Mainlining Christmas

I'm going to lean into the reality in which this is a movie, as opposed to the reality we actually inhabit in which it's an episode in a Blumhouse-produced holiday horror anthology television series called "Into the Dark," since Hulu seems to have unbundled these at some point and now presents them as standalone movies. But over in that alternate universe, this was part of the second season of Into the Dark, which means there's at least three other installments relevant to our interests (another Christmas and two New Year's). And after my experience with A Nasty Piece of Work, I'm interested in checking those out. This isn't a life-changing experience or some kind of hidden masterpiece, but I was entertained, which is as good a description of what this is setting out to do as any. To put this another way, while this is technically horror/comedy, it leans so far towards to the latter as to read almost more like dark comedy. That's neither intended a...

I learned about this while looking at the fifth volume of The Valancourt Book of Victorian Ghost Stories, which includes the lyrics to a popular British song written by Thomas Haynes Bayly dating back to 1829 about a young woman who seemingly vanishes during a game of hide-and-seek and whose skeleton is found in a chest years later. The underlying story is even older - Wikipedia credits Samuel Rogers with the earliest written version, a poem titled, "Ginevra", published seven years earlier, with the caveat the narrative was most likely folklore before either Bayly or Rogers wrote it down. Apparently, there are numerous old manors throughout England claiming to have been the site of the supposed tragedy inspiring the story. One difference that's hard to miss between Bayly's "The Mistletoe Bough" and Roger's "Ginevra" is that the earlier poem wasn't set at Christmas. Bayly's song, as the name implies, absolutely is - at least until the ti...

I don't even want to touch the premise of this movie until I explain a few things, because anything I tell you about what's going on in this bizarre horror flick would spoil stuff I wouldn't want to spoil. Normally, opening a review (or whatever it is I do here) that way implies I'm recommending a movie, but even that's going to be complicated. This is a movie calibrated towards a very particular kind of viewer, and even then there's a catch. The last few minutes of the film squander the goodwill it built over the previous hour and a half by pivoting in a different direction that left me rolling my eyes. Still, the experience the movie offers up until that point is so weird and fun, I'm hesitant to give too much away upfront. So instead I'm going to start this with an attempt at describing that experience, as well as who might be interested in checking this out. As always, if at any point you start to expect you fall into that bucket, I encourage you to ...

The fact there's a 1981 psychological horror movie written and directed by Oliver Stone and starring Michael Caine that you've probably never heard of basically tells you everything you need to know. To its credit, the movie explores some important themes: toxic masculinity, misogyny, abuse, and projection make up a substantial part of the narrative and even more of the subtext. Unfortunately, the film itself is almost shockingly boring, and character decisions undermine the twist to the point of nullification. The movie spends its runtime dangling the question, "How much of this is real?" without giving us a reason to care. By the time the ending reveals the truth (and the inevitable post-script slaps an obligatory question mark on that reveal) I was just grateful the whole thing was over. The premise, incidentally, centers around a comic writer (Jon, played by Michael Caine) who loses a hand in an automobile accident then comes to believe that hand has reanimated an...

Both of the following statements can be true: Silent Night, Deadly Night: Part 2 is a rushed, direct-to-video production that barely qualifies as an actual movie, and - based on what director Lee Harvey was working with - it's shocking it's not far worse. The original plan was to release recut footage from the first movie as a new movie in a bait-and-switch scheme to trick fans into handing over more money. And, to be clear, repackaged clips are still a significant part of the sequel, with most of the first half devoted to a series of flashbacks to famous scenes from part one. But the team making this managed to secure a modest budget and a rushed shooting schedule, and were able to cobble together something that could be reasonably called a movie. They deserve credit for that. Maybe a little more than that, too. While the movie isn't at all good, it contains sections and choices that are smarter - or at least more ethical - than you might expect, particularly when compare...

Well. That wasn't remotely what I was expecting. And, just so we're on the same page, that's a very good thing. I should probably get used to this subgenre (or in this case movies marketed within the subgenre) surprising me, particularly since I kind of predicted the turn said subgenre was due to take a few years ago. But, yeah, based on the initial teaser, I was ready to write this off as an overly-nostalgic homage to a horror film that I have... let's go with "mixed feelings" about. That's being generous, by the way - I didn't enjoy the 1984 film at all , though I see the appeal. There's some smart stuff going on in that movie if you can look past the misogynistic exploitation, the slow pacing, and the nihilistic cloud hanging over the whole thing. I certainly preferred the original to  the 2012 remake , which basically turned up the volume on everything distasteful about the original while dumbing down the premise and themes to the point there w...