(CLICK HERE for my full review in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette)

It’s hard to argue with the Foo Fighters’ sensational music career. Now the freshly minted rock and roll hall of famers take a brief detour from music to try their hand at movies with their first feature film “Studio 666”. While the group has been the subject of two documentaries, this is their first foray into drama. It’s a gallant effort. But after sitting through this baffling and at times astonishingly bad rock and roll horror comedy, I think the Foo Fighters might be better served sticking to their strength.

Just judging from the trailer, “Studio 666” looked outrageous and that’s a big part of what drew me to it. My impression was that the film would be a crazy mix of grisly grindhouse horror, absurd black comedy, and an assortment of old (and possible new) Foo Fighters tunes. Well, I got the grisly grindhouse horror part right. This thing goes all-out when it comes to gore – exploding heads, sprays of blood, entrails galore. It’s all present in unbridled over-the-top grindhouse glory. Even the title “Studio 666” resembles something you would see on a cheap mid-70s downtown marquee.

The black comedy part doesn’t work nearly as well. We get a few moments where the movie has fun with its more twisted elements, but not nearly enough of them. Instead of going full gonzo, the film often tries to be a straight comedy. But the numbingly bad gags rarely land – a problem that’s exacerbated by some horrible deliveries. To be fair, performances were never going to be a strongpoint here, and at times the band intentionally overplays certain scenes. But at other times it’s plain old bad acting and it becomes a distraction.

As for the music, don’t expect to hear any new Foo Fighters songs or to sing along to any of the band’s classics. Strangely there are none to be found. We get a couple of short jam sessions and a brief drum track or two, but that’s all. It’s an odd omission, and there were several times when I would have loved a Foo Fighters musical interlude to break up the growing monotony, especially in the first two acts (the third act isn’t great either, but it turns into a full-on splatter film which proves to be a welcomed distraction from all the other nonsense).

The film (directed by B. J. McDonnell, written by Jeff Bulher and Rebecca Hughes) is based on a story written by the band’s charismatic high-energy frontman Dave Grohl. It begins with the Foo Fighters butting heads with their manager (Jeff Garlin) over the group’s next record. It’ll be their tenth album so Grohl and bandmates Taylor Hawkins, Nate Mendel, Pat Smear, Chris Shiflett, and Rami Jaffee want to do something epic.

Their manager hooks them up with what seems like the perfect recording location – a mansion in Encino with a “rock and roll pedigree” (fun fact – it’s the same house where the band recorded their 2021 album “Medicine at Midnight”). Unfortunately for the Foo Fighters, that “pedigree” happens to include demonic possession, a gateway to Hell, and an unholy flesh-bound book ripped straight out of “The Evil Dead”.

Rather than finding his creative energy in the spacious Encino estate, Dave suddenly loses his songwriting mojo. But just as his writer’s block (or as the movie so eloquently puts it, “songwriter’s constipation”) threatens to derail their much anticipated album, let’s just say Dave finds his much-needed “inspiration“ from a dark supernatural source. Horror hijinks ensue as the half-baked truth behind the house comes to light. Meanwhile several ‘friends of the family’ pop up in small roles or cameos including Lionel Ritchie, Will Forte, Whitney Cummings, Jenna Ortega, and Kerry King.

Ultimately the whole thing plays like one big running joke – one that might work if this were a 30-minute special on Netflix. But as a 100-plus minute feature-length movie, it’s tough to endure. The over-the-top gore-soaked final 20 minutes make it all a little more bearable, but not much. And while it’s true that without the Foo Fighters this movie would have never been made, it’s also true that without the Foo Fighters name stamped on it “Studio 666” would have never seen a movie theater screen. That’s because quality-wise it’s the kind of movie that drops unceremoniously on VOD only to end up in the digital bargain bin a few weeks later. And to be honest, they’re a dime-a-dozen. “Studio 666” is now showing in theaters.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

(CLICK HERE to read my full review in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette)

“Sundown” from writer-director Michel Franco opens with a shot of several fish on the deck of a boat. As they make their last gasps for oxygen, a man stares down at them with a solemn melancholy gaze. It’s a scene rich with meaning that over time will become clearer and clearer. And while the metaphor is easy to grasp, the details surrounding it are far more opaque.

With “Sundown”, Franco has crafted a shrewd and methodical story that’s as much of a puzzle as it is a drama. Information does come, but slowly and only when Franco sees fit to share it. That gives him plenty of room to challenge his audience. As things begin to happen, we’re lured into jumping to our own conclusions and making our own judgments. And that’s when Franco has us where he wants us.

The man in the opening scene is Neil Bennett and he’s played by a perfectly calibrated Tim Roth. Neil, a woman named Alice (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and two college-aged kids, Colin (Samuel Bottomley) and Alexa (Albertine Kotting McMillan), are vacating at a posh high-end resort in Acapulco. Franco deliberately holds back details, allowing us to piece together what we can through the characters and their interactions. They’re clearly wealthy as evident by their luxury accommodations, servers at every turn, and steak dinners costing a car payment apiece. 

Another thing is clear – Neil is troubled. Despite the swims in the beautiful turquoise waters, the sunbathing on a private beach, and being treated to the best cuisine, Neil seems detached, often lost in his thoughts and staring into oblivion. What’s wrong with him? Do Alice and the kids know? Is it due to something we’ve yet to learn or is it just a mark of their relationship? Franco eventually sheds light on it all, but only after his story takes some unexpected turns.

Their vacation abruptly ends after Alice gets a call from London that her mother is being rushed to a hospital. The four immediately pack and head to the airport, but once there, Neil informs his family he forgot his passport at the resort. He sends a distraught Alice and the kids ahead insisting he’ll catch the next flight. But rather than going back to the resort, Neil takes a cab to a cheap beachside hotel.

While Alice thinks he’s working with the consulate to get back to London, Neil actually spends the next several days slouched in a plastic chair on a crowded beach surrounded by locals, downing buckets of beer and staring up into the sun. His behavior becomes even more revolting once we learn Alice’s mother has died and she needs his help with with funeral arrangements. Instead of heading to London, Neil stops taking Alice’s calls altogether.

So what’s going on with this guy? Is it a midlife crisis? Is it deep depression or existential dread? Is he a bad person or is it something deeper than that? Franco’s deliberate and calculated approach to answering to those questions are what make Neil’s story so brutally compelling. And Roth, with his droopy oversized shirts, long shorts and sandals, gives a brilliantly cryptic performance that keeps his character’s emotions so tightly locked inside that he’s nearly impossible to read.

The only glimpses of potential happiness in Neil comes when he meets a local shop owner Berenice (Iazua Larios). The two hit it off and begin a relationship which raises even more concerns about this man. Everything seems to be careening towards a not-so-happy ending, but to get there Franco takes his story places you’ll never expect. Along the way he explores themes often found in his films – class, family dysfunction, violence, etc.

“Sundown” had its world premiere last September at Venice and it’s finally set for its US release (via Bleeker Street). It packs a lot into its lean 83 minutes. The story is bleak and at times appalling, but Franco never casts judgement on Neil or his actions. He leaves that to us. But he does so in such a crafty way that figuring things out and reaching our own conclusions is much of what makes the film so effective. “Sundown” is now showing in select cities.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

One of the more intriguing ‘horror’ films in this year’s Sundance program comes from Danish filmmaker Christian Tafdrup. It’s “Speak No Evil”, a smart but unsettling chiller but not in the traditional sense. In fact, the film didn’t start out as a horror movie. It was originally conceived as a psychological drama centered around a fairly simple idea. But as that idea grew, the movie took a new shape and Tafdrup begin utilizing horror elements in some shrewdly original ways.

Co-written by Taldrup and his brother Mads, “Speak No Evil” starts tame before festering into something unthinkably savage and deeply disturbing. But it’s the cinematic space in between that makes the film more than just a genre exercise in audience cruelty. With a surgical cunning, Taldrup cuts into themes of human nature, manhood, and social norms. But it’s the film’s bigger more ambiguous meaning that ultimately makes this such a terrifying experience.

The film opens with a first-person view of a car driving down a dirt road at night. The drone of composer Sune Kolst’s haunting orchestral score soaks the scene in dread. But in a flash the camera suddenly switches to a sun-soaked swimming pool where the sounds of happy chatter, splashing water, and kid’s laughter fills the air. It’s not the only time Tafdrup will lay eerie ominous music over a seemingly innocuous scene.

The pool we learn is at a resort in Tuscany which is where we meet a vacationing Danish family, Bjorn (Morten Burian), his wife Louise (Sidsel Siem Koch), and their young daughter Agnes (Liva Forsberg). While there, they hit it off with a Dutch family – an outgoing doctor named Patrick (Fedja van Huet), his good-natured wife Karin (Karina Smulders), and their unusually quiet son Abel (Marius Damslev). The two families have lunch where we hear that familiar throwaway line from Karin, “Well you should come visit us sometimes.”

The story jumps ahead in time with Bjorn and his family back home in Denmark. One evening they’re surprised by a letter from Patrick and Karin inviting them to come to Holland for the weekend. After some lighthearted debate, Bjorn and Louise decide to go, with Louise even uttering those ill-fated words “What’s the worst that can happen?”

The trio leaves Denmark and heads for the Dutch countryside. When they finally arrive at the address they don’t find the kind of house you would expect a doctor to live it. Instead it’s a dated two-story wood-framed place in the middle of nowhere. And there you have the first warning sign out of many to come. While things feel a little weird at first, the two families begin reconnecting much like they did in Tuscany. But over time Peter and Karin’s behavior gets stranger and more uncomfortable. Soon the nice weekend getaway with “friends” turns into a horrifying nightmare.

I’ll leave the rest for you to discover but be warned, “Speak No Evil” takes some shockingly depraved turns, and the final 30 minutes are as unsettling as anything you’ll see on screen this year. And by that I don’t mean that’s it’s gory and gross. I’m talking about the kind of brutal unpleasantness that you might find in certain Michael Haneke films. It will rattle you to your core.

Following its recent premiere at Sundance, “Speak No Evil” was quickly gobbled up by Shudder for distribution. So those of you who are interested (and gutsy enough), won’t have long to wait. To be honest, it’s not a movie I’m completely comfortable with recommending. Not because of poor quality (Tafdrup proves to be much too good of a filmmaker for that). But many will find it to be genuinely troublesome. Be that as it may, the sheer craft and control Tafdrup shows is top-notch, and I was glued to the screen throughout. I was thoroughly invested in the plight of this Danish family who were seduced by evil’s charms and then walked right into its trap.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

I still remember that December night in 1996. The late Wes Craven’s “Scream” had already been out a little over a week. I somehow convinced my wife of barely over a year to go see it with me. She didn’t like horror movies. I grew up on them. Thankfully we left the theater that night still happily married. That’s because not only did I enjoy “Scream”, but she did too. Well done Mr. Craven.

A fun, subversive and self-aware horror flick, the original “Scream” caught a lot of people by surprise. And while I never bought arguments that it dramatically changed the struggling genre, it certainly injected it with some much needed new energy. Not only did it launch its own series of sequels (one good, the others not so much), it also inspired a number of other blood-drenched young adult slashers, “I Know What You Did Last Summer” being the biggest.

But I don’t want to downplay the 1996 film’s impact. “Scream” was a blast and it knew how to utilize the genre’s strengths and have fun with all of its absurdities. It also did something that so many of its slasher predecessors couldn’t do – give us a broad cast of entertaining characters who we like being around and who are actually memorable. That’s a big reason why several careers were launched thanks to the movie.

Co-directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett (“V/H/S”) set out to relaunch the series with their new film “Scream” (in keeping with the goofy horror movie trend of reusing the same title as the franchise’s first film). But the title isn’t the only thing they steal from the original movie. If you’ve seen the trailer you probably know it kicks off with a clear homage to the 1996 film’s iconic opening. The rest of the film features several other callbacks which range from fun fan service to unremarkably derivative. And then you get the final act which I won’t dare spoil. But let’s just say where the opening is a nice homage, the ending is a glaringly uninspired rehash.

Storywise, it’s been twenty years since the last brutal killings in the little town of Woodsboro. But wouldn’t you know it, in the opening scene a teenager named Tara (Jenna Ortega) is terrorized and then violently attacked by a knife-wielding psycho in a Ghostface mask. Yet unlike the 1996 opening scene (which this one is clearly mimicking), here the victim survives despite being stabbed multiple times.

After getting word of the attack, Tara’s estranged sister Sam (Melissa Barrera), who works at a bowling alley in Modesto, rushes back to Woodsboro with her generic tag-along boyfriend Richie (Jack Quaid). While it first seems like a tender reunion, we soon learn there’s some serious baggage between the sisters which once unpacked gives us one of the film’s more outrageous twists.

Oh, and then there is Tara’s gaggle of friends, your normal group of twenty-something’s playing high-schoolers. I could list their names but there’s not much point. They’re basically just fodder for the killer, and each time one is savagely flayed we scratch them off the suspect list. And yes, the 1996 film had its group of party-hardy teens. But none in this new batch are remotely memorable or have half the personality and presence as Ulrich’s Billy, Lillard’s Stu, McGowan’s Tatum, or Kennedy’s Randy. The one saving grace from the new cast is Barrera who does the very best she can with the hit-or-miss material.

The biggest way “Scream” 2022 connects with the previous films is by bringing back the franchise’s most beloved legacy characters. Neve Campbell returns as Sidney, David Arquette as Dewey, and Courtney Cox as Gale. Without question it’s fun to see these three back in a “Scream” movie. At the same time, their roles here feel more nostalgic than important to the story.

This movie also embraces the same meta aspect which gave the original film its fresh and playful energy. But here it isn’t nearly as effective as the filmmakers want it to be. That’s because they go to it a few too many times. It often comes across as disingenuous, and while we see the actress speaking the words, all we hear are the writers trying to be clever. At other times it’s haphazardly crammed into scenes, to the point where the movie begins to resemble lazy self-parody rather than anything smart and/or creative. This is meta overload.

While slasher movies aren’t known for having the smartest characters, I was surprised at the sheer number of dumb decisions people make in this one. Especially in a series that has made pointing out horror movie clichés and tropes a key part of its storytelling. It’s head-scratching to watch characters be so smart one minute and as dumb as a box of rocks the next; wisely suspicious for one scene but then forget to be in the very next one. You can argue that’s kinda the point,

Then you have equally baffling holes in the story’s logic. Like the police deciding to move Tara away from people to a completely empty floor of a hospital. Brilliant. Or the weird idea of hitting a wild party only a few hours after one of your best friends was brutally murdered. But my favorite might be Ghostface, not just taking four rounds from a .357 magnum at close range, but hopping back up like nothing happened? How does he survive? We don’t know. The movie forgets to tell us. Oh well.

A lot of this may sound like nitpicking, especially for a self-aware blood-drenched slasher movie. I don’t know, maybe I was expecting too much from “Scream” 2022. Perhaps I was wrong for thinking that resuscitating this old franchise meant they had something new to bring to it. Unfortunately, if you take out the handful of new faces and few grisly new kills, all you’re left with is a pretty run-of-the-mill horror flick. One that clearly respects Wes Craven’s original “Scream”, but spends too much time milking his ideas rather than coming up with fresh ones of its own. “Scream” is now showing in theaters.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

Another month, another new Marvel Cinematic Universe installment. But unlike the last two movies in the ever-growing MCU, this one actually feels important. The previous two films, “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings” in September and “Eternals” last month, were more about introducing new players and hinting at things to come. But “Spider-Man: No Way Home” had the feel of something significant, not only because it features one of Marvel’s most popular properties, but because its story felt like a genuine game-changer.

This is the third Spider-Man movie since Disney’s unorthodox partnership with Sony Pictures. Their first collaboration, 2017’s “Homecoming”, spent too much time rewriting Peter’s history in order to fit in the MCU. Their next film, 2019’s “Far From Home” felt more like a Spider-Man story and set things up nicely for what might be coming next. “No Way Home” not only pulls from those two movies, but from other films and streaming shows in the MCU catalog. And it definitely sets the table for some interesting but also confusing things to come.

Tom Holland hops back into the red and blue spandex, but this time the stakes are more cosmic(ish). In fact, reality itself is in flux as Holland’s Peter Parker and a weirdly inept Doctor Strange (a returning Benedict Cumberbatch) botch a magic spell and inadvertently pull people from across the multiverse out of their worlds and into ours. How they do doesn’t make sense. Neither do the potential consequences. But returning director Jon Watts and screenwriters Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers are content with urging their audience to ‘just go with it’ and worrying about the explaining later.

The 25-year-old Holland effortlessly falls back into the role of Peter Parker, a character he has managed to make his own (And can we please get past the fruitless “Who’s the better Spider-Man” debate. Much like Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield, Holland offers his own fun and unique spin on the character). As the movie begins Peter is feeling defeated. Now that the world knows he’s Spider-Man (see the end of “Far From Home”) he finds himself thrust into the spotlight. Some call him a hero, others consider him a villain.

To make matters worse, those closest to him are starting to suffer due to his notoriety, especially his girlfriend MJ (Zendaya) and his longtime best friend Ned (Jacob Batalon). Tired of seeing his loved ones suffer, Peter seeks out Dr. Stephen Strange and asks him to conjure up a spell that would cause the world to forget he was Spider-Man. In a comically bumbling scene of hocus-pocus, the two accidentally open up the multiverse. Strange stops the spell and contains it before any damage is done.

Or so he thinks.

Soon villains from other universes (namely Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” trilogy from the 2000s and Marc Webb’s “Amazing Spider-Man” movies from the 2010s) begin popping up and terrorizing the city. Among them is Alfred Molina reprising his role as Dr. Otto Octavius, Willem Dafoe as Norman Osborn, Jamie Fox as Electro, and a few other unexpected surprises that’s better left unmentioned.

Watts is given a lot of story to cover and even more characters to manage. To his credit he mostly succeeds which is an impressive task in itself. There’s clearly broader franchise implications to what we see. But Spider-Man has always been best as a more intimate superhero story. Watts is able to balance both of those needs in a surprisingly satisfying way.

The movie is also helped by its terrific cast, most of whom know these characters like the back of their hands. I’ve talked about Holland, but the most pleasant surprise continues to be Zendaya and Batalon. I didn’t care for either of their characters in “Homecoming”. Both took a step up in “Far From Home”. Here they’re even better. Both Zendaya and Batalon have a good feel for who these characters are and they’re given material that really grounds them. Together with Holland, the three wonderfully convey one of the film’s most effective themes – friendship. Love, loyalty, sacrifice – it’s all captured in their relationships.

Also returning is Jon Favreau as Happy Hogan. And Marisa Tomei is back as the MCU’s unusual version of May (they drop the “Aunt” because it doesn’t carry as much sex appeal). Cumberbatch makes for a terrific Doctor Strange even if his role here is a pretty weird one. As for Dafoe and Molina, both veteran actors are terrific and you’d never guess it has been nearly 20 years since they last played these roles. There are some other performances I’d love to praise, but it’s best if you discover (and enjoy) them for yourselves.

“No Way Home” is a good looking movie with DP Mauro Fiore putting together some eye-popping action (there’s one sequence that takes place in a realm called the “mirror dimension” that is absolutely jaw-dropping). At the same time, the film has a lot of heart and it gives its characters more time to reckon with their emotions than the previous movies. It’s an emphasis on their humanity that I really responded to. There’s also some fantastic callbacks to previous Spidey films that not only excited me, but also the packed house of moviegoers I watched with.

