Writer's Note: Go ahead- make his birthday! Yep, it's good old Clint Eastwood's 88th birthday, and that's as good a reason as any to revisit his timelier-than-ever oddball look at FBI head honcho J. Edgar (Hoover).
This review was originally published in UAB's Kaleidoscope on November 12th, 2011.
Biopics have been popular since the very beginning of cinema, and tend to follow two main courses: a simple chronological approach and those that use framing devices to bookend things, such as an interview or some particular milestone in the person’s career.
Leave it to a guy that’s in what most would consider an artist’s twilight years to completely try and reinvent the wheel altogether. Of course, Clint Eastwood is no mere guy: he’s a living legend. So there’s that.
J. Edgar is an odd bird of a movie, to be sure. Every now and again I see a film that’s so bonkers in some way that I feel compelled to want to see it again just to make sure I wasn’t imagining things.
Typically, that’s a good thing, but sometimes it’s just because I can hardly believe what I saw. Think Natural Born Killers or Fight Club. However, J. Edgar is bonkers in a completely different way.
The structure is similar to, of all things, TV’s Lost, or at least what that structure was revealed to be over time. For those unfamiliar- mild spoiler alerts- the show bounced back and forth in time from the past to the perceived present to what can best be described as "alternate realities." J. Edgar is just like that- including the alternate realities part.
It starts out rationally enough, with the requisite, aforementioned framing device- in this case, J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) dictating his memoirs to a series of secretaries over the years.
The film then proceeds to bounce willy-nilly through Hoover’s life story in a seemingly random, free-form manner. Certain events, like the Lindbergh kidnapping, are told over the course of the movie’s various flashbacks in a chronological fashion. Others just pop up randomly, like the filmic equivalent to a music mash-up. Hoover’s greatest hits, if you will.
The film also announces at a certain point that some of the events we are being shown, as dictated by Hoover, are also sometimes exaggerated or outright fictionalized by Hoover himself. So, in other words, a lot of what we are being shown is complete fabrication.
What’s more, Eastwood himself does his fair share of speculation, dramatizing some scenes that are, at best, total fiction; and at times verge on full-blown camp, or at least high melodrama. It’s like some demented combination of John Huston and Douglas Sirk.
I damn-near laughed out loud in several completely inappropriate moments, like the one in which a male character lovingly sniffed Hoover’s handkerchief. (I’m not kidding.)
And you better believe Eastwood has Hoover in drag at one point. How could he not, in this movie? Might as well go for broke, right? It may well be the most off-the-charts crazy Oscar bait-type movie I’ve ever seen.
It’s not just the whole notion of Hoover being a latent/repressed homosexual in a time that frowned upon such things. That subject matter could absolutely be handled in a sensitive, moving, non-camp way, and indeed has been- in Far from Heaven, to name just one. This is not that movie.
Between the dubious and distracting old age make-up sported by most of the main cast at some point- including Armie Hammer (The Social Network) as Hoover’s longtime “companion” and Naomi Watts as Hoover’s ever-loyal, asexual secretary- and the meta-narrative structure, this is one bent movie.
All of the above actors give fine performances underneath it all- though Hammer seems the most out-of-his-depth overall- but to what end? I can’t imagine this one sweeping the Oscars under the best of circumstances.
It’s not a terrible movie, just a weird one, and we all know how weird movies fare at Oscar time (i.e. Pulp Fiction, which lost to the much-more staid Forest Gump).
I think the best review I could possibly give to this movie is to say that if any of this sounds the least bit intriguing to you, it probably will be. If it sounds like a huge mess, then you will probably find it to be just that. Who says movies can’t be different things to different people, no matter what their tastes?
J. Edgar is too scattershot to be a modern-day classic, or even a classic of the biopic format. It’s lavishly produced, beautifully shot, and never boring, really. Yet the whole thing just seems a little bit off somehow.
