When The Devil Rides Out arrived from Scream Factory over two months ago I threw it in the "pile", because I thought I had seen it already. But when looking for something to put on a few nights back when it was late but I wasn't tired enough to go to bed, I read the synopsis said "Hmm I don't remember this at all?", and only then did I realize I was thinking of To The Devil A Daughter, the OTHER Hammer movie with Christopher Lee based on a Dennis Wheatley novel. That one I did see, and it's an OK enough movie (per my nearly eight year old review, it's a bit dull and the central mystery doesn't work very well), but this one turned out to be a total delight to me, so I'm happy I picked it out of the ever increasing number of movies in/around that overflowing box next to my couch where all the random screeners and trivia winnings go in hopes of becoming an FTP review someday.
In fact I liked it enough to read the book to compare for a future Collins' Crypt piece, so I won't use up all of my thoughts on the film here. But I will say that a big part of why I liked it was that Lee was not playing the cult leader - he was actually the hero for a change, one of two older men who were trying to save their pal from the satanic cult he had joined. But he doesn't do much action heroics; he leaves that to Leon Greene as the other (younger) guy. Instead, Lee hilariously smirks his way through the film's thoroughly enjoyable opening sequence, where the two men visit their pal at his home unannounced, on the night where his cult has gathered under the guise of an astronomy meeting. Lee knows damn well the guy's mixed up with satanists, but he plays along with the ruse, marveling at his friend's newly redecorated floor (satanic symbols) and such. Honestly I could watch an entire movie of this stuff, sans any horror at all.
Luckily, those elements work well, too. Since Lee is usually a villain and is occasionally vague about certain things (he gives Greene some chemically based protections, but says he has "other protections" without divulging what they are), I spent a good chunk of the movie thinking he was merely pretending to be a hero but in reality trying to build Greene's character up as an eventual sacrifice or something. So that adds a layer of intrigue that for all I know was never intended by the novel or script (adapted by Richard Matheson), and the direct/obvious horror stuff is pretty successful to boot. Late in the film, our heroes have to endure a ritual and fight off the temptations of the black magic, which reminded me of A Dark Song (something no less an authority than Kim Newman points out on an interview, making me feel a bit proud for having noticed it), another strong sequence. The effects aren't that great (Lee hilariously trashes them on the commentary) but the general ideas come across just fine, and the unusual three male hero setup (Lee, Greene, and the guy they were trying to save, played by Patrick Mower) adds much suspense as you're pretty sure one of them will probably die, but who?
The villain is played by Charles Gray (yep, two future Bond villains square off in this!), quite possibly the most sinister looking man alive. Sadly he is kind of sidelined for big chunks, focusing on Lee and Greene's attempts to free their pal (plus Greene's love interest, played by Nike Arrighi) instead of whatever the cult folk are doing in between their sacrifices. But he casts a long shadow even when he's not on screen and gets some great bits, including a hypnosis scene and a climactic scene where he nonchalantly plans to sacrifice a child. Perhaps Wheatley's book has more for him to do (it's 300 pages in very tiny font size, and the movie is only 95 minutes, so obviously they had to excise a lot), though if there's a direct confrontation between his character and Lee's I'll be disappointed it wasn't filmed, as the men rarely interact directly (Greene gets to punch him out though).
Scream's blu is packed, of course; the Lee commentary (shared with Sarah Lawson and a moderator) is older, along with a few old making of specials, but there's a new track with historians Steve Haberman and Constantine Nasr, plus Newman's interview and another exclusive one with Jonathan Riby. And the film has a new transfer, which looked quite good though of course I can't compare it to any previous releases (it appears to be the first Blu-ray release in the US, with an Anchor Bay DVD being long out of print). They have a few more Hammer movies on the way (including Rasputin, which this one was paired with on the Anchor Bay DVD) so I hope it's a sign they are being diligent about acquiring as many as they can - sure, there are some duds in that mix, but I'll sit through a few chores like The Reptile if it means occasionally getting a real treat like this.
One of the most trying things about doing this every day (when I did) was when I'd watch a movie that demanded or at least deserved a few days' thought before writing a review, something the "A Day" part of the concept didn't really allow for. Sure, I'd get backed up with reviews every now and then (usually on vacation, when I'd be watching every day but not finding time to write) but I would find it difficult to write about, say, Monday's movie on Friday, with three or four other movies watched in between, so I avoided it whenever possible. That's a thing of the past now, and so I'm glad I had a few days to think about Midsommar before writing about it, because I find I liked it more after chewing on some of its ideas, whereas if I wrote a review on Friday after watching it the tone would be less positive.
As with Ari Aster's previous movie Hereditary, the last act of Midsommar kind of lost me after pulling me in so deftly for its first hour or so, though here he (mostly) got me back. The plot is completely different (and easier to discuss without getting into spoiler territory, yay!) but the general tone of almost unbearable dread mixed with dark humor and surprisingly gruesome violence is very much in line with that one, so it's a fair comparison to make I think. Both films work best before their narratives start coming to a resolution, and while he has improved on it (in my opinion) here, I once again walked out thinking that if the back half was as strong as the front, we'd have an undeniable classic as opposed to a solid movie hampered by some hard to ignore missteps. Maybe the third time will be the charm?
The biggest difference between the two is that he is making it very clear who the "bad guy" is in this movie, before we even meet them in fact. The film opens on some establishing shots with a lovely choral hymn playing under it, which is interrupted by a ringing telephone - in other words, modern technology and those who use it are a disruption to the natural beauty of "the old ways". The plot concerns a man named Pelle who invites three of his fellow anthropology majors (slash bros) to visit his Swedish commune during a nine day annual festival that they hold there, and how one of them (Christian, played by Jack Treynor) has his girlfriend Dani (Florence Pugh) tag along. Christian actually wants to break up with her, but after she suffers a horrific family tragedy feels he can't do that to her just yet, and invites her mostly as a sort of polite gesture, assuming she won't actually go. Alas, she does, much to the dismay of his buds.
I found this conflict and awkward tension to be more compelling than the horror stuff, to be honest - and ultimately I realized that was the point, which I assume was missed by some of the film's detractors. After a million love triangle subplots in horror movies (particularly those in the "doomed vacationers" sub-genre), I was kind of blown away by how invested I got in their dysfunctional relationship, where Christian doesn't want to be with Dani anymore but feels like he can't actually be the one to break it off due to her recent tragedy. In turn, she knows that he isn't exactly fulfilling her needs but thinks it's something she needs to fix within herself; a pre-tragedy phone call to her otherwise unseen friend tells us that she worries she's too clingy for him, ignoring her friend's insistence that she should be able to find someone who gladly gives her that security. Be it a spouse or a platonic friend (or even a family member), we've all been in a situation where we keep a relationship on life support out of what remains of our affection for the other, rather than just let it die and use that energy elsewhere - Aster's script and the two actors' performances really nail that uncomfortable situation.
Now, would I watch a movie about that sans any horror stuff whatsoever? Maybe, but I probably wouldn't have chosen it over Toy Story 4 (or Dark Phoenix, which I suspect I have lost my last chance to see theatrically). Luckily, the plot practically guaranteed that their relationship issues would be the least of their worries, and here Aster makes the smart choice of practically spelling out that these Swedish folks who live in the middle of the woods, closed off from the rest of the world, might... well, sacrifice them at some point. Murals depicting their violent customs are in plain sight of both us and the main characters, they have buildings that no one can enter, photos are not allowed... and the locals make no effort to explain these things away as benign. So if you saw the trailer and (as I did) assumed it was all building toward a Wicker Man kind of thing - the good news is Aster knows you know that and doesn't bother to hide it, and then uses your familiarity with this sort of thing in amusing and unexpected ways.
Instead, the real mystery is whether or not Dani will finally realize Christian sucks and muster up the strength to dump him herself, or if he will start to genuinely appreciate her and rekindle their relationship (thanks or no thanks to the potential death of their friends and/or their own immediate danger). It's a long movie (2:27!) so it shouldn't surprise you that it takes a while for any traditional horror stuff to happen, save for a voluntary suicide of two town elders (they believe life ends at 72 and there's no point in slowly dying in a nursing home when you can choose to go out and help bring new life about with the sacrifice of your blood), so if you don't care about their relationship and bought your ticket hoping someone ends up being immolated to improve their crops, you're gonna be bored out of your mind. But as with his earlier film, Aster is able to convey a sense of dread almost immediately, thanks to the editing, music (Bobby Krlic's score accompanies my writing of this review, in fact), and production design - if you're the type that equates horror with lengthy chase scenes and jump sacres then you'll check out, but if "I am uncomfortable because I know something awful is going to happen" is your bag, the length shouldn't be much of an issue, and the payoffs are mostly worth it.
I say mostly because, well, it's still a long movie, and unless I am missing something, it could have easily been shorter. After a few days in the community (and having already seen some weird things), Christian decides he will focus his thesis project on the town and the festival, which rightfully angers his buddy Josh (William Jackson Harper) who was already using it as the topic for his own thesis and thinks Christian is simply piggybacking on the work he had already done. Not a bad subplot on its own, perhaps, but it isn't introduced until past the film's halfway point, and doesn't really serve any purpose beyond reminding us that Christian is a selfish ass. This results in a couple of scenes where both men talk to Pelle about how much/little they can write about, if the town elders will allow them access to things, etc - and there's no real payoff for it whatsoever. Josh's dedication to his project was well established before they even got there, whereas they barely even mention that Christian was on the same track, so why Aster chose to focus on this almost at the exact point where the average audience member might start getting restless just baffles me. Worse, it comes at the expense of time that could be spent on him and Dani (who have remarkably few moments together alone once they're at the commune), if not cut entirely to get them to their conclusion before we actually start forgetting about their troubles in the first place.
Also (minor spoiler, but I'll be vague with the details) after a week there, you'd think Dani and the others would be used to strange things and also that more often than not they're not too thrilled about what they see when they participate, so it doesn't really work at all when she insists on looking at what's going on behind closed doors out of nowhere. The place has like a dozen buildings that they rarely enter, so why she would hear some chanting coming from one of them and think anything of it doesn't quite track - it's just a quick/lazy way to get her some information she will need in the long run. Due to its importance I can't help but wish the script got her to that place in a more organic (or even accidental) way, instead of using an out of character moment to kick it off. The film's terrific closing sequence brings it back and makes it a win, but as I said, the movie would have been a total knockout if Aster had tightened and refined the things that built up to it.
Everything else works good to great though. The all daylight approach (the town only gets somewhat dark for a few hours at night) was an inspired choice, better to show off the (once again) terrific production design, particularly on the creepy-ass murals and odd buildings (the room they all sleep in is Suspiria-esque in blending fairy-tale aesthetics with unsettling oversized construction). The actors are also doing standout work; Pugh has some really tough moments to play and nails them all (her howls upon hearing the news about her family in the film's pre-title sequence are downright bone-chilling), and I must take a moment to appreciate Will Poulter's Mark, the most "bro"-y of the four men whose (often off-screen while the camera tracks someone else) remarks about their hosts and setting give the film most of its overt humor. He's just hoping to get laid in Sweden, and this along with his disregard for their customs (sometimes accidentally; of all the trees he could have used to pee on, he chose their sacred one) has him fulfilling a sort of horror movie cliche (someone even remarked he might be a misplaced Hostel franchise character), but he never crosses the line into being an insufferable asshole, which is important. Even Christian has his strong points; he's not a full blown "bad guy", he's just bad FOR HER, though your own history with such types will naturally have you judging him accordingly.
Once again, Aster has made a film that combines parts of many of the genre's classics while creating something very unique; there it was Rosemary's Baby, Don't Look Now, and Carrie, here it's Wicker Man*, Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and a dash of The Shining. It's similar to what Tarantino does; walking a careful line of wearing influences on the sleeve without ever really feeling like a "ripoff" of any of those films, but they're serving very different masters. The frequent complaint about Hereditary (and now this one, though I've tuned out a lot so far as I didn't want my own thoughts clouded) is that the films aren't "scary" in the traditional sense, and I think that his influences - all of which are often featured on "scariest movie ever" kind of lists - make that distinction all the more apparent. I've said time and time again that I don't really get scared by horror movies anyway and just enjoy them for what they are, but I can recognize the moments that are meant to frighten the crowd, and these two films have those in very short supply (if anything, Hereditary might have more traditional scares).
But that's OK by me! Whereas in the earlier film I found it hard to connect to the family unit, I quickly got invested in Dani and Christian's unfortunate but common predicament (perhaps because a good friend of mine was in that kind of relationship for years and only recently got out of it - less dramatically than presented here I should stress), and thus didn't mind or really even notice that outside of the occasional burst of shocking/gruesome violence, it "wasn't scary". My few complaints about the film concern the script (or at least, the finished edit) forgetting about its central conflict to focus on a pointless one at an inopportune time and subsequent clumsy method of getting it back on track - not because of a lack of chase scenes or whatever. It will be a polarizing film, I think, but not for the reasons I initially suspected. And even if I hated it, the fact something so weird is once again being given a wide release (in the middle of the summer no less) makes me hopeful about the future of big screen horror. Aster has mentioned Blood on Satan's Claw as one of his folk horror influences - that's a pretty obscure movie to be a major inspiration for something playing next door to Spider-Man 7, so here's hoping A24 keeps taking these chances instead of sending them off to VOD.
What say you?
*Both of them, I think! I won't spoil any particulars but a certain animal plays a part in the 2006 version (not in the original) and is used for one of this film's most striking moments.
Maybe from now on I'll stay away from anything Hammer made in 1966. I like Plague of the Zombies OK but it's partially my nostalgia driving that one (first one I saw), but The Reptile was possibly my least favorite and now The Witches gets pretty close to that territory as well. On paper it sounds fine (incidentally, it's adapted from a book), telling a Wicker Man-ish story of a lady taking a job as a schoolteacher in a town where everyone is "off", but the movie never has a pulse until its final ten minutes, and that stuff isn't scary or thrilling - it's just ridiculous, which is an improvement over "plodding", sure, but certainly isn't what anyone would probably want when they sat down for a Hammer movie about witches.
Things are amiss almost instantly. The film begins in Africa, where our protagonist Gwen (Joan Fontaine) is desperately trying to escape from some approaching witch doctors, due to events we're not fully privy to. The masked doctors crash through the door and approach her, seemingly to kill her, and then the movie fades to credits, only to come back in England where she's meeting about the schoolteacher job - she's apparently just a bit rattled by her experience that seemed to suggest she was about to be murdered. I actually spent a chunk of the runtime thinking maybe she was dead and this was some kind of Jacob's Ladder kind of deal, but as the movie dragged along I realized that would be too exciting a conclusion for this particular story.
Oddly enough, the most fun I got out of the disc was the historian commentary by Ted Newsom (the package says he'd be joined by Constantine Nasr, but while Mr. Nasr is mentioned a few times he's not there). I tend to find most of these a bit too dry for my liking when they're solo, but Newsom doesn't seem to think too highly of the movie either, so instead of rattling off filmographies and mildly amusing anecdotes from the production he's actually just kind of complaining about it half the time. He rightfully lambasts the inexplicable decision to include an amnesia detour at around the film's 50 minute mark (tellingly for how dull the movie is, Newsom says it happens 90 minutes in - clearly it just felt that way, since the movie is only 90 minutes long entirely), notes how "dowdy" everyone looks every few minutes, and laughs at some of its rare attempts at suspense. He also doesn't seem to be reading from notes the whole time, another thing that made it more lively than some others.
I should note that this is a recent "pile" acquisition; it only came to disc like three weeks ago. The problem with this new experiment is that more stuff keeps coming in, so I'm trying to balance it between newer arrivals and ones that have literally gotten dust on them because they've been there so long. I hope you guys don't mind the shorter reviews, but honestly for movies like this I don't think I could find enough to say to make it standard length, so I'd probably end up saying nothing and this site would be a ghost town that much longer. It took me five attempts to watch it because I kept dozing off; it was only the allure of the Hammer brand that kept me going because I was sure it'd get better. And technically it did (the climax is truly goofy), but too little too late. Oh well.
If you read my book (hint hint) you'll recall that the first movie in each chapter is representative of that month's particular sub-genre; the idea being that if you were to just watch those twelve movies (having not heard of them before, or at least never inclined to watch) you'd hopefully agree the book would have been worth your time/money. Aaron Moorhead and Justin Benson's Resolution got that "coveted" slot for its month (October, which was "horror-adjacent" films), and I was just as big of a fan of their followup, Spring, so it's fair to say I was quite excited for their newest film, The Endless, which has been playing in limited release for a couple weeks now. Alas I only just now found time to go see it, at the non-ideal time of 10pm on a weeknight, i.e. practically a guarantee I'd fall asleep especially considering its 110+ minute runtime - but I stayed awake!
I mean I could just end the review right there; longtime readers shouldn't need to be sold any further on the film's merits ("If Collins stayed awake, this must be worth checking out!"), but for you new readers I guess I'll do my due diligence and get into things like "plot" and "characters". Ya jerks.
I didn't know much about the film beforehand, only that it had something to do with a cult and that it featured Benson and Moorhead in the lead roles, playing their cult characters from Resolution (if you haven't seen that one, I assure you it's not 100% essential, though it will give you a little more context and appreciation for at least one development later in this film). We only met them briefly in Resolution, giving a low-key pitch for their cult to that film's hero Mike, but when we pick up with them here they've left the cult and are trying to adjust to a normal life in Los Angeles, working as housekeepers and trying to keep the bills paid. When Aaron (they use their real first names, though they play brothers, hopefully keeping the idea that they're "playing themselves" at bay) receives a tape in the mail from one of his old "commune" friends, he goads Justin to paying them a visit and see how they're doing.
One might find this a rather ludicrous idea, but it actually works. The hook is that Justin was the one who really wanted to leave and kind of dragged his brother away from a life that almost kind of suited him, and since their outside life is shit there isn't much of an argument he can make for it besides "out here things might get better". Justin finally agrees to go more or less hoping Aaron, now older, will see it for the joke that it is (or that it's just too weird) and finally let go of it so he can blossom in the real world, but obviously things don't go as planned. Aaron starts getting easily swayed back into the fold (having Callie Hernandez instigating things probably doesn't hurt; I'd follow her into a cult sight unseen, let alone one I already had a connection to) while Justin becomes increasingly aware that things there can't be easily explained away by "they're crazy/brainwashed".
I won't say much more about what happens, only that it's very much in line with the unique brand of unsettling but also occasionally funny sort of things that peppered Resolution (so, if you hated that movie, I'd steer clear of this one, but know that I pity you). Again, seeing the earlier film isn't a necessity, but since Aaron and Justin were clearly in the same area as that film's Mike and Chris, it's a foregone conclusion that they'd be plagued by some of the same phenomena, some of which sheds light on the other film's mysteries. Not everything is explained (from either film), but again it doesn't matter - the real drive of the film is seeing these two guys work through their issues with each other and hopefully come out of the situation OK. The two filmmakers have been working together for almost a decade (more? I'm just going off IMDb's historical record) and their brotherly bond comes across throughout the film, and so it's easy to not worry too much about how the tape got sent to them or what that one weird thing we saw was and focus more on their current dilemma, hoping they can escape together or at least find their peace if they do end up going their separate ways. Unlike Resolution, the other characters we meet get fleshed out a bit, becoming people that could be in their own spinoff film (the Resolution Cinematic Universe?). In that film everyone that wasn't Mike or Chris only really appeared once, if memory serves, but here we get to know a few of the cult members and learn a little bit about their deal. I was particularly intrigued with Hal (Tate Ellington), the leader of the group who is patient with Justin's eye-rolling and, at times, almost seems a bit jealous of his ability to walk away from it all. I don't know if it was intentional or just me reading into it, but I kept getting the impression he was about five seconds from asking Justin if he could hitch a ride with them when they left, only to refrain out of some kind of guilt (for the other people) or fear, akin to convicts fearing their parole. I don't think it's too much of a spoiler to say that they aren't just weirdos in the woods and that there is something definitely supernatural/otherworldly going on, and that also adds another layer to it - it's not that he's afraid he's wrong, it's that he's afraid because he knows he's right.
It helps that there's nothing outwardly evil about the cult. Justin says they castrate members, but this turns out to be a lie he told just to get Aaron to leave with him. They're not branded (so it's better than the one Chloe from Smallville ran!) or anything like that - they just live out in the woods, making beer, and have a few unusual rituals. Ultimately it's not really ABOUT the cult, but I think it really works in the film's favor that an audience member watching could kind of see the appeal (whereas if you're watching, say, The Sacrament, and thinking it's a good deal - seek help). My position on all religions - even Scientology to a degree - is that as long as you're not harming anyone, you should always go with the one that gives you the peace you seek, and who cares if it may look/sound weird to an "outsider"? By refraining from any kind of "drink the Kool-aid" kind of insanity, there's no real reason to look down on Aaron for wanting to stay behind; we only fear for his wellbeing due to the strange things that are in the area, independent of the group.
Speaking of fear, overall this is even less of a traditional horror film than their others; if not for the "sequel" status for a previously reviewed film I probably wouldn't count it as one at all, really. It's got a couple of jolts and some undeniably creepy moments (the guy in the tent, gah!), but when compared to cult-based horror like Race with the Devil or Starry Eyes it's closer to drama territory. Perhaps that's due to the fact it's twenty minutes longer than its predecessor but has about the same number of incidents, so they're just more spread out? It's not a mark against the film at all - I gave it 4 stars on Letterboxd, if that helps - but if you thought Resolution had no business in the horror section and were "let down" because of it, then it's probably best to skip this one.
Everyone else, enjoy! It's doing really well in limited release, so hopefully it'll lead to something bigger for the pair next time out. There are a couple instances in the film where the small budget was taking a toll on its visuals; nothing that should lessen your enjoyment or anything (I've seen worse in movies that cost literally 100x as much), but it got me wondering what they might do with a bigger budget - just not one that was so big they'd have to lose their voice in the process. Maybe a Blumhouse "Tilt" joint or something along those lines? But even if they shoot movies on their phone in their own homes I'm sure they will be interesting and worth checking out - they're three for three in my book, which is kind of extraordinary nowadays as I've seen so many filmmakers (particularly filmmaking teams) impress with their first film and never measure up again (cough, Bustillo/Maury, cough). Good job, gents.
Dimension lost Halloween a while back, but they're still holding on to their Hellraiser and Children of the Corn licenses, and just as they did in 2011 with Revelation and Genesis, respectively, they extended their hold by making new entries more or less simultaneously (and once again making me wonder if they'll ever throw their hands up and just do a "Versus" film). And as with Hellraiser: Judgment, Children of the Corn: Runaway is better than you'd expect or that it even needed to be - maybe they are now required to not just make a movie, but make it decent? In fact it's probably one of the best of the Corn films, and while I know that isn't exactly a huge hurdle to clear, it's still worth noting, especially since it's the tenth film in a franchise launched from a lesser Stephen King short story.
When they hired John Gulager to direct this one (he also edited, for the record) I thought it was a great choice, and as a fan of Gulager's work I saw it as a win-win kind of situation. If the movie was bad, then it's not really anything to be ashamed about - the historical record has shown time and time again that it's apparently very hard to make a good movie out of this scenario, as even the best films in this series (the original, Urban Harvest, and the remake) aren't without sizable flaws. And if it was good, then it just shows that he's got some talent and maybe deserves better than VOD sequels to Dimension movies. Luckily it's the latter scenario, on par with those aforementioned "worth watching" entries (and also consistently satisfying than Hellraiser: Judgment, for what it's worth) and in fact is a perfectly enjoyable movie on its own accord - the Corn references are so minimal they could be trimmed out and it would barely affect the runtime.
That said, it's actually a direct sequel to the remake, which surprised me since that one wasn't a Dimension production. Our protagonist is Ruth, who was introduced in that film (played by Alexa Nikolas there; Marci Miller here) and had a vision of herself setting fire to the corn - turns out she really did it and escaped while pregnant, determined to raise her child as far away (but still in the Midwest) as from the group. Because of her unusual past she has trouble finding steady income or a place to live, and it turns out the cult messed up her brain pretty good, so it isn't easy for her, but things start to finally turn around when she gets a gig as a mechanic and is allowed to stay in a vacant home that is currently in legal limbo. Alas, she starts seeing a strange little girl who may or may not be really there, and before long the bodies start piling up. Is the girl a cult member? Is she cracking up and killing these people herself? Or is it her son, who starts acting strange?
