For the past few months I’ve dedicated Wednesdays to doing Retro Reviews. The way it works is I put up three options on my Twitter feed (you can follow me @KeithandMovies). Followers vote, I rewatch the movie, and then post the review the following Wednesday. Whatever film finishes second comes back the next week against two new choices. So basically you pick what I watch and review.

Going into last week’s poll I had a pretty good feeling how it was going to turn out. Sure enough “Gremlins” won in a landslide. I can’t say I’m disappointed. “Gremlins” is a movie I first saw during its original summer 1984 theater run and it’s a movie I watched countless times once it came out on VHS. But it has been years since I last sat down and watched it. So I looked forward to seeing it again with a pair of fresh eyes.

Photo Courtesy of Warner Bros.

“Gremlins” was directed by Joe Dante in what would easily be the biggest film of his career. He worked from a script written by Chris Columbus. While doing a little business in Chinatown, a struggling inventor Rand Peltzer (Hoyt Axton) stops in an old antique shop to get his son a Christmas gift before heading home. Tucked away in the back is a cute little mogwai – adorable but with three very important rules. Don’t get them wet. Keep them out of the light (especially sunlight). And most importantly, no matter how much they beg, never feed them after midnight.

Rand returns home to the quaint town of Kingston Falls. He surprises his son Billy (Zach Galligan) with his new pet which they name Gizmo. Billy is an all-around good guy who works as a bank teller but aspires to be a comic book artist. He also has his eye on his co-worker Kate played by Phoebe Cates (I mean who wouldn’t). They, along with the comical array of townsfolk we meet, have pretty normal lives. That is until those critical mogwai rules are broken. Soon Kingston Falls is overran by devilish gremlins who throw this once cozy little community into absolute, unfettered chaos.

Photo Courtesy of Warner Bros.

Dante has a blast embracing every facet of this sci-fi, horror, comedy, creature-feature. He, Columbus, and executive producer Steven Spielberg start with a heavy emphasis on the cute and cuddly Gizmo. The first 30 minutes alone probably sold countless stuffed animals. But they let it rip in the wild, rambunctious, and often riotous second half which is probably best epitomized in one hysterically anarchic bar scene. It’s a preposterous mix of comedy and violent mischief that cracked me up the same way it did years ago.

Interestingly this was Galligan’s first movie role and easily the biggest role of his career. Cates would appear in a few more films before retiring from acting in 1994. Both do well in this wacky movie rich with running gags, laugh-out-loud humor, creature mayhem, and a healthy splash of 80’s nostalgia. While some of the lines feel a bit dated, overall the movie has aged well and it has the same fun, over-the-top energy that made it such a big hit in 1984.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

Immediately after World War II the scars of German occupation ran deep across many European lands. One such place was the island of Guernsey, sitting in the English Channel just off the coast of Normandy. During the occupation many residents were taken and shipped to Nazi labor camps never to return while their families tried to survive under oppressive German rule. Guernsey was liberated in 1945 but the scars remained.

That troubling bit of history serves as a backdrop for the Netflix Original film “The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society”. Based on the 2008 novel of the same name, the story follows a London-based writer who becomes infatuated with a small book club from Guernsey. She’s drawn to the island in hopes of learning more about the five club members and their tangled history during the German occupation.

PHOTO: Netflix

Set in 1946, a delightful Lily James stars as Juliet. With a couple of novels under her belt, Juliet’s writing career has taken off which pleases her encouraging publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode). She has signed on to write stories for the London Times and she has a wealthy American boyfriend (Glen Powell) who is quite keen on marrying her. Things couldn’t be better.

One day she receives a letter from a man named Dawsey (Michiel Huisman) from Guernsey. He had come across a book that once belonged to her and had shared it with his book club (you guessed it – The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society). His hopes are Juliet could steer him towards another book by the same author. She sends him a copy as a gift and writes back inquiring about the Society. And so their correspondence begins.

As Juliet learns more about the Society through Dawsey’s letters she is inspired to write about them. She travels to Guernsey to meet the small group she has become so enamored with. As she digs deeper into their backstory she uncovers some old but still painful wounds traced back to the German occupation. Some of the Society are willing to help her, most notably Dawsey (enter the romantic angle). Others want no part of the memories her questions bring back.

PHOTO: Netflix

Director Mike Newell uses his camera to great effect, capturing beautiful vistas but also the swirling emotions of his characters. A really good cast fleshes out the unique personalities Juliet encounters within the Society, specifically Tom Courtenay, Penelope Wilton, and Katherine Parkinson. Each are given plenty of time to reveal more about their characters as Juliet’s investigation unfolds.