I’m not sure what Eastwood was going for, but you’ve got to hand it to the guy for keeping things so interesting, even this late into his career. Maybe for his next film, he’ll do a stylistic mash-up of Pedro Almodóvar and David Lynch. Now that would be something!
Game Night is basically David Fincher's 1997 underrated action/thriller The Game redone as a black comedy flick, in the vein of something like Very Bad Things or Rough Night, and I don't mean that as a dis.
After all, when you get down to it, almost everything is a rip-off of something. Basically, it just boils down to whether it's a novel spin on something or just a blatant rip-off of one. Game Night is the former, I'm happy to say.
Here's the set-up: Max (Jason Bateman, Arrested Development) is a hyper-competitive gamer that never met a game night he didn't try to conquer. He meets his match in Annie (Rachel McAdams, The Notebook), who's just as determined to win as he is and the two get hitched, after he proposes- naturally- via one of said games.
One game night, Max's brother, Brooks (Kyle Chandler, Friday Night Lights), the main reason behind his win-at-all-odds mindset, crashes the festivities, winning as he always does, but with a caveat: he invites them to his house for an ultimate winner-take-all game night to end all game nights.
It turns out that Brooks has scheduled their participation in one of those IRL murder mystery-type game, only with a spin: instead of a murder, the group of friends must solve a kidnapping- Brooks' own.
A faux FBI agent (Jeffrey Wright, Westworld) shows up and passes out clues, warning them the kidnapping is about to happen, and boy, does it ever. But is it part of the game, or is it really happening?
I won't spoil the fun, but suffice it to say, there are a lot of twists and turns here, some of them completely unbelievable, but if you check your brain at the door, you shouldn't mind it. As with The Game, the biggest question is: could someone actually pull this off IRL without someone getting hurt? Seems like a dubious proposition, but that's movies for you.
Bateman, reuniting with the team behind the Horrible Bosses films, John Francis Daley (who also cameos in the film- you might know him as Dr. Sweets on TV's Bones) and Jonathan Goldstein (who co-wrote Spider-Man: Homecoming with Daley and also cameos in this film), is basically doing a reworking of his Bad Words character here, only less despicable.
Conversely, McAdams, who I've never been a huge fan of, TBH- she always seemed to me like she wasn't doing a lot of acting when she played her signature role as Regina George in the classic Mean Girls- has never been so likable on-screen, for my money.
Granted, she's playing a win-at-all-costs glory-hound, so it isn't that far removed from her George character, but McAdams also manages to invest the character with a genuine love for her husband- she's not trying to beat him, just everyone else. She's the ultimate in "I've got your back" significant others, willing to do anything to support her man.
McAdams is also genuinely funny in the role, arguably her best since Mean Girls. I admit, I've never actually seen The Notebook, so I can't really take that one into account, but I've seen any number of her other films, and it seems to me she fares better when playing someone a bit more ruthless, i.e. Red Eye or Passion.
As the pair's best friends, there's New Girl star Lamorne Morris, basically playing the same character here, as Kevin; Kylie Bunbury (TV's Under the Dome) as his wife, Michelle; and Billy Magnussen (doing a variation of the doofus he plays on TV's Get Shorty adaptation) as Ryan, a serial dater that brings a new girl to seemingly every game night.
Rounding out the main game night bunch is Sharon Horgan (TV's Catastrophe), Ryan's latest date, who is the rare woman around his own age, and conveniently way smarter than most of the girls he typically dates- as typified by the hilariously awful, self-involved Millennial-type Madison, excellently played by Natasha Hall (S.W.A.T.), the girl he brings to the initial game night that Brooks crashes.
There's also creepy, suspicious next-door neighbor Gary (Jesse Plemons, TV's Fargo), a gloomy cop who used to participate in game night but was unceremoniously dumped by the group after he got a divorce from his wife, the only reason they put up with him in the first place.
Because of this, the group tends to hide their game nights from him, which only serves to further arose his suspicions. Might that come in handy when things go sideways? Duh. Plemons is just excellent as the polar opposite of the character he played on Fargo, hilariously weird and wary of his neighbors, not without good reason.
