Welcome to Notes from the Last Drive-In. Normally these go up on Mondays, but some real-life engagements delayed my chance to view the films and write the review. This week we cover two 1980s films with 1989’s Bride of Re-Animator and 1982’s Next of Kin. Two wildly divergent films paired up, splattery pulp and an artsy slow burn, but welcome nonetheless. It’s another movie night on Shudder with the world’s greatest host. Let’s dive in, shall we?
This week’s tweets were handled by Payne and some of our other writers. Thanks for covering, gang! Give them a follow.
Bride of Re-Animator (1989)
Opening: The character reversal of the City and the Town
With Bride of Re-Animator the luster of the original film shines brighter, but it’s not as though Bride is a dull film. It’s effective, technically sound, and features many things to love. But it is the first of what would be many lesser sequels – still fun, but incapable of quite capturing what worked so well with the 1985 original. Most of the pieces are there, and the film largely succeeds in its ambition to follow up on Herbert West and Dan Cain’s exploits. Yet something is missing. The film fell under the direction of Brian Yuzna and a script cobbled together quickly by Yuzna, Rick Fry, and Woody Keith. As a whole it is serviceable, but there is a distinct lack of the late Stewart Gordon. one wonders how things might have turned out if production wasn’t rushed to get a sequel made for a tax credit.
Advertisement
Despite the quibbles one may have with the fairly obvious Frankenstein-riff of a plot and the lesser writing and direction compared to the first, much of the film largely works and works well. The performances are excellent, with Jeffrey Combs and Bruce Abbott returning as West and Cain, respectively, the comical and ridiculous return of David Gale, and the fantastic performance of Kathleen Kinmont as the titular “bride.” The film is also technically strong, with some interesting tricks behind the camera at Yuzna’s direction and masterful effects by Screaming Mad George. Yet… the compromises are one too many for the film to truly live up to the original. No Gordon, a rushed script, and a planned finale that would never be filmed. It’s frustrating, really.
Most of my enjoyment of the first half of the night came from seeing what Jeffrey Combs is up to, as he was beamed onto the set with the socially-distance mannequin. We really should see if the mannequin has a name, honestly. The interviews do feel a little flat as a whole due to social distancing – they certainly lack a certain spontaneity that we’ve enjoyed in prior seasons, but they’re still quite fun. It helps that Jeffrey Combs is a perfect Drive-In guest: a living legend with some surprises, such as his slipping in and out of his redneck roots. We also received a number of fun anecdotes about the shoot, Combs’ continued friendship with Bruce Abbott, and hints about where the series could have headed. Of course, Combs is still game to do another Re-Animator film. Who else could play Herbert West, really?
Joe Bob Briggs generously gave Bride of Re-Animator the four-star treatment. I think Joe Bob has been a bit generous as of late, perhaps slowly losing his mind from cabin fever. It’s a good movie, but is it a four-star film by Drive-In standards? I am not so sure – the original Re-Animator? Undoubtedly. Bride, not really. As for me, I’d give Bride of Re-Animatorfour out of five Cthulhus.
(4 / 5)
Best Line: “He’s a wife-beater, Dan, use the gun!” – Herbert West being helpful
Next of Kin (1982)
Opening: The Dyson Airblade
Advertisement
Next of Kin is an obscure, slow-burn Australian horror film, and yes, despite the wishes of the director, it is horror. As Joe Bob said last week, we know horror when we see it. It is probably the slowest burn on The Last Drive-In, but as someone who enjoys when horror takes its time, I found myself enjoying it a great deal. It is not without problems, however, perhaps grasping too ferociously at prestige, the film ultimately offers short bursts of mood between needlessly labored plot revelations. It’s fine, a good effort for first-time horror director/writer Tony Williams. He wasn’t long for the movie industry, ultimately turning to the advertising industry, but Next of Kin is like a tantalizing peek at what could have been an impressive film career.
The film follows a woman, Linda, who inherits an old folk home who sees a series of deaths of the elderly residents that evokes something from her past. It is a film of family secrets and the threat of madness that muddies the waters of what is real and what isn’t, yet the film doesn’t really commit to the supernatural vs. reality angle much at all. It is a haunted house story where the haunting is all in the mind and the threat is a strange, not necessarily satisfying reveal. The performances are solid, with Jackie Kerlin selling her tormented character with much skill – only to leave the film industry altogether. A strange turn on what could have been a promising career, but one mustn’t begrudge her choices.