“Guernsey” could be called too simple and it hits a point where it becomes obvious how things will play out. Yet it’s still a warm and well-crafted story with a charming, old-fashioned flavor to it. Lily James sparkles in the lead role and a strong supporting cast breathes personality and emotion. I found it to be a nice, unexpected surprise and another good pickup for Netflix.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

The opening scene of Jocelyn DeBoer and Dawn Luebbe’s “Greener Grass” gives you a good indication of what you’re in for. Suburban frenemies Jill (DeBoer) and Lisa (Luebbe) sit in the bleachers watching their kids play soccer. Jill holds her newborn daughter as Lisa gushes over how cute she is. “You can have her! She’s great.” Jill cheeps as if offering her a stick of gum. After all, it’s the polite thing to do, right? Just as jolting, Lisa actually accepts but with a slight hesitation. “I’ve been her mom since birth,” Jill assures her. “She just has to get used to you.”

That’s a good taste test for the kind of surrealist nuttiness “Greener Grass” throws at you. It’s an utterly batty satire of suburban life and soccer mom culture. At the same time it takes some sharp pokes at competitive parenting and some hilarious jabs at postmodernist absurdity. But most surprising is its bite which doesn’t really come into focus until the final 15 minutes or so.

DeBoer and Luebbe are not only co-stars, but co-writers and co-directors. In their unhinged suburbia everything (and I do mean everything) is about appearances. For these characters living itself is a performance art and the entire neighborhood is vying for the better performance. It’s a place where everyone drives golf carts instead of cars, have braces on already perfect teeth, and where underwear can pass as a neck scarf. Even wackier, a kid can turn into a Golden Retriever and a mother can give birth to a soccer ball no questions asked.

Amid the steady haze of disingenuous smiles, passive-aggressive politeness and pastel fashion is an almost relentless barrage of gags and scenes that resemble comedy sketches. It also has its share of confounding plot twists, but you just go with them mainly because of the crazy foundation that has already be laid. From the very start the movie makes clear that ‘anything goes’ so we’re pretty much prepped for whatever DeBoer and Luebbe throws at us.

Topping it off are some game comic performances from a cast firmly committed to the goofy premise. DeBoer and Luebbe have a hysterical chemistry, playing off each other with deadpan precision. Beck Bennett and Neil Casey are hoots playing their husbands – submissive, spacey and firmly rooted in the movie’s absurdism.

“Greener Grass” runs the risk of being too over-the-top for some. And if you aren’t into its unique and persistent sense of humor, this is a movie that will probably test your patience. There’s not much in terms of plot, but it moves at a snappy pace and features much of what I look for in good satire. I laughed a lot following these shallow, dim-witted rivals amid a sea of suburban superficiality. And after hearing of a movie-loving friend’s experience, now I want to show it to other people just to see how weirded out they get.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

January is notoriously a dumping ground for movies that studios generally have no confidence in. Out of those we are all but guaranteed a handful of low budget horror films that are as forgettable as they are superfluous. Dropped into this year’s veritable dead zone is the surprisingly inspired “Gretel & Hansel”. It’s a high concept fantasy horror dive that exceeded my expectations at nearly every turn.

“Gretel & Hansel” comes from director Osgood Perkins, son the late Anthony Perkins. It’s from a script Perkins co-wrote with Rob Hayes and is based on the classic German folktale from the Brothers Grimm. Here the bigger focus is on creating atmosphere and building tension visually more so than narratively. It’s something the movie leans heavily on and for the most part nails.

You’ll quickly notice that Gretel is the film’s centerpiece hence the name switcheroo in the title. In the fairy tale the two kids are around the same age. Here Gretel (played by Sophia Lillis) is both narrator and older sister taking care of her precocious younger brother (Sam Leakey) after the two are cast into the dark woods by their destitute and unstable mother. They travel across the hellish, famine-stricken land, helped by a mysterious hunter (Charles Babalola), haunted by eerie apparitions appearing in the distance, and growing hungrier with every passing day.

Photo: Orion Pictures

The story settles in when starving Gretel and Hansel come across a remote A-frame house deep in the forest. A peep through a window reveals a table full of fruits, meats, breads, and sweets. Hansel sneaks inside but is snagged by the owner, a creepy old crone named Holda. She’s played by a terrifically menacing Alice Krige who exudes dread from her eerie glances to her fingertips black with rot. Thanks to the source material we know she’s actually a witch and her motivations going forward are unquestionably sinister.

She invites Gretel inside to join her brother at the table where the two stuff their empty stomachs. The witch convinces the children to stay and soon is teaching Gretel small spells and female empowerment while steadily pushing second helpings in front of Hansel. As the witch inspires Gretel’s desire for agency and independence she soon begins to manipulate it. The question becomes will Gretel see through the witch’s radicalization and become her own woman? If not the consequences could be horrific.

When all is said and done the story itself (though interesting) is pretty light. Perkins and Hayes stretch their tale about as far as they can just to fill the small 88 minute runtime. At first it was something that set the movie back for me, but since then I’ve seen it as less of an issue because I’m convinced there are more thematic layers than I gave it credit for. It’s a case where I’m anxious to give the movie a second look hopefully with a more attentive eye.

Photo: Orion Pictures

But I have to get back to the visuals and the way they develop and maintain mood and atmosphere. There are countless haunting images, meticulously framed and resembling something plucked out of a Robert Eggers picture. In fact there is a genuine arthouse quality to the presentation and I could imagine seeing an A24 stamp in front of the title. Much of the credit goes to cinematographer Galo Olivares who was a  collaborator on Alfonso Cuarón’s exquisite Oscar winner “Roma”. His use of lighting, shadows, camera angles, and simple still shots to brilliantly capture Perkins’ vision and verve.

Better yet, the movie truly believes in its visuals which convey the bulk of the horror. It’s refreshing to see a reliance on something other than cheap, overused jump scares. And there is rarely a shot where something doesn’t catch your eye. It’s all done with a minuscule $5 million budget. Further proof that you don’t need tons of money and big digital effects to make a movie look incredible.

So you could say “Gretel & Hansel” is a macabre coming-of-age story about individuality and burgeoning womanhood. You could embrace it as a grim slice of medieval period horror. There are several things you could call it including an ‘unexpected surprise’. Unfortunately I can see it struggling to find an audience. It’s leisurely paced and requires audiences to do a little more work than in traditional horror pictures. But I found it to be visually arresting, light on story but big on ideas, and a welcomed break from what January usually has to offer.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

I originally had no intention of watching “The Grudge”. I wasn’t really interested in a reboot of the 2004 Sarah Michelle Gellar remake of the 2002 original Japanese horror film from Takashi Shimizu. Still with me? But then I saw it was produced by Sam Raimi and its cast included John Cho, Andrea Riseborough, Demián Bichir, and Jackie Weaver. Those were enough names to sell me on giving it a shot.

This darker, grittier vision of the franchise comes from writer-director Nicolas Pesce who blends the obvious supernatural horror with a surprisingly engaging police procedural. It’s an endlessly bleak movie that takes an unexpected dive into grief and human suffering, not from ambivalent spirits (although we certainly get some of that) but from life itself.

© 2019 Sony Pictures All Rights Reserved

Everyone we meet in the film is bearing some kind of painful, emotional burden. A widow is faced with raising her young son alone after her husband dies of cancer. A loving elderly couple struggles as one of them faces late-stage dementia. A young couple gets devastating news about their unborn child. A police detective is still haunted by an unsolved case that caused him to lose his partner. Each of these troubles are well realized by the script and through some rock-solid performances. The problem is I’m still not sure what the movie is trying to say about any of it.

As far as story, Detective Muldoon (Riseborough) and her young son arrive in Cross River, Pennsylvania hoping to make a new start. She joins the local police force and is partnered with the chain-smoking Detective Goodman (Bichir). The two are called to a patch of forest where a decomposed body is discovered in a car. Goodman believes it may be linked to a series of unsolved deaths at 44 Reyburn Drive and wants no part of the investigation. The feds take over but an inquisitive Muldoon begins digging deeper into the history of the house on Reyburn where the deaths took place.

On one hand, I quite liked the investigative aspect of the movie. Through nonlinear storytelling and numerous timeline skips we learn the stories of the people connected to 44 Reyburn Drive. It’s all framed as a part of Muldoon’s fact-finding efforts. But of course we already know the real cause of gruesome horrors. In the prologue an American businesswoman encounters a terrifying entity in Japan which she unknowingly brings back to the States. You can probably guess her home address.

I would be lying if I said I fully understood the rules behind the whole Grudge concept. Supposedly a curse is born in the place where someone is murdered out of extreme rage. Okay, many murders are committed out of rage, right? So shouldn’t these curses be in almost every city on the planet? I’m sure it’s not that simple and I’m probably missing some obvious detail, but it’s a question this movie certainly isn’t all that interested in. But I digress…

© 2019 Sony Pictures All Rights Reserved

The film features some pretty freaky imagery and Pesce certainly knows how to create and manage atmosphere. But as a whole the horror element falls short thanks to a reliance on a few too many jump scares – “BOO” moments that you see coming from a mile away. Also, time is wasted on what I can only call franchise obligations. The bathtub stuff, the creepy wet-haired girl, the clacking death rattle. In nearly every instance these things feel like they are servicing the franchise instead of servicing the story.

In the end this wasn’t a wasted trip to the theater. I enjoyed the unsettling atmosphere and had fun with much of the storytelling. But here’s the thing, much of what I like about “The Grudge” is not what most people are going to that movie hoping to see. And its handful of strengths can’t quite cover its variety of flaws. It ends up being an aggressively middle of the road movie and the kind we’ve come to expect in early January.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

Truly great movies can leave indelible marks. It may be through an emotional connection to the story. It may be through a remarkable performance or a signature scene. But it can also be through the brilliant imagery a film can carve into your mind. That’s what this feature is all about – highlighting great images from great movies. Today we look at a brilliant Ridley Scott historical epic.