Also cropping up are Danny Houston (American Horror Story: Coven) as a grossly rich guy that might hold a key part of the puzzle; Michael C. Hall (Dexter) as a mysterious figure known only as "The Bulgarian"; and Chelsea Peretti (Brooklyn 99) as Glenda, the "Gamemaster."
All in all, Game Night is a lot of fun, if predictably unpredictable, by which I mean the twists are both expected and somewhat unexpected, but not necessarily completely out-of-left-field, either. In other words, I wasn't floored by any of said twists, but I wasn't insulted or upset by any of them, in spite of how ridiculous some of them were.
That said, I'm not sure necessary a sequel would be, but I also wouldn't be surprised, given the film's moderate success at the box office, if there was one. I suppose I'd watch it, but I'm not clamoring for another one. I think the film accomplished everything it set out to just fine. Then again, when has too much of a good thing ever stopped Hollywood?
Writer's Note: In honor of actress Maika Monroe's birthday, here's a look at the movie that first introduced me to her (a brief cameo in The Bling Ring notwithstanding), The Guest. For my money, it's still the best thing she ever did, though I haven't seen some of her more recent efforts, admittedly.
This review was first published on September 10th, 2015, on Facebook.
Now, this is a quirky one! The Guest is the latest from the warped mind of Adam Wingard, best-known for the superlative home invasion horror thriller You’re Next, and it bodes well for his impending remake of the excellent foreign flick I Saw the Devil.
Full disclosure: Wingard is from Alabama, where I currently live, and we know each other somewhat from the film festival circuit and are Facebook friends, but I’ll try not to let that affect my judgment here.
It revolves around a mysterious man who shows up out of nowhere on the doorstep of Laura Peterson (Sheila Kelley, taking a break from all that pole dancing- see Dancing at the Blue Iguana and her S Factor line of exercise videos), a grieving mother who lost her son in the War in the Middle East.
He claims to have known her son, and she invites him in, where he confirms it via a photo she has up on her mantle. He says his name is David (Dan Stevens, A Walk Among the Tombstones), and that he was with her son when he died and promised to pass along his love to them.
David eventually ends up staying with Laura and her family for a spell when he reveals he doesn’t have a place to stay at the moment and no immediate plans, and in no time he acclimates himself into each of their lives.
He bonds with the father, Spencer (Leland Orser, the Taken films) over booze and woes about getting ahead in life, helps son Luke (Brendan Meyer, Girl vs. Monster) deal with some high school bullies, and offers up advice to daughter Anna (Maika Monroe, It Follows) on her guy troubles.
It all seems to be going fine, but there’s something a bit off about David, who may not be who he claims to be, picture or no picture. Anna definitely picks up on it, and starts to look into David, which brings his presence to the attention of the mysterious military type Major Carver (Lance Reddick, Lost, Fringe), who comes looking for David. Things go from there, in fairly unpredictable fashion.
I wasn’t sure what to expect from The Guest, as Wingard’s typical wheelhouse is horror, and this isn’t really horror, per se. Yes, there are some horrific moments, and it’s definitely gory at times, but I wouldn’t go so far as to put it in the horror category, which is exactly why I think Wingard is a great choice for Devil, which itself almost defies categorization.
My advice to those thinking about seeing it would be: the less you know, the better, so you might want to skip the trailer, which, as per usual, reveals way more than it should. I’d say if you’re a fan of 80’s and early 90’s era action movies, particularly of the exploitation variety, then you’ve come to the right place.
Star Stevens pretty much nails the stoic, shadowy drifter that’s cool, but just this side of douchey, a la the antiheroes of the original Assault on Precinct 13 or Death Wish or even your given Steven Seagal movie from his heyday.
Likewise, Monroe, building on the goodwill of her solid heroine in It Follows, turns in an even better performance here, with a damn sight better movie to go with it. Her character might not have the skills of David, but she’s got the smarts to give him a run for his money.