Ultimately, much like how Jackie Kerlin left the film industry and Tony Williams transitioned to the ad industry, the film itself feels like a strong start with a sudden stop. So much potential lays within the bones of the story, but it gets traded for plodding pace, a non-sensical revelation, and an out-of-place explosive finale. So much potential and style just sort of squandered. Joe Bob discusses this film in the context of a rediscovered gem, a limited release that was given a new lease on life after a name drop from Quentin Tarantino. Yet, I can’t help but think the value of Next of Kin is in some admittedly stylish directorial choices and the sheer curiosity of it all. It isn’t quite Ozspoitation, nor is it totally inscrutable for the art-house crowd. It’s an odd film from Australia, albeit one that causes me to ponder the question of “what if?”
Joe Bob’s assessment of the film puts it in the four-star territory. I find myself disagreeing, heavily. What works in the film works, in spite of the issues with the plot and what feels like a desperate bid for cultural excellence. I can’t see myself giving this film more than three out of five Cthulhus.
(3 / 5)
Best Line: “Sex it up, baby!” – Joe Bob Briggs on making films, the AMERICAN way.
Advertisement
Haunted MTL Drive-In Totals
As always, we have our own Drive-In totals to share!
Ultimately, not the finest night at the Drive-In, but still very fun. Who doesn’t love movie night? That being said, Herbert West carries the night, thanks to a game Jeffery Combs, who is as delightful now as he seems to have always been.
(3.5 / 5)
See you all next week for more Drive-In fun. I’ll be live-Tweeting the show from Haunted MTL’s Twitter account again (thanks for filling in this week, Payne), so be sure to give us a follow there.
Smile 2, a psychological supernatural horror, released in October 2024 just in time for Halloween, sees director Parker Finn (Smile, Laura Hasn’t Slept) return with a sequel starring Naomi Scott (Aladdin) as pop star and recovering addict Skye Riley. While Smile 2 boasts a talented cast, it ultimately falls short of its predecessor, offering a familiar storyline with minor variations and a predictable finale. The film attempts to introduce a new method to combat the parasitic ‘Smile Entity’, but this addition fails to elevate the sequel beyond a pale imitation of its chilling predecessor.
The Plot.
Smile 2 begins shortly after the end of the original; just six days after Rose Cotter’s death. During a short interlude scene, we watch as the now cursed Joel attempts to pass the Smile Entity on by killing one criminal in front of another. The plan backfires spectacularly, inadvertently passing the curse onto an innocent bystander named Lewis Fregoli.
The film then shifts gears, introducing Skye Riley, a singer and performer making a triumphant return to the spotlight with a comeback tour after a tumultuous past. During a candid interview on the Drew Barrymore Show, Skye opens up about her struggles with addiction and the devastating loss of her boyfriend in a car accident. Her sobriety journey, however, faces a severe setback when she seeks pain relief from her old high school friend, the unwitting Lewis Fregoli. In a chilling turn of events, Lewis takes his own life while Skye watches, passing the Smile Entity onto her. Unaware of her new cursed existence Skye gets on with rehearsing for her tour, but she begins to notice that strange things are happening. People are smiling at her in an unnatural way and she becomes the target of anonymous attacks and aggressions. When text messages begin to arrive from an unknown number, Skye decides to get some answers.
Highlights.
Let’s not beat about the bush. I found Smile 2 difficult to finish and was struggling at about the hour-and-a-half mark to stay awake. That being said it’s worth watching because everyone needs to see the 3-minute scene of the ‘smilers’ chasing Skye through her apartment. This was possibly the creepiest thing I’ve seen on a screen. The buildup, the synchronicity of the movement of the actors and their positioning, the camera work, and the lighting. I have rewatched it several times and it doesn’t get old. If you are only interested in watching this, fast forward to the 123-minute mark and get ready to be impressed.
Drawbacks.
Where do I start?
My primary concern with Smile 2 is its striking resemblance to its predecessor. The narrative follows a familiar pattern: an attractive woman fleeing a supernatural force, grappling with hallucinations, experiencing a mental health decline, and culminating in the revelation someone close to Skye was the Smiling Entity after all. This repetitive structure diminishes the film’s impact.
Advertisement
While the introduction of a new method for shedding the entity initially offered a glimmer of hope this concept wasn’t fully realized. It just served to add names to the line of people that the entity has infected in the past.
Furthermore, the film’s pacing suffers from excessive focus on Skye’s musical career. Scenes showcasing her stage rehearsals and music videos, while intended to establish her identity as a performer, feel unnecessary and detract from the narrative momentum. Yes, we understand she’s a performer, you told us, you don’t need to prove it. These scenes appear to artificially inflate the film’s runtime, suggesting a lack of confidence in the core story.
The Final Take.
