Rob Savage has proven his status as one of the most exciting horror filmmakers actively creating in the current market. His feature debut, Host (2020), made the common Zoom session a playground for ghostly antics to ensue. Following shortly was the enigmatically charged Dashcam (2021) which barrelled in intense humour amidst the backdrop of a live stream. Adding to Savage’s growing filmography is The Boogeyman, an adaption of the Stephen King short story of the same name (1973).
Even in its most complex form, King’s story is simple, far from complicated, and a fundamentally brilliant portrayal of primal fears. Its own directness is what makes it a classic. Bumps in the night, the monster under the bed, and the scared of the dark logic all haunt us at one point; with this in his peripheral, Savage takes heed from extensive explanations and backstories surrounding simplistic innate frights to tackle a narrative brimming with unpretentious scares, and delivering a horror that grapples with urban-legend-like terrains.
As with many big studio-produced films, the story replicates a wave, interweaving emotionally dense performances in between the big scares, working with a continuous play of highs and lows. And for all of the loud, gotcha frights to succeed, a solid backdrop is essential. The film is graced by the talents of Sophie Thatcher (Yellowjackets), Chris Messina (Air), Vivien Lyra Blair (Bird Box) and David Dastmalchian (Dune), all of whom carry the dramatic storyline with ease, but most notably Thatcher, who plays the role of a grieving adolescent heavy with the weight of her sister’s trauma. Thatcher exceeds expectations and propagates the sympathetic tone of the film, ensuring a connection between the screen and the viewer.
The Boogeyman thrives on its traditional expositions, with each act defining a clear climax and then disequilibrium. However, whilst the film is far from dull, there does seem to be an error in restraint. Going from independent to studio filmmaking is a giant leap in creative freedom. It is not uncommon for executives to push specific characteristics or scenes that may generate more of a buzz, increasing the chances of financial success. Whilst this aspect leans more on the positive side, there is such a thing as too much emphasis on creating a film that ‘all’ audiences will love. Savage is such a fierce director, a true force. And yet, The Boogeyman sits at 90% ferocity rather than 100%.
It’s noted that initially, the film had that oomph factor one expects with Savage’s talents, but during test screening, audiences found the original cut too scary, meaning that specific tweaks had to be made. By no fault of the cast and crew, The Boogeyman has a slight fall when it comes down to the fear factor. However, a factor that boosts the film back towards its well-deserved acclaim is its atmosphere which is perfect for cinema viewings – just as movies are made to be seen!
Want more top horror lists and reviews? Check out our blog here..
Stephen King needs no introduction. The man himself parades his legendary status in horror with pride, authorising nearly one hundred of his stories to be made into on-screen adaptations, many of which excel, including horror classics such as Carrie (1976), The Shining (1980), and Pet Semetary (1989). One of his lesser known adaptations when compared to others is Firestarter (1984) directed by Mark L. Lester and starring a young Drew Barrymore. The film achieved a decent amount of success, but it has become somewhat forgotten over the last 38 years. Therefore, when it was announced that this fiery flick was receiving the remake treatment from Blumhouse Productions, King fans were praying for a breath of fresh air to be breathed into the Firestarter legacy.
With higher budgets, graphic special effects, and a decent cast the remake was deemed a recipe for success, however, Keith Thomas’s retelling is unfortunately lacklustre, cold, and completely devoid of passion.
The film opens with a promising beginning, setting up a cushty environment for horror and chaos to thrive as we see the fire-raiser herself Charlie McGee (Ryan Kiera Armstrong) spontaneously igniting the room around her into flames thanks to her nifty gift of pyrokinesis– the ability to conjure a fire simply using the mind. Although the introduction radiated a sense of originality and the promise for exhilarating territory to be explored, the film slowly travels downwards from this point on.
As the film progresses, the audience learn that Charlie’s powers derive from a clinical experiment that her mother Vicky (Sydney Lemmon) and her father Andy (Zac Efron) participated in. The focus of Firestarter surrounds the battle between the same secret government agency (known as the DSI) chasing after Charlie to kill her before her abilities get too strong for their own good. Coupled with the endless fleeing from this clinical clan, the film at heart follows Charlie and Andy’s struggle with grief and the internalised acceptance of being capable of pure destruction.