All in all, it’s well worth seeing, and I’d say even worth buying if this sort of thing is in your wheelhouse. There’s some solid bonus features on the Blu-Ray, including an engaging commentary from Wingard and writer Simon Barrett, who also worked together on You’re Next.
There’s also some deleted scenes which shed a bit more light on who David is and what’s up with him, but I kind of like the more ambiguous nature of the way he is in the film, personally, so I think they were wisely cut out.
That said, Monroe fans will definitely want to watch certain deleted scenes, if only for some scantily-clad bits of her and her boyfriend, that were reallocated in a better way in the film. 😍😛
This one is absolutely a keeper, in my book, even though I may be somewhat biased. It's different, it's unpredictable and it's a whole lot of fun for action fans. It also shows that Wingard is capable of more than just horror, which is good to know. Check it out!
Writer's Note: My birthday was last week, and one of my presents to myself was taking a little time off- hence there being no reviews. On the plus side, I've been wrapping up my TV shows and starting to watch a bunch of movies, so I'll have plenty of fodder for new reviews moving forward.
I've also been working on a series of "getting to know me" articles, with lots of pictures, delving into some of my favorite things, such as my fave actresses, musicians, books, etc. That way, you can have a better idea of who I am as a person. Feel free to leave your own lists in the comments section, so I can get to know you, too!
Also, I will be posting a poll on all my social medias, in terms of what franchise I should review, so look for that asap. Here are the ones I'm considering: Phantasm, Prom Night, Amityville, Evil Dead, Friday the 13th, Hellraiser, Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream, and the Slumber Party/Sorority House Massacre series. Feel free to vote for your fave, and I will take those votes into consideration as I decide what to go with!
Anyway, I was gone all weekend, so no Flashback Friday, but I did watch a movie to that end, so I figured, why wait? So, for all intents and purposes, here's a Flashback Friday in disguise, my look back at the Creature Feature, The Boogens.
I just loved The Boogens as a kid- I even had the paperback novelization. (Might have it still, in storage somewhere.) I first saw it on cable, likely on HBO or Skinemax or what have you, though it could have been on something like TNT's Monstervision or USA's Up All Night.
It revolves around these mysterious creatures- aka The Boogens of the title- that are accidentally released to wreak havoc in a small town looking to re-open the local mines, which have been closed ever since a cave-in years ago took the lives of a group of miners.
Enter a group of people who strategically place some dynamite in key spots where the cave-in took place and clear out the way into the rest of the mines. In doing so, they also inadvertently set free the titular beasties, who promptly set about killing off some of the locals. That's about it, really, plot-wise.
At the time it was released, it wasn't particularly well-received by critics, or even by horror fans, who saw it as a bit old-fashioned, despite concessions to the slasher movies that were all the rage at the time, in the form of various tropes associated with the sub-genre.
They include: a group of young people in an isolated cabin being picked off one by one by an unknown killer, lots of creeping around the house tentatively- particularly in the dark basement- a little sex/nudity and partying, and, of course, some fairly gory deaths. We also get some inspired "Boogens"-cam, as the creatures stalk their prey, which basically counts as a stand-in for a killer's POV.
The film cost about $300,000 and grossed around $20 million, according to the director, though that might be a slight exaggeration. Whatever the case, it turned a decent profit, despite being somewhat out of step with the times it was released in.
The weird thing about the film is that it tries to have its cake and eat it too. Like I said, it has all these slasher movie tropes, but yet, at its heart, it's really an old-fashioned monster movie with new-fangled trappings. I can see where that might have confused/disappointed audiences at the time.
As a result, it kind of falls into the sub-sub-genre of retrofitted Creature Features that try to soup up their humble inspirations with "better" FX, modern settings and characters, a hipper soundtrack, etc. Think Gremlins, Eight-Legged Freaks, Birdemic and yes, even the likes of the Sharknado series.
While this "new" approach can sometimes backfire, hopelessly dating the film, one can certainly argue that the very films that inspired them in the first place are themselves pretty dated, so... yeah, you can't really blame filmmakers for going there. (Though, it should be said, I actually wouldn't mind seeing a sort of "retroactive" Creature Feature set in, say, the 50's or 60's that was actually meant to seem dated.)
That said, it works like a charm for me with this film because, as it just so happens, I'm a huge fan of both slasher movies and Creature Features. As such, I actually appreciate how the film seems both old-school and very much of its time simultaneously. Actually, aside from the slasher movie tropes, it could almost be set in any time period.
Yes, granted, it sort of gives itself away in certain areas- no computers, cell phones, etc. But overall, it doesn't necessarily feel 80's, either. It's more like an undiscovered gem from the past that someone inserted some more modern effects into.
Okay, so there's a little sex and nudity, but just a speck of it, and it's practically of the blink-and-you'll miss it variety. Indeed, reportedly, co-leading lady Anne-Marie Martin was supposed to do nudity but chickened out in the heat of the moment (not that there's anything wrong with that), so all we get is the briefest of glimpses of star Rebecca Balding, so, by the standards of the times, it's all pretty chaste.
Ironically, that pseudo-modesty only adds to helping the film maintain the whole old-fashioned thing, so, in a weird way Martin sort of did the film a favor, even if she didn't do any of us red-blooded males one (or certain ladies, to be fair).
As much as I like to see a naked lady under any circumstances, in film, I do think it works better in certain instances, which is to say, if it fits the vibe of the film at hand. For example, you would be pretty taken aback if, say, Mary Poppins star Julie Andrews got naked in that film.
But if you've ever seen the semi-obscure Blake Edwards' flick S.O.B., you know that Andrews doing so there really works, as it kind of served as effective shock value, while helping to re-invent Andrews' image at the same time. It also made sense, as, in the film, she played an actress with a squeaky-clean image looking to show her more ribald side. Mission certainly accomplished.
This is to say, sometime nudity and sex, for all the people you hear say it's NEVER necessary, can actually be crucial to the plot. This isn't one of those cases, so it's actually fine, even if it is out-of-step with the T&A-happy tenor of the times, particularly in regard to slasher movies.
But The Boogens does deliver on other fronts, especially in terms of the kills, which are pretty effectively violent, and should be satisfying to all you gore-hounds out there. The stalking scenes are also solid, not in the least because you're never quite sure if anyone's going to die for sure until it actually happens.
But what of the creatures themselves? Okay, so they're a little bit goofy-looking at times, but they were suitably gross back in the day, if I recall, and got the job done, scare-wise. I mean, I wasn't seeing Boogens creeping around my room or anything, but I seem to recall jumping a bit here and there.
I don't know, though, I kind of find the look of them sort of weirdly endearing. Maybe it's the old-school puppet approach or what have you, but I kind of like their essential design. I think the fact that they have octopus-style tentacles with which to grab their prey and haul them off their feet and into the creature's mouths are cool.
I also like that, when they attack, their mouths basically cover their prey's entire faces, while said tentacles continue to slash and rip at their flesh as they struggle. Had this movie been made mere years later, the creatures might have been able to take advantage of some of the advances made in a film like John Carpenter's remake of The Thing and really knocked it out of the park. (Of course, lest we forget, THAT film bombed at the time, which is just wrong.)
Granted, The Boogens is no Thing, but it's a fun little movie, nonetheless, and one that, if I see it on, I will absolutely watch. Though the film is somewhat obscure these days, like many a cult film before it, it eventually ended up on cable and home video, going in and out of print as various formats (VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray) presented themselves.
Be that as it may, much like the Boogens themselves, it periodically crops up here and there over the years. Helping matters considerably was a rave review from none other than the maestro of terror himself, Stephen King, who called it a "wildly energetic monster movie!" Needless to say, each of the home video releases trumpets this on the cover, as well they probably should.