Without question, there’s far more to like about “No Way Home” than to dislike. At the same time, parts of the story don’t really hold up once you start asking questions. Also, not every character decision works (sorry, I’m still not buying a Doctor Strange with so much ineptitude and such little foresight). And by the end, the direction of both the story and the MCU was murkier than before. But at some point all you can do is let the brains at the MCU hive-mind figure it out and then hope they’re able to bring it all together. It’s the best approach. Otherwise you risk missing out on all the enjoyment Spider-Man’s latest chapter has to offer. “Spider-Man: No Way Home” is now showing in theaters.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

Brazilian-American filmmaker Alexandre Moratto turned several heads at this year’s Venice International Film Festival with the world premiere of his piercing new film “7 Prisoners”. Set mostly in the backstreets of São Paulo, Brazil, the film sees Moratto and his co-writer Thayna Mantesso delving into the darker corners of the city and country to tackle some real-world issues that should shake us to our cores.

“7 Prisoners” is a tough-minded movie with a very no-nonsense approach to its subject matter. At the same time, Moratto makes sure that the human element remains firmly front-and-center. He does so through the character of Mateus played by the charismatic Brazilian newcomer Christian Malheiros. Mateus’ story is a painful and (hopefully) infuriating eye-opener that pulls back the veil on the abhorrent practices of slave labor, sweatshops, and human trafficking. These are horrors we tend to turn a blind eye to, mainly because they all too often contribute to our comforts. Moratto sets out to wake us up to the realities of what’s happening in São Paulo and across the world.

The film opens in the rural Brazilian countryside where Mateus lives with his mother and two sisters. They are a loving group but they’ve had a hard life, doing their best to survive with what little they have. Mateus’ mother has labored to provide for her children, but years of low-paying farmwork has taken its toll. So 18-year-old Mateus jumps at the opportunity to go the city and do some contract work to support his family. In the film’s most tender and sobering scenes, Mateus’ mother gives him a new shirt for his trip. It’s hardly anything fancy, but its worth a month’s groceries to them. A van comes by to pick up Mateus and, along with three other area boys, he’s taken five hours away to São Paulo.

Moratto does a great job putting us in the shoes of these four young men. Not only by showing us where they’re from, but also during the van ride through the city. Their wide-eyed excitement as they’re driven through the bustling São Paulo sets us up for the unsettling reality that awaits them.

The driver drops them off at an inner-city scrapyard ran by a man named Luca (played by an excellent Rodrigo Santoro). The shady and evasive Luca gets the boys settled and gives them money to go out and enjoy themselves before their first day of work. But when he collects all of their IDs the next morning, we know this isn’t going to go the way the boys anticipated. In fact it’s much worse. Mateus and his friends find themselves caught in the gears of a modern-day slave system, one that’s driven and protected by people with enormous power.

Moratto’s pacing is near perfect, shrewdly moving the story from point to point while pausing at just the right moments to uncoil the crumbling emotions of his characters. Mateus is especially compelling, caught in a no-win situation and eventually forced to make impossible decisions that will have painful repercussions regardless of what he chooses. To stress the point of his film, Moratto slyly gives us the occasional shot of the city’s bustling streets full of citizens freely walking about their normal days. It offers a sharp contrast to the cruel forced labor happening right under their noses.

With a bold and clear-eyed perspective, “7 Prisoners” offers a brutally honest challenge to a society’s apathy towards some well-documented abuses. Alexandre Moratto does a good job pulling us into his dark and ugly world that’s made all the more troubling by the fact that it’s very, very real. Great performances from Santoro and Malheiros anchor this revealing feature that’s not only a good pickup for Netflix, but a great opportunity for an important story to be told. “7 Prisoners” is now streaming on Netflix.

VERDICT – 4 STARS