Michel Franco has never been one to shy away from challenging his audiences with provocative subject matter. He attempts it again with his latest film, “Dreams”, a strangely confounding psychodrama that seems to have several things it wants to say but no firm grasp on how to say them. It’s cold, sometimes aimless, and borderline absurd at times in its attempts to find a steady pulse.

“Dreams” sees Franco reuniting with his star, Jessica Chastain. The two first collaborated in 2023’s superior “Memory”, a deeply affecting adult drama that saw Chastain give one of her best performances to date. She’s certainly the highlight of “Dreams”, although neither her character or her character’s journey carry the same dramatic or emotional weight.

“Dreams” opens with a young Mexican dancer named Fernando (a somewhat dry Isaac Hernández) being smuggled into the United States in the back of a sweltering semi-trailer. After finally being released by cartel traffickers, Fernando makes the long, arduous journey from San Antonio to San Francisco where he surprises his older and wealthier former lover, Jennifer (Chastain). With practically no build-up whatsoever, the two instantly pick up where they (apparently) left off.

Jennifer’s feelings for Fernando remain murky for the duration of the movie. She is the daughter of a prominent philanthropist named Michael McCarthy (Marshall Bell) and helps run her father’s thriving foundation with her brother Jake (Rupert Friend). Her privileged and pampered life is in stark contrast to Fernando’s which sometimes seeps through when they’re together. At times she treats him like her pet, scratching him behind his ear and saying things like “I want to take care of you.”

Yet Jennifer is also obsessed with him in a way that goes beyond mere entitlement. This intensifies after Fernando grows tired of keeping their affair secret and leaves her. As he finds his independence she sinks into despair, eventually shadowing him with the voracity of a stalker. It ends up steering the movie away from its themes of immigration and class disparity and towards a story about power dynamics within an unconvincing couple.

Despite being handed a character who never feels fully formed, Chastain carries the movie on her back via a committed performance that elevates the material. But she can only do so much. The film’s Achilles’ heel is the central relationship which never comes off as authentic or rooted in anything other than unabated lust. And any swing at something weightier is muddled in the film’s jarring final twenty minutes that pulls a wild twist out of the air. It’s meant to shock us. But it’s too contrived and abrupt to have the impact Franco clearly wants. Kinda like his movie as a whole.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

Writer-director Natasha Kermani delves into the dark depths of gothic horror with “The Dreadful”, a slow-burning semi-supernatural chiller covered in medieval blood and grime. The story is set in the 15th century as a battle for control of the English throne rages during the Wars of the Roses. It’s a fittingly grim setting for Kermani to play in. But she struggles to sustain any momentum in this surprisingly dull gothic folktale.

“The Dreadful” is loosely based on the 1964 Japanese drama “Onibaba”. Sophie Turner gets the lead role playing Anne, a young wife living with her creepy and conniving mother-in-law, Morwin (Marcia Gay Harden) while her husband Seamus is away at war. The two live in poverty outside of a small village where they grow what food they can from the rugged terrain. Filmed in the damp, foggy, and overcast Cornwall, the locations deftly capture the desired atmosphere and isolation.

Anne and Morwin’s relationship is nearly as harsh as the conditions they live in. Morwin is possessive and manipulative, while Anne does what is expected from her mainly out of respect for her husband. But there’s an even more unsettling side to Morwin that sees her resorting to savage violence in the name of survival while forcing Anne to serve as her reluctant accomplice. It adds a wild twist to the story and one of its few real surprises.

A new strain is put on their relationship after Anne’s childhood friend Jago (Kit Harington) arrives home from the war with news that Seamus has died in battle. A few wobbly flashbacks to their younger days reveal that Jago has always had the hots for Anne. As time goes by he eventually shares his feelings with her. But this doesn’t sit well with Morwin who has no desire to let Anne leave her side. Oh, and then there’s the mysterious armored knight on a white stallion who pops up in the distance before eerily vanishing into the mist.

While the movie does its title justice by conveying a steady sense of dread, neither the slow-developing character drama or the dark mystery pays off in the way they need to. Turner’s carefully measured restraint plays well with Harden’s descent into madness, yet both work well above the material they’re given. Meanwhile Harington blends into the background without leaving much of an impression at all.

“The Dreadful” toys with some interesting ideas but it doesn’t do a lot with them. The sluggish pacing combined with an overall lack of scares leaves most of its potential untapped. And it certainly doesn’t come close to the chilling heights of Kaneto Shindō’s classic. In fairness, this isn’t intended to be a by-the-numbers remake. But it struggles to stand even on its own, which leaves “The Dreadful” feeling like a missed opportunity.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

Director Daniel J. Phillips takes us into the unsettling world of religious horror with “Diabolic”. It’s a well-traveled subgenre that has been approached from nearly every angle imaginable. Yet when done right, filmmakers have shown that there are still some good frights to be found, even if we’re in well-travelled territory. Sadly, that isn’t the case with the underwhelming “Diabolic”.