Though I think the DVD and Blu-Ray are indeed out of print at the moment, a quick web search yielded its being fairly readily available on both formats on Amazon and the like, and I'm sure you can get it for even cheaper on eBay. It's worth owning alone for the fun commentary, which features the director, co-screenwriter and star Rebecca Balding.
The director and Balding were subsequently married after he cast her in the film, and are still married as of this writing, so something good came out of this movie, at least, beyond scaring kids of the 80's.
It also makes for an easy-going, casual, yet forthright commentary from the group that both admits to the film's faults (the iffy monster, the occasionally slow pacing) and acknowledges its positives (the character and atmosphere-building) without seeming self-serving.
Let's take a closer look at the cast and filmmakers, as per usual. The film was directed by James L. Conway, best-known to sci-fi fans for the cult classic Hangar 18, which is well-worth a watch and much better regarded, as well as his having directed multiple episodes of various iterations of the much-beloved Star Trek series, including The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise.
In addition, he directed the cult-friendly documentaries In Search of Noah's Ark (which is about just what it sounds like) and Beyond & Back (about near-death experiences). He also went on to a whole lot of small-screen work, including directing episodes of the likes of Smallville, Psych, MacGyver, 90210, The Orville and Charmed, which he also produced for a time.
Co-screenwriter David O'Malley, who also helped come up with the story-line, also worked on the script for Hangar 18, as well as Alien Zone, Easy Wheels (co-written by none other than Sam Raimi!), Edge of Honor, the Basic Instinct spoof Fatal Instinct, Dark Honeymoon and the short-lived-but-enjoyable TV show Dangerous Women.
Jim Kouf, who co-wrote the script, also wrote the slasher spoof Wacko, the 80's favorites Class, Up the Creek, Secret Admirer, Stakeout (and the sequel) and The Hidden (and the sequel). In the 90's he did the honors on the first Rush Hour and then, in the 2000's, wrote National Treasure and several episodes of the Buffy spin-off Angel, Ghost Whisperer and Grimm.
Moving on to the cast, in the lead as Trish is Rebecca Balding, who first made an impression on TV's Lou Grant, the spin-off of The Mary Tyler Moore Show, as well as the soap opera spoof sitcom Soap and the much-beloved Xmas-themed TV-Movie The Gathering (and the sequel), among other TV-based gigs.
However, she's undeniably best-known to genre fans for her turns in the pseudo-slasher Silent Scream (alongside no less than the legendary Barbara Steele) and for her recurring role as Elise Rothman, aka Aunt Jackie on TV's Charmed, which reunited her with her Boogens brethren (and IRL hubby) Conway.
Anne-Marie Martin (who reminds me a bit of actress Saoirse Ronan), who played Jessica, aka "Pennsylvania Sexy," likewise got her start on TV, before making the leap to the big screen with the proto-slasher Killer's Delight, the sci-fi classic The Shape of Things to Come, the lions-gone-amuck flick Savage Harvest and roles in two of my all-time fave slashers, Prom Night and Halloween II.
Alas, after a bit part in the Tom Selleck/Gene Simmons vehicle Runaway, written and directed by her one-time husband Michael Crichton (of Westworld and Jurassic Park fame), it was back to TV with a recurring role on the soap Days of Our Lives and a bigger part on the short-lived-but-much-beloved cult series Sledge Hammer!
She then turned briefly to screenwriting herself, knocking one out of the park with the blockbuster hit Twister, co-written with Crichton, before retiring from the business altogether to become a professional horse rider, where she competed in various events, including the World Championship.
Fun facts: Martin auditioned for Princess Leia in the original Star Wars flicks and was a front-runner for the role and Crichton's Jurassic Park novel is dedicated to her and their daughter.
