10.04.2025
Lunar Cycle - September 2025
12.18.2024
Silent Night, Deadly Night Part II (1987) w/ The DTV Connoisseur
11.13.2024
Smile 2 (2024)
DIRECTED BY
Parker Finn
STARRING
Naomi Scott - Skye Riley
Rosemarie DeWitt - Elizabeth Riley
Lukas Gage - Lewis Fregoli
Miles Guiterrez-Riley - Joshua
Ray Nicholson - Paul Hudson
Dylan Gelula - Gemma
Kyle Gallner - Joel
Genre - Horror/Supernatural
Running Time - 127 Minutes
PLOT
About to embark on a new world tour, global pop sensation Skye Riley begins experiencing increasingly terrifying and inexplicable events. Overwhelmed by the escalating horrors and the pressures of fame, Skye is forced to face her dark past to regain control of her life before it spirals out of control.
REVIEW
PROS
Naomi Scott. Sosie Bacon was great in the first SMILE from 2022, carrying that film and playing all the emotional beats of a psychiatrist who was struggling with her own fear of mental illness due to trauma from her childhood. You bought everything Bacon presented, making her a captivating actress and character to watch.
But Naomi Scott absolutely overshadows her in this 2024 sequel. Actresses have really brought it in the horror genre this year, but Scott’s performance has to be near the top of the list. Naomi Scott’s Skye Riley is like an onion that has so many layers to play with, allowing the actress to play so many aspects of a female pop star believably for two hours. She struggles with addiction. She’s traumatized for partly causing a car accident that not only injured her back [to the point she constantly needs pain meds], but also murdered her on-and-off boyfriend. She struggles being heard by her momager who refuses to understand the constant stress a comeback tour is putting on her daughter, feeling that Skye is selfish for wanting to delay the tour and costing her definite money due to the massive demand for the tour. She also has a bad history with her best friend, trying to find ways to make up for whatever wrong she’s done to her. And of course, Skye is also possessed by this smile curse that makes her already tarnished reputation with the media and fans much worse as the days go on - which Scott plays perfectly.
I think the best thing about Scott’s performance is how likable she makes Skye Riley, despite the fact that the character isn’t really all that sympathetic in terms of how she treats herself and the people around her. A lesser actress would have made this character so annoying, SMILE 2 would sink and be one of those sequels that should’ve never happened. But Scott elevates the material and really sinks her teeth into everything, no matter how wild the story gets. She’s charismatic and dynamic to watch from beginning to end. Just a wonderful performance in any genre, honestly.
The soundtrack. A pop star needs some bangers and bops to make the persona work. And all the songs in SMILE 2 are just that - really great songs that don’t deserve to be this good and go so hard in terms of production and clever lyrics that foreshadow the events of the film. The filmmakers went all out making Skye Riley feel like a real persona for Naomi Scott, who sings her butt off on these songs as if she’s been doing this for years. I went to the fan screening for this film a day before the actual wide release and there was a four-minute countdown leading into the actual film, made up of music videos for these songs with Scott performing them in various stages of her character’s pop career. The time taken to really craft a character and the world she lives in should be commended. You can tell the people involved had respect for the material and use the bigger budget to make it feel like a real deal.
Parker Finn. For the first SMILE, director/writer Parker Finn already displayed a cool style that made his horror film stand out from others at the time. Stylish editing, upside down shots to disorient the viewer and a nice use of CGI made his 2022 film a big success. But for the sequel, it seems Paramount gave Finn the keys to the car and let him go all out. Crazier editing, better special effects, more stylish angles and shots and awesome performance moments for Skye Riley. You can tell Finn finally gained some confidence from multiple people, and maybe even himself, becoming unafraid with his presentation and knowing exactly where to take his story from beginning to end. While I wouldn’t mind another SMILE installment, I would love to see Finn do something different while maintaining this level of visual creativity. I thought the direction of the sequel was superior to that of the original by a mile.