“Diabolic” is a slow-moving supernatural chiller that hits many of the same thematic and subgenre beats that we’ve seen in numerous other movies of its kind. That said, it still would have worked if the film could have added just a little more of its own original flavor. Yet none of its efforts at doing so are all that compelling.

To their credit, the screenwriters (Phillips, Mike Harding, and Tricia Madsen) attempt to build a foundation that we’re told is inspired by true events. But the perfunctory buildup quickly leads to a glaringly ill-advised trip that soon devolves into another story about weird, rigid religious people and one malevolent evil spirit. And from the movie’s perspective, one is just as bad as the other.

Elizabeth Cullen plays Elise, a young artist suffering from debilitating blackouts. As her episodes become more frequent, they grow longer and more violent. Desperate for help, Elise’s psychiatrist offers her one more option before admitting her to the hospital. He believes her blackouts are the result of buried trauma from growing up in the Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints – a fringe offshoot of the Mormon Church. He suggests exposure therapy. More specifically, that she travels to the church and seeks help from their healers. Yikes.

So Elise, her supportive husband or boyfriend Adam (John Kim), and her self-invited best friend Gwen (Mia Challis) load up and travel deep into the forest, well away from civilization to the off-the-grid fundamentalist compound. There they meet the homely Hyrum (Robin Goldsworthy) and his stern mother, Alma (Genevieve Mooy). Together they all engage in a warped, hallucinogenic drug-induced ritual at the site of her worst trauma. What could go wrong?

As the baffling character choices mount up, the story branches out in a couple of directions. One involves a series of clunky flashbacks as Elise begins recalling her relationship with a fellow church member, Clara (Luca Sardelis). The other introduces the vengeful spirit of a cursed witch (Seraphine Harley) that is inadvertently released during the healing ritual. Neither leave much of an impression. The Clara bit is an angle we’ve seen countless times before. And the witch isn’t established enough to be as threatening as she needs to be.

In terms of horror, “Diabolic” puts most of its effort into creating a creepy atmosphere. And that’s possibly the movie’s biggest strength. It also does some pretty cool things in the practical effects department. But outside of one lone gloriously gruesome slaying, none of the few kills we get stand out at all. That, along with a story that often seems at odds with itself, leaves us with a movie that has the right setting and develops the right tone, but that lacks the narrative freshness or genre punch to stand out from the crowd.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

The latest cinematic expression of Bram Stoker’s seminal 1897 horror classic “Dracula” is the simply yet fittingly titled “Dracula”. It comes from writer-director Luc Besson who offers up an unconventional reimagining of vampire mythology and the Dracula story itself. He spins a dark tale rooted more in romance than horror. Yet it has splashes of blood, some wild creative strokes, and even injections of humor, all of which make this more than some generic Dracula rehash.

While the core of Stoker’s story remains, the differences in Besson’s retelling come to light frequently and fairly quickly. With its period romance focus comes some unique style choices which work in surprising harmony with the film’s Gothic horror elements. There’s also an interesting thematic shift from science vs. religion to faith vs. apostasy. We also see a chunk of the story taking place in Paris rather than London.

Other differences are more character related. Dracula’s three brides (or sisters, depending on what interpretation you hold) are replaced by comical stone gargoyles which uproots a prominent thematic layer to Stoker’s story yet makes this more of a singular love story. Also absent is Dr. Abraham Van Helsing. Instead we get an unnamed priest from an order of vampire hunters. And there is no Renfield, at least not the version of him we’re used to.

Besson’s story kicks off with a prologue set in 1480 Eastern Europe. Before setting out to face the invading Ottomans, Prince Vladimir of Wallachia (Caleb Landry Jones) seeks assurance from a high-ranking Cardinal (Haymon Maria Buttinger) that God will protect his precious wife Elisabeta (Zoë Bleu) while he’s in battle. But as she’s being ushered to a safer location, Elisabeta and her escort are ambushed and murdered. A devastated and angry Vladimir abandons God, vowing never to serve Him again until Elisabeta is returned.

400 years later in Paris, Dr. Dumont (Guillaume de Tonquédec) seeks help from the Vatican on a disturbing case that is outside of his expertise. He’s sent a Bavarian priest (played by a magnetic Christoph Waltz) from a group secretly commissioned by the Church. Once there, the priest is escorted deep below the hospital where Dumont introduces him to his patient, Maria (Matilda De Angelis), a volatile and seductive young woman who the priest quickly determines is a vampire.

We learn the priest’s order has been hunting the head vampire for centuries. And that head vampire is none other than Count Dracula, formerly Prince Vladimir. Now 400 years old and a husk of his former self, Dracula stays secluded in his Romanian castle while his “associates” scour the land for his reincarnated bride. But his search takes a turn when a solicitor from Paris named Jonathan Harker (Ewens Abid) pays him a business visit.