Actor Fred McCarren, who played Mark, was yet another TV regular, but has a few notable movie credits, including roles in Neil Simon's The Goodbye Girl, the slasher spoof Class Reunion (written by John Hughes!), the political thriller The Star Chamber, the drug-fueled The Boost and- be still my heart- a small role in the quintessential 80's musical misfire Xanadu, which you know is awesome and I don't even typically care for musicals. 😎
As the ill-fated, wise-cracking Roger, aka "Hormone Man," there's Jeff Harlan, another TV regular, but one you might know slightly better, thanks to his more recent credits, which include the rebooted Roseanne, Parks & Recreation (he was Dan Candle, pictured), Castle, NCIS, Entourage and plenty more.
Moving to the supporting cast, there's the well-respected character actor John Crawford, as Brian Deering, who is one of the guys trying to re-open the mine, which obviously doesn't end well for him.
Crawford has a mile-long list of credits on IMDB, but some of his more notable roles include turns in movies like the cult serial The Invisible Monster, the sci-fi flick Zombies of the Stratosphere, the political epic Exodus, the Biblical epic The Greatest Story Ever Told, the disaster flicks The Poseidon Adventure and The Towering Inferno, and the horror flick The Severed Arm, which also revolves around a cave-in, which might be why he was cast here.
As Dan, Brain's cohort in resurrecting the mine, there's Med Flory, another character actor/TV veteran. In addition to his many TV credits (including TV's Lassie, which gets a nod in this film), he's also in the original version of The Nutty Professor, the Western Adventure flick Night of the Grizzly, the Elvis pic The Trouble with Girls, the excellent TV-movie proto-slasher Home for the Holidays, the sexploitation fave The Teacher, the Blaxploitation classic Let's Do It Again, the drive-in classic The Gumball Rally and the decent horror flick The Hearse.
If that old man creeping around causing mischief looks familiar, you must be a big fan of the Stephen King/George Romero collab Creepshow, in which actor Jon Lormer plays the cranky Nathan Grantham, whose never-ending bitching gets him killed in the "Father's Day" segment- but he gets his revenge...and his cake.
Do I even need to say he has a long list of credits on IMDB as well? Yep, it's pretty endless, too. Some that sound fun include Girls on the Loose, From Hell to Texas, Where the Boys Are (probably looking for girls on the loose, lol), The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm, Two on a Guillotine, A Fine Madness, Dimension 5, If He Hollers Let Him Go, The Legend of Lizzie Borden, Conspiracy of Terror, The Golden Gate Murders and yep, he's also a recurring actor on Lassie.
We'll quit while we're ahead on the actors and move on, but speaking of dogs, I'd like to give a special shout-out to the dogs that played Tiger in the film. (According to the director, there were two of them.) Congrats- you might well be the best actors in the film, and I don't mean that as a slight to the other actors.
Seriously, this pooch is on point, acting-wise. Even the director was a little in awe in the DVD commentary. He's also a little asshole, what with his trashing the house and munching down on his owner's shoes and clothes while everyone's gone, so he probably deserves his fate, but, hey, he can't help the character he was given, so give it up for the pooches who would be Tiger. 💩
All in all, much like its title- which is wholly made-up, BTW- The Boogens is a silly little movie that's more fun than scary. Though it might seem slow-moving to modern audiences, which the director fully cops to in the commentary, I actually like that it takes the time to let you get to know most of the characters before offing them.
What it lacks in fast-moving thrills, it makes up for in likable characters you actually don't want to see die, which you rarely get these days. I suppose that's why I'm leaning more and more towards the oldies these days- horror movie characters have gotten so annoying in modern times, with precious few exceptions.
Yes, the creatures look fake AF, but that's part of the movie's charm. Hell, I'd say that's part of 95% of Creature Feature-type films' charm. (The other 5% being the likes of Carpenter's The Thing or the Alien franchise, which is to say, pretty bad-ass.)
Be that as it may, I can see where this might not be for everyone, so I'll recommend it with a caveat: if you like old-school Creature Features and the Golden Age of Slashers, then you'll probably dig this. All others probably need not apply. 💣💥👾💀
Who's a cute lil' boogens? You are!