Loved the continuation from the first film. Spoilers for the first film, but the survivor of that film, police officer Joel, returns in the opening of SMILE 2 as he’s struggling with being cursed himself and trying to pass it on to drug dealers. However things go wrong and the rest of the movie happens for our own entertainment. Kyle Gallner, having quite the year in horror prior to this, does a great job continuing where he left off in the first film, investing fans right away into the sequel. Considering how we know how this curse ends, you can guess what happens. But it’s great seeing a loose end given a fitting conclusion that leads into the rest of the movie.
The predictable ending. I saw a lot of viewers complain about the film’s ending, with some feeling it lacked originality and came off silly. But seriously, if you watched the first trailer and understood who the main character is, you should have known there is only one conclusion to this movie. While predictable, it’s the only one that works and feels true to the story. So I liked it and I’m curious where things go in the next one because that seems like a huge task considering what goes down.
CONS
Getting difficult to decipher what’s real and what’s not. While I appreciated the storytelling and visual presentation of SMILE 2, there were moments where I felt that Parker Finn went too far in terms of letting the audience in on what’s going on. Considering this curse Skye Riley is suffering through, it makes sense that it would disorient her sense of reality and make her look more insane as the film runs along. But during the final act, it got to a point where even I was confused what was going on and how things ended up where they did. I understand a lot of what we see went on in her headspace. But it doesn’t make sense that she seems perfectly fine to others in the real world if she’s struggling with a manic mental state. I don’t think it was explained enough and just felt jarring by the film’s final minutes. I do think it was the right move to do in a narrative sense, but the execution could have been a bit smoother. For everything that Skye goes through in the final act, it makes you question how she functioned in front of others during all that. Probably the only flaw I could find in this sequel.
THE FINAL HOWL
I liked 2022’s SMILE and felt it was a cool concept that never met its full potential. But 2024’s SMILE 2 heard that and met that goal in almost every single way. Naomi Scott understood the assignment and carried the film effortlessly, crafting a fake pop star and making her feel like she’s been part of our lives for years. She hits every emotional and wild beat believably, making us feel for a character that honestly shouldn’t be sympathetic to begin with. That also extends to the incredible pop soundtrack that Scott shines on, providing us with bangers that will be an annual Halloween listen for me. Director/writer Parker Finn also improves upon what he achieved in the first film, giving us crazier and more stylish shots and edits, while using the bigger budget to create Skye’s celebrity universe and showcase better CGI for the smiling demons. And while some may complain about the predictable ending, I called it the moment I watched the first trailer and I have no issue with it. There’s no other way this film could have ended and it leads to an interesting third installment if Paramount decides to make it. I liked this way more than I did the first film and I think fans of SMILE will be smiling a lot while enjoying this sequel. One of the better horror films of 2024, without a doubt.
SCORE
(9 out of 10)
11.11.2024
Terrifier 3 (2024)
DIRECTED BY
Damien Leone
STARRING
David Howard Thornton - Art the Clown
Lauren LaVera - Sienna Shaw
Elliott Fullam - Jonathan Shaw
Samatha Scaffidi - Vicky Heyes
Margaret Anne Florence - Jess Shaw
Bryce Johnson - Greg Shaw
Genre - Horror/Slasher/Holiday
Running Time - 125 Minutes
PLOT
Five years after surviving Art the Clown’s Halloween massacre, Sienna and Jonathan are still struggling to rebuild their shattered lives. As the holiday season approaches, they try to embrace the Christmas spirit and leave the horrors of the past behind. But just when they think they’re safe, Art returns, determined to turn their holiday cheer into a new nightmare. The festive season quickly unravels as Art unleashes his twisted brand of terror, proving that no holiday is safe.
REVIEW
PROS
A more focused story. While 2016’s TERRIFIER lacked a narrative and 2022’s TERRIFIER 2 may have used too much of one, 2024’s TERRIFER 3 manages to balance it out to craft a more straightforward plot that fits the 80s slasher theme better. I’ll get to the Christmas aspect in a bit [it definitely works here], but I appreciated that this sequel focused on the trauma that both Sienna and her brother Jonathan suffered in TERRIFIER 2 [which takes place five years prior to this film]. The slings try to move on with their lives separately, as Sienna has spent time at some sort of institution while Jonathan struggles to acclimate in a college environment. But both still suffer from PTSD and only have each other to vent about it, as everyone else around them either can never understand the torture they went through, or want to capitalize on their trauma for their own fame and fortune. Add in the return of Art the Clown and Vicky, who everyone other than the Shaw siblings treat as freaks or something amusing, and you have a haunting neither sibling can easily escape from. The use of trauma is nothing new in modern slasher films [Laurie Strode and Sidney Prescott anyone?] but considering how many view the TERRIFIER franchise, it’s a nice aspect to have that allows a level of grounding to a surreal series.
A stronger confidence in direction and acting. Damien Leone really ups his filmmaking cred with TERRIFIER 3, being both subtle and over-the-top at the same time - and doing it very well. I’ll get to the death sequences in a bit, but I will say that they weren’t as extreme as they were in the second film, while still maintaining a level of uncomfortability that would make vomiting and/or people walking out the theater understandable. I also felt that Leone didn’t pad the running time with random stuff or gags, embracing the idea of giving certain information that could appear meaningless when they’re introduced but become quite important in later parts of the film. The running time, which is still quite long, flowed a bit better for me here.
As for the acting, it’s the best of the franchise so far. David Howard Thornton can play Art the Clown in his sleep at this point, balancing the silliness of the character with a level of menace that’s a bit unsettling. Samatha Scaffidi as the returning Vicky gets the most to do since the first film, creating a villain of her own that’s super memorable. Elliott Fullam does the best he can with what he’s given, while newcomer Margaret Anne Florence is a great addition to the cast as young cousin Jess. But Lauren LaVera really comes into her own as Sienna, finally becoming a true Final Girl with a strong performance from beginning to end. You hits every emotional beat needed as a traumatized survivor, while being a true badass when she has to defend herself against Art and Vicky. It’s easy to see why she’s in high demand in the genre right now, as LaVera carries the film extremely well.
The gore. While I don’t think anything in this film beats that bedroom sequence in TERRIFIER 2, Leone sure comes close in TERRIFIER 3. The opening scene isn’t for the weak of heart, quickly letting the audience know what type of movie this is. It’s violent, bloody and even children aren’t safe. The final confrontation is also messed up visually, with mutilated body parts and even fantastical sequences that will combat your sense of disbelief. But the one memorable death sequence involves a college dorm bathroom and a chainsaw to male genitals… yeah, I felt every second of that indirectly. Fans looking for blood and guts will not be disappointed here.
The Christmas aesthetic. I think the most exciting aspect of the film for me is that it takes place during the holidays. While Christmas horror is nothing new, it’s refreshing to see one take place within an already-established franchise that never focused on the holiday itself. The first two TERRIFIER films took place around Halloween time, so switching it to a holiday that many consider sacred is a move that works in this sequel’s favor. We get Art dressed like Santa for much of the film, as he goes to malls to disturb people, while also invading homes to deliver “presents”. There’s snow on the ground. There are Christmas lights and decorations all over the place. There’s even a scene where Art “bonds” with a fake Santa Claus in a bar. More established franchises should have taken this step and changed up the atmosphere because TERRIFIER 3 has a nice reason to memorably exist because of it.
CONS
That unseen death. I’m not going to spoil anything about the film, but this part of the film still bugs me. You can’t establish a character, make them feel important and then just eliminate them from the story offscreen without some sort of explanation visually. I hope this is the case where if you don’t see someone die on screen, that means they’re still alive to be used in a future installment. But if not, Damien Leone is a ballsy guy because this may alienate some fans of the franchise if this is not followed up upon in the fourth movie.
Not as fun as the second film. While TERRIFIER 3 is a good time if you know what you’re getting into, I actually prefer the vibe of the second film more. The synthwave, 80s atmosphere is one that will catch and keep my attention right away and TERRIFIER 3 doesn’t really have that. Also, a lot of the characters in this film don’t really stand out like they did in the second film [Sienna’s friends, in particular]. I think it’s a case where we’ve been through this kind of film three times already, so it feels less fresh with each installment. TERRIFIER 3 is total popcorn entertainment that improves upon a lot of things from previous films. But I felt TERRIFIER 2 was a bit more carefree and exciting due to what it presented. Both films are still better than the overrated first film though.
Art the Clown kind of being overshadowed in his own franchise. Am I the only one who felt Vicky was a more interesting antagonist than Art was in this film? Her character arc since the first film still fascinates me to the point where I want to see more of her and whatever she plans on doing on Art’s behalf. During the final act in particular, she was such a force and presence that I forgot that Art was even in the scene with her. While I like the idea of these two characters working together to create chaos, I think Art should definitely be the star and not play second-fiddle to another villain. It felt like that for a few minutes and I found it both interesting and worrying.
THE FINAL HOWL
While I found the second film to be a more fun experience overall, I do think TERRIFIER 3 does improve upon that film in a lot of ways. I like that the fantastical narrative of the second film is a bit more streamlined and grounded in this movie [besides certain things in the final act]. The use of PTSD and trauma is used very well here and it will only fuel the fire going forward. Damien Leone’s direction is more confident and focused when it comes to pacing, the death sequences [that chainsaw scene, yo] and the great use of the Christmas aesthetic. The acting is also an improvement, especially by Lauren LaVera, who gives her all as a young woman who continues to struggle with the torture Art the Clown has put her and her family through. David Howard Thornton is still wonderful as the villain, now able to play the role in his sleep at this point.
That being said, I feel that returning character Vicky kind of overshadows Art a bit during the final act, which is fine if you’re not trying to establish one of them as the next big horror baddie. I think Art will be fine, though. I also prefer the 80s, synthwave vibe of the second film despite its longer running time. And if that unseen death for an established character is legit, I’m not a fan of that move at all.
Other than that, TERRIFIER 3 isn’t for everyone. But if you enjoy tons of gore, a fun Christmas horror aesthetic and improved acting and production, I would stick with this franchise and get excited for what the filmmakers are cooking up next. Otherwise, be prepared to be on Art’s naughty list and I don’t think your private regions will want that.
SCORE
(8 out of 10)
10.11.2023
The Exorcist: Believer (2023)
DIRECTED BY
David Gordon Green
STARRING
Leslie Odom Jr. - Victor Fielding
Ann Dowd - Ann
Jennifer Nettles - Miranda
Norbert Leo Butz - Tony
Lidya Jewett - Angela Fielding
Olivia Marcum - Katherine
Ellen Burstyn - Chris MacNeil
Genre - Horror/Supernatural/Possession/Demons
Running Time - 111 Minutes
PLOT
Since the death of his wife 12 years ago, Victor Fielding has raised their daughter, Angela on his own. But when Angela and her friend Katherine disappear in the woods, only to return three days later with no memory of what happened to them, it unleashes a chain of events that will force Victor to confront the nadir of evil and, in his terror and desperation, seek out the only person alive who has witnessed anything like it before: Chris MacNeil.
REVIEW
Fifty years ago, a William Peter Blatty bestselling novel called The Exorcist was adapted to movie screens by William Friedkin. THE EXORCIST scared the bejesus out of people, it made tons of money and it racked up a bunch of award nominations - making it one of the first horror films to do so. It has maintained its legacy as not only one of the best horror films to ever exist, but a masterpiece of cinema, period.
With every great success, there’s always a follow up. From good continuations to the original story [THE EXORCIST III, the FOX television show] to not-so-good ones [EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC and those two prequels I can barely remember], there has always been an attempt to revive this franchise without much success compared to its slasher counterparts. But that didn’t stop Jason Blum and Universal Studios from winning a bidding war and paying an enormous $400 million for the rights.
Seeing the success they had with reviving Michael Myers, Laurie Strode and the HALLOWEEN franchise with a trilogy that had varying degrees of acclaim, the producers felt that the new HALLOWEEN trilogy director, David Gordon Green, could do the same kind of magic with THE EXORCIST. Already announced as a new trilogy for the franchise, THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER was released for the Halloween season with not a whole lot of anticipation for it. After all, not many people clamored for a new EXORCIST. And after watching a couple of trailers and seeing that they dragged out one of the stars of the first film back, Academy Award Winner Ellen Burstyn, many started to feel less excited and more worried about the original getting tarnished with another subpar sequel. And unfortunately, as far as I’m concerned, there’s not much to believe in when it comes to BELIEVER.
