We donât get answers to any of those questions. And frankly, we donât need them to enjoy Rare Exports.
This is a wild story about a little boy who discovers that Santa is a mythical monster with a bunch of scrawny old men with big white beards to do his evil bidding and eats bad children who haven’t been beaten by their parents enough. What sort of explanation would help this story in any way?
I mean, we could pick apart why itâs suddenly legal to sell people, or at least mythical creatures that look like naked old men, or why this all happened right next to the only little kid who had the exact knowledge needed. But in the end, wouldnât that be like asking how Santa gets into peopleâs homes when they donât have fireplaces? Doesnât that objective reasoning just piss on the Christmas magic?
Advertisement
What didnât work
While Rare Exports was fun, there were parts that I did not appreciate. For one thing, there wasn’t a single woman or person of any color in this film. Literally not one. Not an extra, not in the background. This little Finnish town is populated entirely by white men. And yes, it is Finland and there isn’t a hugely diverse population. But it’s also 2010. People move. Also, women exist.
On the subject of seeing too many white men, we also saw too much of the white men. Specifically, we saw far too many old white male actors entirely nude. There was just no reason for this. These men were portraying elves. They didnât have to be naked. If they were naked, they didnât have to have, um, yule logs. Maybe elves are like Ken dolls. There were so many options that didnât include so much old man wang.
Finally, I wish we’d seen Santa Claus. Not to spoil the ending, but he never actually emerges to attack anyone. And that feels like a cop-out. If we’re going to be teased the whole movie with this depiction of monster Santa, we should at least get to see monster Santa.
Though, after what they did with the elves, maybe itâs a blessing we didnât see him.
In the end, Rare Exports was well worth watching. It was hilarious, creepy and bloody. And while it wasn’t perfect, it was a delightful holiday horror comedy.
Released in 2016, Christmas Crime Story is about a disastrous robbery on Christmas Eve, and all the many lives impacted by the selfish decisions of one person.
And then, suddenly, it isnât. But weâll get to that part.
The story
Christmas Crime Story is the tale of a Christmas Eve holdup gone wrong. We see the story from several points of view, starting with Chris, the detective first on the scene.
Chris is having a hard Christmas Eve. So, on his lunch break, he visits his mom at her diner. It appears that they have a contentious relationship. But nothing is solved in this quick visit.
Advertisement
Chris goes on to pull over a man speeding. When the man, named David, pulls over, Chris discovers something in the trunk. That something must have been pretty damn incriminating, because rather than open the trunk, David shoots him dead.
We then switch to Davidâs pov for the night. Then his girlfriendâs pov. Then, the man his girlfriend has been cheating on him with. And on and on we go, until we see how all of these different stories and people come together for a dark, sordid Christmas Eve.
What worked
The first thing I want to say about Christmas Crime Story is that itâs heartwarming. Like, to a fault, which we will be talking about.
The ending is very sweet, in a Christmasy sort of way. Families come together, people are filled with joy, and all is right in the world for almost everyone. Except for Lena, who deserves to have a bad Christmas, everyone gets a happy ending.
That brings me to my next point. The characters, mostly, are all deeply sympathetic. Even when David or James are killing people, you feel bad for them.
Advertisement
You donât agree with what theyâre doing, but you do feel bad.
You have to feel sympathetic for the man whose girlfriend hired a killer to merk him. Or the woman whose daughter has cancer. Or the guy who just can’t find work, even though he’s trying to make good decisions. You want things to work out for them. You want them to be okay. Even when they do terrible things.
Finally, I always love stories told from so many different points of view. It’s always fun to see a story unfold in a nonlinear way, but in a way that makes more and more sense as we get more points of view. It’s a hard thing to pull off, and I think Christmas Crime Story did it very well.
What didnât work
Unfortunately, all of the sympathetic characters and clever storytelling methods in the world won’t save a story that doesn’t work. And Christmas Crime Story just does not work.
Letâs begin with the ending. The big twist near the end of the movie. I wonât spoil it, but you will for sure know it if youâve seen the film. Or, if you waste your time watching the film.
Advertisement
As a rule, twists work when they make sense. Not when it feels like the writers threw up their hands and said, âOkay, but what if everything we just did for the last hour and fifteen minutes didnât happen, and insteadâŠâ
This wasnât clever. It wasnât fun. It felt like the writers didnât know how to end their movie and just decided to cheat.
Finally, I mentioned earlier that Christmas Crime Story was heartwarming. And yes, that is nice.
But is it maybe a little too heartwarming?
I mean, we have an adorable angel of a child with cancer. Her parents don’t have enough money for her treatment. We have two poor guys who are in love with a black-hearted woman. And we have a detective so sweet and kind that he makes you rethink ACAB. And, he’s about to get married to his pregnant girlfriend. And theyâre naming the baby after his mom. And his name is literally Chris DeJesus. His momâs name is Maggie DeJesus. I tried to think of a sillier less subtle name to use as a joke, and I literally couldnât think of one.
Advertisement
They could have at least named him De La Cruz. That would be more subtle, and I still would have complained.
In the end, Christmas Crime Story just missed the mark. It came very close to being a good movie. But it focused too much on how it wanted you to feel, rather than telling a satisfying story that made sense. Much like that third glass of eggnog, itâs fun in the moment and regretful after. If youâre looking for a satisfying Christmas horror, Iâd suggest looking elsewhere.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Pingback: Review: The Invisible Man (2020) - Haunted MTL
Pingback: Vivarium: House Hunting in the Twilight Zone - Haunted MTL