Ultimately, Smile 2 fails to expand upon the established lore of the franchise. The film’s conclusion feels contrived, with a blatant setup for a third installment. Hopefully, if a ‘Smile 3’ is inevitable, the creative team will bring fresh ideas and avoid simply retreading familiar ground.
We’re back again with Goosebumps The Vanishing, episode two. A story too big for one episode, apparently.
Or, maybe this is just a nod to the fact that Stay Out Of The Basement was a two-part episode in the original 1995 show. Either way, after seeing this episode, we could have kept it to one.
The story
We begin this second episode with Anthony investigating the parasitic plant taking over his body. Rather than, I don’t know, going to the hospital, he’s decided to phone a colleague and send her some samples from the bulb he pulls out of his arm with a handheld garden trowel.
Meanwhile, Devin is having his own worries. He’s haunted by what he saw in the sewers. So, he gets CJ to go with him to investigate. What they find is more of the tendrils of the plant that dragged him down through the manhole last episode.
Advertisement
I sure would have liked to see more about that.
Instead, we see Devin pivot to flirting with a newly single Frankie. Because teenage hormones I guess.
Meanwhile, Trey is having a terrible day. First, his girlfriend leaves him. Then, Anthony breaks his car window.
Needing a way to deal with his frustration, Trey decides to break into the Brewers’ basement. There, he starts wrecking up the place. Until he meets the plant creature and has an unfortunate accident.
What worked
The big difference between this episode and the last is the increased gross-out factor. This episode had some straight-up cringy moments. From the tendrils waiving from Anthony’s arm to the whole goat he brings home to feed his new pet, this episode was skin-crawling gross in the best way possible.
Advertisement
The series is called Goosebumps, after all.
What didn’t work
Unfortunately, that’s where my praise ends. This episode, unlike the last, just wasn’t that great.
To start with, there was a lot of unnecessary drama between characters who are not in danger of being eaten by a plant from the inside out.
I especially disliked the focus on the Frankie/Trey/Devin love triangle.
Now, I don’t hate it. This part of the story adds extra emotional depth to the show. We can see why Trey would be especially incensed by his girlfriend falling for the son of the neighbor he’s feuding with. But it would be more enjoyable if it wasn’t so cliche and dramatic.
Advertisement
I hate the way Trey tried to gaslight Frankie. It makes me dislike him when he should be a sympathetic character. I hate how whiny Devin is every time he talks to Frankie. And I hated the impassioned speech Frankie gives after Devin asks her why she was with Trey.
Listen, I understand what we’re going for here. Devin and Cece are not struggling financially. They’re doing alright, and their new friends here in Gravesend are not. We kind of got that without Frankie claiming that her socioeconomic status is why she’s dating a bully and gaslighter. It felt out of place. It felt like pandering. It certainly didn’t feel like something an eighteen-year-old would say. I hated it.
Finally, there was a moment near the end of the episode that irritated me. I don’t want to give too much detail because I wouldn’t dare ruin an R.L. Stine cliffhanger. But, well, it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
I get that we’re watching a show about a carnivorous plant that is going to wreak havoc on this family and neighborhood. I understand the suspension of disbelief. Some might even say I am a little too generous with it. So I can buy into a teenager being absorbed by a plant and turned into a monstrous version of himself.
I can’t buy into what happens at the end of this episode. It doesn’t make sense with the rules established. It certainly doesn’t make any sort of scientific or logical sense. It is a lazy moment meant to further the storyline but threatens the structural integrity of the season.
Advertisement
All in all, this wasn’t the best episode of Goosebumps. But it’s only the second episode. Honestly, the season has plenty of time to go either way.
The movie monsters always approach so slowly. Their stiff joints arcing in jerky, erratic movements While the camera pans to a wide-eyed scream. It takes forever for them to catch their victims.
Their stiff joints arcing in jerky, erratic movements As they awkwardly shamble towards their quarry – It takes forever for them to catch their victims. And yet no one ever seems to get away.
As they awkwardly shamble towards their quarry – Scenes shift, plot thickens, minutes tick by endlessly… And yet no one ever seems to get away. Seriously, how long does it take to make a break for it?
Scenes shift, plot thickens, minutes tick by endlessly… While the camera pans to a wide-eyed scream. Seriously, how long does it take to make a break for it? The movie monsters always approach so slowly.
Robot Dance from Jennifer Weigel’s Reversals series
So my father used to enjoy telling the story of Thriller Nite and how he’d scare his little sister, my aunt. One time they were watching the old Universal Studios Monsters version of The Mummy, and he pursued her at a snail’s pace down the hallway in Boris Karloff fashion. Both of them had drastically different versions of this tale, but essentially it was a true Thriller Nite moment. And the inspiration for this poem.