Let’s get the good stuff out of the way. I thought the first half of this movie was actually pretty solid. It obviously sets up the events of the second half of the film, but the first fifty minutes or so are the most compelling and interesting. It focuses on the main characters, mainly the Fielding family - consisting of a single dad who lost his pregnant wife in an earthquake while vacationing in Haiti, and his daughter who survived the impact of the earthquake but resulted in the loss of her mother. We get to see their dynamic and how much Victor, the father, cares for Angela despite being a bit overprotective. She wants to spend more time away from home with her friend Katherine, who is the daughter of very religious parents - the total opposite of Victor, who lost his faith when his wife passed. Angela and Katherine head into the woods to do some sort of seance to contact Angela’s mother, which only sets off an evil chain of events that the families will never recover from. The girls become more demonic as they’re possessed, the parents start blaming each other until they realize they have to work together to solve the issue, and bring in characters old and new to exorcize the demons out of these two teenagers.
The first half of the film plays out like a true crime, missing persons type of movie. While we know what happened to both Angela and Katherine, we don’t really know how and why. Why were these two girls targeted? Is Pazuzu the demon possessing these girls, or is it another malevolent being? Priests struggled with one person being possessed. What chance do they have with two at once? Especially when the two girls are in sync by the same demon? I was interested because this is a new twist on a familiar story. It allowed the characters to develop into people we can kind of connect with, while wondering how they were going to overcome this when the demon is only willing to let one of the girls to survive over the other, making the parents have to choose both their fates. There’s a good story here and I think if handled better, this could have been a top notch EXORCIST movie.
I also felt the performances were really good. In particular, I thought both Leslie Odom Jr. and Lidya Jewett as Victor and Angela Fielding were the best of the lot. Odom Jr. has always been a solid actor and he plays the confused and grieving husband and father well. He has a presence that works well here. Jewett is also very sweet as Angela, which is great because she’s the total opposite once she’s possessed. I also thought the other young actress, Olivia Marcum as Katherine, is also very good. I don’t think she had much of a presence when she was normal, but once she’s possessed, she’s a standout. She reminded me of Linda Blair’s performance in the first film in many ways, which I appreciated. I also thought Ann Dowd was a highlight as Ann, a nurse who was previously a nun-in-training with a sinful past. She’s probably the best supporting actor here, bringing some gravitas and bringing some needed emotion during the last part of the film.
I also thought the cinematography by Michael Simmonds was nice. It did remind me of the three previous HALLOWEEN films, but I thought the movie had some really nice shots. This is probably the best looking EXORCIST movie, even though I’m sure some will feel it looks a bit too polished. But I thought his handling of the visuals established many things well, especially the use of light and shadow at times.
Unfortunately, that is all of the positivity I have for THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER. The biggest sin this film has is that it’s pretty silly once Ellen Burstyn pops in as the returning Chris MacNeil - the mother of the first film’s victim Regan. Folks, here we have the perfect example of how not to use a returning Legacy Character to a franchise. Unlike a Laurie Strode, or the trio of Sydney, Dewey and Gale, or hell, even the return of Sally Hardesty to Netflix’s TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE reboot from last year, Chris MacNeil has no purpose in this film other than for audiences to remember the first movie. A wonderful actress, Burstyn is given some of the worst dialogue in the film. She also looks quite bored and annoyed to be in this movie, even though she received a big paycheck for returning. And what David Gordon Green and his co-writers did to Chris in BELIEVER really shocked me and upset me. It just felt so unnecessary and pointless, because nothing in this film would change much if this character wasn’t involved. It felt like a disservice to the character, the actress, the creators of the character and the fans who loved the first film and hold it in high regard. It’s nice seeing Burstyn and another returning character [who cameos at the end] again in their famous roles. And unless both characters have a substantial part in the next film or two, what’s the point of using an important character like this? It’s pretty insulting.
Then we have the obvious exorcism itself, which felt like a Cliff Notes version of what we saw in the first film. The only difference is that the demon isn’t as foul-mouthed, there are two girls instead of one and there’s a whole bunch of religious folks trying to exorcize the demon rather than just a priest or two. I saw many call this group the “Exorcist Avengers” and they actually feel like that. I thought having people from different faiths to battle one demon was a cool idea, since each faith has a different method or interpretation on possession and dealing with demonic presences. But the film never really goes too deep in differentiating the respective methods, so I was missing some of the conflict and drama of possibly one person feeling their faith was better suited over the other. I guess it was refreshing to see people of different religions coming together rather than arguing about whose God is better, so I shouldn’t complain too much about that.
What I can complain about is how rushed the whole exorcist process is in this film. It feels forced in because this is an EXORCIST movie, but unlike the first film, there’s no real tension or drama. Well, that’s not completely true. There is a moment where the demon reveals that only one girl can survive the exorcism, making the respective parents choose which one to save and which one to let go. This is a great plot twist that would have created a ton of drama and tension amongst the characters. Who will they choose? If they do choose, is the demon going to keep its promise? Is there any way to save both? Will the parents do something stupid to insure their respective child survives over the other? Possibilities were there. There’s also a hint of anti-abortion rhetoric if you want to dig deep into that, which I didn’t really notice until I thought about things after the fact. There are a lot of interesting subplots that could have really enhanced the last half of this movie.
Instead, choosing a child lasts about five minutes. There’s no drama or suspense. There’s a bit of a twist but it doesn’t have enough of an impact to make you feel anything. The secret that’s revealed for one of the main characters doesn’t really go anywhere, unless that’s being saved for the next film. It all felt like a missed opportunity because there isn’t enough time given for these plotlines to sink in for the audience. This is like having a quickie when you’re looking for foreplay. Sometimes you want more out of your horror movie, especially if it’s a sequel to one of the best horror films of all time.
I think David Gordon Green needs to step back from directing horror films for a while and maybe just remain as a screenwriter or producer. I don’t think his filmmaking is terrible or anything, but it never feels inspired in BELIEVER. If I didn’t know this was a continuation to THE EXORCIST, the look of the film makes you think you’re still in Haddonfield, making you wait for either Michael or Laurie to pop up. The film is never scary. There are a couple of jump scares, but none of them worked on me or the audience I was with. While Green is good with his setups and first halves of this movies, he tends to do way too much with his second halves and rushes through their conclusions. I also appreciated the nods to the first film, but they feel limp compared to what Friedkin did. I feel if you’re going to make an EXORCIST movie, go all out with it. As much as I think EXORCIST II is a worse film than this one, at least that film is memorable.
THE FINAL HOWL
THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER pretty much met all of my low expectations, not doing much in adding to the legacy of an iconic horror film from fifty years ago. The film is kind of dull for the most part, as it's not scary nor does it have tension or suspense. The exorcism portion feels like a watered down version of what we’ve seen before [in this franchise and other exorcism movies] despite having more characters involved. There are subplots that pop up in the final half that could have elevated this movie, but are rushed through without leaving much of an impact or excitement for the next installment. David Gordon Green’s direction isn’t all that different from what he did with his HALLOWEEN trilogy, even if the cinematography is quite nice. And the use of Ellen Burstyn - the less said about it, the better.
That being said, the acting is quite good - in particular Leslie Odom Jr, the two possessed girls [Lidya Jewett and Olivia Marcum] and Ann Dowd as a nurse with a past. The first half, which plays out like a true crime/missing persons type of movie, is actually quite compelling as it builds character development and sets up for what’s to come. And as I mentioned, the look of the film is nice.
Other than that, THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER isn’t the best possession movie of 2023. Hell, it’s not even the best film with the word “Exorcist” in the title this year [hey Russell Crowe]. I don’t think this is the worst film in the franchise, but at least EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC had balls. Maybe David Gordon Green or whoever could add some for THE EXORCIST: DECEIVER in 2025. The power of Christ doesn’t compel me to be excited for whatever comes next. What a shame.
SCORE
(4 out of 10)