However, the seemingly limitless amounts of assasination attempts, daily tragedies, and the struggle of maintaining family values after loss is simply way too much to unravel in a 94 minute timeframe. Andy and Charlie’s X-Men-like capabilities is unique enough on its own without all of the jargon. And desperately, Firestarter seems to abandon fleshing out the true horror of Charlie’s powers in favour of pointless scenes filled with over simplified exposition and unimaginative effects that lack any essence of believability of life.
Whilst the constant thrills and chases may slightly get the adrenaline pumping, the excitement is truly kept at a minimum, entirely avoidant of maintaining an ounce of tension thanks to the paint by numbers antics. The potential for success was there, with Thomas being responsible for one of 2019’s most unique and exhilarating horrors The Vigil, but Firestarter’s aesthetic seemed to have taken precedence over the actual substance.
These hyper stylized visuals are at least appealing to the eye on account of the vivid fire steeped frames and the grand settings that go from the average suburban home to the experimental compound where the McGee’s powers originated. Despite the eye-candy, it’s not far fetched to view Firestarter as a cleverly timed profiter whose release coincides with the plethora of recently released darker Marvel films that tackle alternative superhero tactics such as Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) and Morbius (2022). Additionally, the entire premise of Andy nursing Charlie’s uncontrollable powers whilst re-patching a father-daughter bond rather aptly mimics the relationship between Hopper (David Harbour) and Eleven (Milly Bobby Brown) in Stranger Things (2016-), which is ‘coincidentally’ released later this month.
The neverending criticism Firestarter seems to be receiving reflects the poor box office figures as it has only grossed $6.5 million so far (coming in at half of the film’s budget). However, amongst all of the negativity a light at the end of the tunnel is still found. Efron has been in the limelight for a fair amount of time now, with his acting abilities continuously going from strength to strength, from raunchy comedies such as Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates (2016) to portraying the devil himself Ted Bundy in Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019), Efron does seem to pick them well. And Firestarter is no exception as his talents truly save the film.
The script may not withhold the most riveting experience to date, but Efron’s portrayal of a father fighting to save his daughter with an unimaginable amount of pressure is what amps up the stakes and allows for a level of depth to be explored in an otherwise shallow experience. To add to this is the attempt at switching the Firestarter origin story up. The 1984 adaption tells its tale through flashbacks, very much controlling the audience as we are only spoon-fed one bit of backstory at a time. However, the remake dives right into the background, allowing for a full, open understanding to be achieved right away.
Overall, Firestarter is certainly not the most opinion dividing horror in recent years, I think James Wan’s Malignant (2021) takes the crown for that! Nor is Thomas’s efforts entirely in vain, it may not be exciting or bountiful, but at least a chuckle or two is ensured. The true burden that Firestarter holds relies upon its own misfortune. As aforementioned, Thomas’s The Vigil was an astonishingly amazing piece of work that managed to properly explore a contextualised terrain surrounding religion and loss of faith through grief, whilst additionally keeping the fright factor burning throughout. In this case, it seems that something must have slipped.
Looking for more top horror lists and reviews? Check out our blog here..
Rob Zombie brings The Munsters back to life with his latest announcement
Love or hate him Rob Zombie has certainly built up an outstanding reputation within horror. Zombie’s clear devotion to the absurd was truly exhibited with his directorial debut, House of 1000 Corpses (2003). Since then his filmography boasts instantaneous hits such as The Devil’s Rejects (2005) and Halloween (2007). And his latest project is possibly one of the most exciting yet, recently Zombie announced that he will be bringing one of horror’s favorite families back to the screen, the beloved Munsters.
Zombie will be writing and directing this upcoming film, which is not too much of a surprise as he has stated multiple times that he has been trying to obtain the production rights for twenty years. With the announcement being so recent, little has been confirmed, however, we are sure to see some familiar faces including Sheri Moon Zombie, Bill Mosely, and Ken Foree.
Stephen King’s Christine remake gets the green light to go ahead
Stephen King has been at the top for decades now, with his novels being adapted over eighty times. His 1983 novel Christine, following a sinister car with a mind of its own, has already been made into a feature film the same year of the book’s release. Now, as with many successful films, a remake is in development. Bryan Fuller will direct and pen the script, who you may know as the creator of the acclaimed show, Hannibal.