Over the course of his chilling stay at the Count’s castle, Harker shows Dracula a photo of his fiancé Mina (also Bleu) who bears a striking resemblance to his long departed wife. Certain that he has finally found her, Dracula departs for Paris to reunite with his Elisabeta. From there Besson branches out with two storylines that are destined to intersect. One follows Dracula’s venture into Paris as he searches for Mina. The other follows the priest’s investigation as he searches for Dracula.

As Besson’s vision unfolds, it’s hard not to enjoy his nods to the classic story but also his own original reinventions. Nearly every change he makes is there to serve his biggest revision – making this a doomed Gothic love story. Jones is outstanding in portraying Dracula as a creepy yet tragically heartbroken figure rather than a predatory bloodsucking monster. Bleu is a revelation in her crucial dual-ish role. And Waltz is his usual captivating self despite the priest being strangely underwritten in spots.

In addition to the stellar performances, Besson is also helped by Colin Wandersman’s bold cinematography and Danny Elfman’s sweeping score. The period-rich production design and costumes add to the film’s stylish verve. It all enhances this beguiling new spin on Stoker’s classic. It’s chilling, alluring, wonderfully weird, and slyly funny at the most unexpected times. Best of all, it doesn’t try to be the grandest of all Dracula incarnations. The movie is very much its own thing which is a key reason it works so well.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

Gus Van Sant returns with “Dead Man’s Wire”, the director’s first feature film in nearly eight years. His latest is a crime thriller that’s inspired by the real-life Indianapolis hostage crisis involving Tony Kiritsis. On February 8, 1977, a desperate and deranged Kiritsis entered Meridian Mortgage Company after falling behind on his real estate mortgage payments. After a clash with mortgage broker Richard O. Hall, Kiritsis pulled out a sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun, wired it to the back of Hall’s head, and demanded $5 million and immunity for being cheated by the company.

The incident and the subsequent 63-hour standoff forms the backbone of “Dead Man’s Wire”. Written for the screen by Austin Kolodney, the story is an interesting blend of old-fashioned suspense thriller, crime drama, and pitch-black comedy. It takes this bonkers real-life story, which was captured live and in color, and gives it the Sidney Lumet “Dog Day Afternoon” treatment. Van Sant and Kolodney play around with the facts in an effort to draw some current-day connection. You could say it turns the true story on its head, and not in the best of ways.

A fiercely committed Bill Skarsgård plays Tony Kiritsis, an aspiring businessman with a bone to pick with the heads of Meridian Mortgage Company. The Tony we meet is a rather unremarkable fellow – tall and lanky with a fairly plain haircut and a thinly drawn mustache. He’s jittery and wild-eyed yet unassuming in his light green polyester shirt and brown corduroy jeans. About the only thing standing out as he walks into Meridian’s office building is the sling supporting his arm and the long, narrow cardboard box he’s carrying.

Tony makes his way to the fourth floor where he’s scheduled to meet with Meridian’s president, M.L. Hall (a comically vile Al Pacino). But Tony is informed that M.L. is off on a last-minute “business” trip and instead he’s to meet with the president’s son, Richard (Dacre Montgomery). Forced to play the hand he’s dealt, Tony pulls wire out of his sling and a sawed-off shotgun out of his box and takes Richard hostage. Tony rigs his gun to Richard with the wire so that it will discharge if he’s shot. He then sets out to let the world know how the company has wronged him.

Things quickly evolve into a truly crazy scenario as Tony marches Richard out into the busy Indianapolis street as cops converge and the media broadcasts it to the world. Tony’s demands are to the point. He wants his debt forgiven, full immunity, and a public apology from Richard’s father. It all leads to an extended standoff at Tony’s apartment building and an eventual crackpot ending that fits well with this stranger than fiction story.

Aside from Skarsgård, Montgomery, and Pacino, “Dead Man’s Wire” is accented by an array of other intriguing characters who are realized through some fun and wily performances. Colman Domingo plays the silky voiced Indianapolis disc jockey Fred Temple (Colman Domingo), who’s based on the real-life radio personality Fred Heckman. An unrecognizable Cary Elwes plays Detective Michael Grable, an acquaintance of Tony’s who is first on the scene. And Myha’la gets some good scenes as a local TV reporter determined to get the scoop.

Unfortunately, the movie skips over one of the more fascinating elements of the true story – the trial and its subsequent verdict. Instead, all we get is a brief tacked-on scene at the end. But that falls in line with what Van Sant is going for. He is more interested in making a movie brimming with anti-institutional sentiment. He packages it within a classic crime thriller framework that’s soaked in a richly detailed 1970s aesthetic. It can also be darkly funny, often at the most surprising times, adding levity to an already gonzo true story that you have to see to believe.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS