The Female Brain

[3 stars]

Spicing up the standard sort of romcom by layering it with a non-fiction book on neurophysiology was actually a bit inspired. It doesn’t make the standard part of the story any less silly at times, but it does make it more entertaining and engaging. And credit to  Whitney Cummings who wrote, directed and starred in the result. Cummings took her wry abilities from 2 Broke Girls and tempered the humor so it was more grounded and palatable.

The story revolves around 4 couples. None of whom actually feel very well suited for one another, but all of whom have fun with the script. Each couple, Sofía Veraga (Modern Family) and Deon Cole (Black-ish), James Marsden (Shock and Awe) and Lucy Punch (Vexed), Cecily Strong (Ghostbusters) and Blake Griffin, represents a different phase and challenge in relationships. It is more comedy than reality, but there are some good moments that everyone will recognize. And, of course, there is Toby Kebbell (The Hurricane Heist) for Cummings along with her sidekick Beanie Feldstein (Lady Bird) to round out the story and pull a thread through it all.

Interestingly, while it is entertaining (and even educational at times) it doesn’t feel very affirming for women. This despite the intention and focus of the original book and being created by a clearly powerful and talented woman. But for a distraction, it’s a fun evening and allows a number of its cast to try out new types of characters.

Mortal Engines

[3 stars]

Let’s start with the positive: Mortal Engines is visually stunning and inventive. The production design is wonderful. Even the tech is cleverly thought through to make it just believable enough to go with it. If this sounds like it is leading up to a Valerian-sized “but,” you’re not wrong.

First it is worth noting Robert Sheehan (Mute) has finally been given a role and direction that keeps him contained and normalish, without losing his charm and ability. Of all the actors, he fares the best because it really added to his range of work. Hera Hilmar (Da Vinci’s Demons) is fine in what should have been the more dominating lead, but she doesn’t have much to work with. And the chemistry between the two isn’t quite intense enough to sell their decisions.

And, sure, Hugo Weaving (Hacksaw Ridge), Jihae (Mars), Stephen Lang (The Girl on the Train), Ronan Raftery (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them), Peter Malahide (The Paradise), Colin Salmon (Limitless), and even newcomer Leila George all do fine, but none get to act. They are all just pawns for the script and the moving of massive set pieces and effects.

Now to focus on that huge “but.” When Peter Jackson, Philippa Boyens, and Fran Walsh, the writers and producers of Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, get behind a big steam-punk fantasy, you expect something spectacular. Instead, we get an impossibly weak script that is full of logic holes, dropped threads, bad choices, and cheap short-cuts. Worse, there are also no surprises. And I do mean none. Everything is obvious from the beginning. For the Wingnut gang to give something this big and complex to first-time director Christian Rivers, even with his years in their art department, did him no service. His direction isn’t bad, but he didn’t have the experience to see what wasn’t working and correct it. Given the messages in the story and our current times, a more experienced director could have done a lot more, even with the same bare bones to work with. They also did the movie no favor by releasing it during the holidays. It would have done much better in the spring or late summer, when the appetite and expectations would have matched it a bit more.

If you are going to see this because you’re a fan of the books or just looking for some pure popcorn escape, see it on big screen. It does deserve that scope and it won’t translate to anything smaller than a 75 inch screen at home. It is glorious to look at. It just isn’t a particularly glorious movie.

Basically, if you want to see some Jackson & co. magic this season, go see the truly amazing They Shall Not Grow Old. It may not be a genre flick, but it is much better film making.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

[4.5 stars]

Talk about an unexpected treat. This film has so much going for it: action-packed, visually inventive, well acted, clever story. Amusingly, some of these are also to its detriment, especially the visually inventive aspect. But the sum total is that it is a sure-fire hit and a near lock for the Best Animation Oscar this year, with all due respect to Incredibles 2.

The cast is loaded with talent; a list too long to completely discuss. But none really stand out either. The film is a wonderfully balanced ensemble, not a collection of star voices covered by ink. That said, Shameik Moore (Dope), as Miles Morales, in the lead keeps the story pumping along with his naivete and strength. Through him we get to experience Spidey’s origin story again (and again, and again) but without it feeling like a cheap reboot. And that’s saying something for the most rebooted storyline in current cinema (though Batman and/or Superman may exceed Spidey, now that I consider the statement).

It isn’t giving anything away to say there are other Spider people. Jake Johnson (The Mummy) and Hailee Steinfeld (The Edge of Seventeen) stand out in that crowded and entertaining field . And Morales’s extended family is top-lined by Mahershala Ali (Green Book) and Lily Tomlin (Grandma). And that’s just the beginning of the talent list. On the other side of the plot, Kathryn Hahn (Hotel Transylvania 3) and Liev Schreiber (Everything is Illuminated) bring some humor and darkness to the evil side of Spidey’s world. The rest should just be a surprise.