Blumhouse Productions is producing Fuller’s retake on this killer car story, which may or may not drive closer to the original book in comparison to John Carpenter’s classic. There were many deviations that Carpenter took that swayed away from King’s original, including the car’s evilness deriving from its creation rather than its former owner. So it will be very interesting to see if we get a direct remake of the film, or if we’ll finally get to see a straight adaptation from the book.
New Shaun of the Dead book reveals everything you’ve ever wanted to know about one of the best zombie movies
You’ve Got Red on You: How Shaun of the Dead Was Brought to Life is an entire book dedicated to the efforts and craftsmanship that went into creating an absolute cult classic. Amongst the 424 pages are exclusive interviews from the director Edgar Wright, alongside cast interviews from the likes of Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Lucy Davis, Bill Nighy, and Kate Ashfield.
Even more exciting is the behind-the-scenes action that we will get an insight into for the first time. Exclusive set photos, never-before-seen storyboards, and commentary from film fans such as Quentin Tarantino, Max Brooks, Greg Nicotero, and Eli Roth will all be making a keen appearance in You’ve Got Red on You.
You’ve Got Red on You is available for pre-order for an October 19th release.
MDS unveils exclusive talking Pennywise figure
Mezco Toyz brings us one of the most exciting horror figures yet, with Tim Curry’s Pennywise being brought to life in megascale form. The collectible stands at 15” tall and is equipped with a discreet button on the back that when pressed will play six iconic Pennywise quotes, including the fan favourite “They all float and when you’re down here with me, you’ll float too!”. Alongside this are eleven points of precise details, such as the bright red hair, massive clown shoes, multicoloured suit, and that menacing dark grin.
Pre-orders are currently open for a release later this year.
What We Do in the Shadows season 3 dates confirmed
Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi’s 2014 mockumentary What We Do in the Shadows became beloved by both fans and critics almost instantly, with the tv series based upon the film seeing similar success. The spin-off show will return to screens in September, where they will be picking up straight where they left off from season two’s intense cliffhanger. From the sounds of it, all of the familiars will be returning for the third season, including Nandor the Relentless (Kayvan Novak), Laszlo Cravensworth (Matt Berry), Nadja (Natasia Demetriou), Colin Robinson (Mark Proksch), and Guillermo De la Cruz (HarveyGuillén). Filming has already been completed as production wrapped on May 3rd.
Season three is set for a September 2nd release.
This weeks article comes via Grace from Film Overload, you can check out more of her work here.
Remakes, reboots, and revivals have taken possession over a hefty section of horror productions, with a plethora of classics being re–envisioned to either accommodate younger and newer audience members or to bring new light to beloved genre favourites. Although we have seen our fair share of remakes gone wrong, there remains a select bunch of films whose newer additions have proven to be just as good or even better than the original.
For this ‘Original vs Remake’ edition, we will be comparing It (Tommy Lee Wallace, 1990) and It (Andy Muschietti, 2017).
Storming onto the screens in 1990 is It, a terrifying portrayal of a demonic entity who takes on the shape of a clown to terrorise its victims every 27 years. However, its latest string of targets (the self-acclaimed “Losers Club”) may just be brave enough to banish Pennywise for good. Unlike a generic (yet anything but mundane) humanoid creature Pennywise the Clown does not play the typical game of lurching out from dark corners and hiding under the bed, instead, it preys upon individuals own specific fears to weaken and destroy them in what is their worst nightmare.
Of course one of the only writers capable of conjuring such an unsettling story is Stephen King. King penned It in 1986, and although the film drifts slightly from the novel the true essences are kept clear.
To determine the winner of the old and new “It’s” is an impossible battle as each film encapsulates alternative identities, but to firstly differentiate between the two we need to discuss the classic character of Pennywise. The 1990 It casts Tim Curry (The Rocky Horror Picture Show) as the dreaded clown, with simple makeup and costume (at least for a clown). As Curry is the titular character there is an immense amount of pressure to create a multidimensional performance that can both lure his child victims in and then frighten the living daylights out of them.
Curry does not fail once, in fact, I might even go as far as stating that his portrayal is one of the best that horror has ever seen. The sheer embodiment of shapeshifting terror is brutally brazen, which is only furthered by Curry’s witty balance of stark humour and horrifying antics.
It was made as a tv miniseries, with two episodes and a total original length of 192 minutes, with the physical release merging the episodes to become a feature length movie. It is a unique factor within itself for a ‘made-for-tv’ movie to become an outstanding success, let alone make its mark as one of the most iconic horror’s. Due to the broadcasting, certain restrictions were put in place that is typically abolished within mainstream horror including a limit to bloodshed and gore, as well as censorship to graphic content.
After horror audiences were subjected to grisly violence from exaggerated 1980s horror, It certainly was a breath of fresh air. Audiences’ tactics shifted from gratuitous shock to psychological character studies. We are not met with generous carnage, with the piece actually having an almost black comedy mechanism. However, the comic motifs are not a replacement of fear, with the flicking of Curry’s performance from inviting to menacing being nothing less than startling.
On this note, It relies upon subtext and internalised concepts to create a bounding journey. During the first act, we see the losers club as children dealing with their own individual issues, which are rather harrowing yet realistic considering their age including traumatic milestones such as grief, and abuse. Although the ‘losers are all dealing with scarring experiences Lee Wallace does not show them in extreme jeopardy, with the camera simply cutting to their expressions when Pennywise strikes. Despite some scenes feeling slightly dated, It is an undeniable classic that still holds up to this day.
News of a remake began to emerge from as early as 2009, but it was not until 2015 when the production began to pick up speed with Muschietti being announced as the director. The trailer almost immediately amassed a cult following of its own, with the view count entering the millions. The brand new shiny Pennywise enthralled audiences (myself included!). Curry’s vivid and rambunctious appearance was wiped away in favour of a brandished shadowed look complete with dusty clothing and a more styled-out ginger barnet.
Bill Skarsgård took the brave step of becoming the nerve-wracking Pennywise. Such an iconic role is accompanied by severe pressures, however truthfully his small appearance in the trailer and posters was enough to create a swift fan appeal. It was about to enter onto the horror scene with a killer force, conjuring a vigorous reputation as being one of the highest-grossing horror films of all time.
It is not better than the original, but it is on par. There are a plethora of reasons as to why this is my belief, but one of my main factors is that the loser’s club has refined and well-developed personas that transcend into a coming-of-age movie. Quite favourably I admire any film that decides to use age appropriate characters rather than twenty-somethings playing tweens. Although It (1990) enacts the same character backstories, the relationships between the losers have such an authentic bond that plays out as non-scripted; just as if the camera was kept rolling whilst they would playfully make jabs at one another.
Simply due to more modern filmmaking and techniques, Muschietti transforms the fictional town of Derry, Maine into a hellish landscape with treacherous corners lurking in the ordinary. Pennywise does not even have to be in shot for our senses to start heightening. The atmosphere alone is daunting, with the town hoarding a dark omen; Derry exceeds being just a town, instead it becomes a character. This is certainly an aspect that It (2017) focuses on, alongside one of the other primary differences, the graphicness.
It does not shun its psychodrama roots, yet we are welcomed to indulge in grisly carnage. Although visual gore is not the focus, there is plenty of horrific imagery whose sole purpose serves to disconcert our awareness. The infamous opening scene shows a little Georgie (Jackson Robert Scott) chase his paper boat that falls down a storm drain where he fatally meets Pennywise. At first, Pennywise dons the joyous clown persona to fool Georgie, before he mutates into a disgustingly ferocious beast with razor-sharp fangs ripping into this small boy’s arm. His metamorphosis into a barbaric behemoth both entices and panics the audiences.
Muschietti and Lee Wallace’s take on King’s beyond incredible tale of a demonic clown truly emulates and escalates some of the most vital and engrossing moments of the book. It is not necessary to compare and battle these two films as they are each substantially iconic in their own individual ways. I view them as equal contenders who compliment each other, and both deserve their own hallmark within the horror film history.
This weeks article comes via Grace from Film Overload, you can check out more of her work here.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are dead happy with it.OkNo