The answers will not be surprising to anyone who has seen a few horror movies before, but what was NOT expected was to see this kind of thing in a Corn film OR from Gulager, whose other films revel in bad taste and midnight movie insanity. It's possibly the most relatively classy film in the series, if anything, as the body count isn't particularly high (the diner flashback accounts for most of the violence) and there isn't a drop of dark humor to be found. It's not even supernaturally-driven like the others; most of the film focuses on Ruth and her struggles to make a normal life for her and her son - for example, he wants to go to school, but she can't enroll him because she doesn't have a fixed address. Even if you stripped out the horror stuff, you'd be left with a decent character drama about a woman who was trying to escape a terrible, mind-breaking past, with the sun-drenched Oklahoma landscape and Gulager's widescreen visuals making it nice to look at as well. The kill scenes aren't that bad either; there's a good one inside a garage that is unnerving (partly because it's when I figured out the film's twist) and drawn out just enough to have hope for the victim's survival chances. It would have been expected/easy for the guy who made the Feast films to relish in a movie about evil kids, but by focusing on the adults and going for something more psychologically driven, the film really sticks out as a minor gem for both its franchise and its filmmaker.
But if you're a fan of his work, you'll still recognize some of his trademarks - there's some Super 8 footage (which he shot himself), and both his wife Diane and father Clu (yay!) show up in smaller roles. It's also a nice showcase for Miller, who looks nothing like Alexa Nikolas but *does* resemble Amy Steel a bit, which is fine by me. Steel reportedly wanted to reprise her F13 Part 2 character of Ginny in a sequel set at a mental institute, which we never got, so it's kind of like a consolation prize to get someone who resembles her going crazy after a different horror movie ordeal. She really sells the shitty situation she's in, which you have to recall isn't her fault - she was a kid when she got roped into the cult, not an adult who chose to join one like that one Hollywood-friendly religion. When folks try to escape that I'm usually like "Well, glad you made the right call eventually, but you're still a dumbass", but I sympathize with Ruth, and genuinely felt sorry for her whenever another setback came her way. Even better, she doesn't give excuses - she hides her past for the obvious reasons, so she doesn't try to get anyone else to feel sorry for her in hopes they'll cut her a break.
The only thing that didn't really work was a late-movie development where someone else turned out to be a cult member. If you think about how that character is introduced in the story and how our heroes came to befriend him/her, it's a giant coincidence that they turn out to be actively searching for Ruth and her son, so I wish they had been given a slightly reworked introduction that rang a bit truer. Or if it never happened at all - Ruth's own psychological scars were built up enough that she could have rejoined the cult and/or led her son down that path all on her own, so they didn't really need this third party nudging that along. It's not a crippling flaw or anything like that, but it switches the focus at a crucial point in the movie and kind of lessens the impact of the twist to a degree. Also, in one of the few scenes with the titular Children, we see one who has seemingly risen through the ranks fairly quickly, and it kind of made me want to see a Corn sequel using a mob movie template, with a new recruit rising to the top and then losing it all (except at the end of a sickle instead of a bullet), because I instantly started wondering how they became such a big deal and what sort of shit they had to do in order to get to that level. Y'all gotta arm-wrestle He Who Walks Behind The Rows or...?
It's kind of funny - if there's such a thing as a die-hard Children of the Corn franchise fan, they're probably not going to like this one all that much. There's barely any evil kid stuff, He Who Walks... is mostly left out of it (sit through the credits for his most prominent appearance!), and it's following up on a plot thread from the remake, which was largely dismissed (though I personally find it superior to the 1984 one, though not by much). It'll play better to those who have little to no interest in the series (I should stress that there is zero need to see any of them, even the one it's directly following, as they explain the backstory via flashbacks), but of course the title means they won't exactly be driving to every Redbox in town looking for a copy. That said, I hope it finds the audience of people who can appreciate the attempt at making it more interesting than anyone could have reasonably assumed it would be, and that it's not considered a failure by whatever measures they use to determine wins and losses for these things. As someone who is seemingly cursed with seeing (and reviewing) all of these movies until the end of time, I'd hate for them to go back to "normal" (read: traditionally forgettable/lousy) Corn territory with the next entry just because this one didn't make as big of a splash as the films must make, somehow (why else would they keep spending money to keep the brand going?). Especially now that they're actually doing direct sequels - can Gulager and co. follow up on Urban Harvest's magic corn that was being shipped all over the world?
That'd rule. What say you?
P.S. Unless you own all the others and want to keep that train going, there's not much need to buy this disc. The movie's pretty good but nothing you'll watch over and over, and the lone extra feature is a deleted scene of no interest. A shame since Gulager has done commentaries for most of his other films and they tend to be pretty fun.