Phil Lord, half the team behind the unexpected hit The Lego Movie, clearly loves the material and the world of comics generally. It is in every aspect of the film. And that, in part, is what I meant by it is both a strength and a weakness. The movie literally looks like a comic, with overlayed shading dots on the surface of everything, word bubbles at times, framed action panels, and even turning pages. While visually engaging, it also kept knocking me out of the movie and the action. It was too self-conscious and never really quite allowed it to just be a movie. It was a movie-comic. That isn’t necessarily bad. Lord has succeeded in doing something directors and writers have been trying to do for decades: He’s manifested the comic book experience on the screen beautifully. Only a true lover of graphic novels could have done that. Lord borrowed and expanded his lessons on The Lego Movie very nicely.

Bottom-line is that this is an amazingly fun and funny movie. Unexpected in almost every way, even while cleaving to the tropes and stories we know, love, and expect. In Dolby Cinema it was glorious and bone-rattling (despite two rather important moments being marred by loss of sound during my showing–shame on you, AMC). Whether or not you think you like animation, this isn’t what you expect or assume. I admit, I didn’t expect this to be more than a cheap cash-grab at more of the Spidey universe, but it really is something new and wonderful for audiences of pretty much all ages above age 9.

The Miseducation of Cameron Post

[3 stars]

This is the second well-received tale of battling gay-conversion to show up this year. What that says about the concerns of the day or the acceptance of people, I’m not sure. But they are both welcome and solid films. And while there are many similarities in subject, the movies are actually very different. Normally I wouldn’t compare two films so directly, but it is almost unavoidable given the subject matter and the proximity of viewing for me.

Boy Erased was a highly focused struggle of a young man and his family among misguided people trying to “help.” It was also a true story. Miseducation is fiction about a young woman who’s been thrown away to arguably less altruistic guides, and who must fend for herself. However, the sense of both films is very real and both leads are strong in their own ways.

Part of the differences that make this movie’s approach important is that Chloë Grace Moretz (Suspiria) is responsible for saving herself. For all intents, she is alone. It allows the story to tackle the concept  of selected family over blood, and the importance of that reality in many LGBTQ lives. Her camp, while full of more freedom than the one presented in Boy Erased, is run by people who are more psychologically evil, too wrapped up in their beliefs to see those around them or any other possible truth.

Unsurprisingly, in both films, the stories pivot on inevitable traumas caused by the re-education camps. Again, the moments are different as are the responses. And here is where the films diverge in character.

Moretz is quietly, if a little unevenly, compelling in her role. The issue with her character feels like a lack of commitment and background in the script. We never really understand her and she barely responds to those around her. Some of that is character choice, but some feels like weak writing and direction by Desiree Akhavan (Appropriate Behavior) in her Sophomore outing. There are times when a little bit more heightened emotion might have helped, even if Akhavan’s ability to keep things natural was impressive.

And, in the absence of that strong center from Moretz, other characters steal the stage. One of those is Sasha Lane (Hearts Beat Loud), who shines just by walking onto screen. Even in the final moments of the story, Lane tends to pull focus from Moretz. In some ways that is a compliment to Moretz who was unconcerned about having to own the moments, but it does leave the sails a little slack throughout. Emily Skeggs (Mile 22) was another character whose energy was hard to tamp down.

Arrayed against these young adults are Jennifer Ehle (The Fundamentals of Caring) and John Gallagher Jr. (Peppermint). Gallagher is a layered and broken character, but not entirely credible. Ehle, on the other hand, provides the driving energy for the camp and is, sadly, all too believable but her layers are only implied, which was a shame.

Overall, Miseducation arrives with a strong judgement of its characters from the outset, which makes it a little weaker than Boy Erased. I’m not speaking about the point of view so much as the willingness to make all people human, despite their beliefs. Miseducation is still effective at what it intends, and it is certainly worth your time. Also, as an indicator of what the writer/director is capable of, it is an encouraging sign.

The Nun

[3 stars]

What is the difference between a legitimate sequel/prequel and a cash grab? The easiest answer is the quality of the movie. This prequel to The Conjuring series is full of surprises and nice visuals. It is creepy and relatively well performed. And, I have to admit, it had a great trailer that got me to watch the full flick. As one of its gifts to its followers, Taissa Farmiga (The Final Girls) takes over from her mother as lead in this outing. Demián Bichir (Alien: Covenant), as the travelling Vatican demon hunter, and Jonas Bloquet (Three Days to Kill) are fine as well.

Truthfully, however, no one really stands out as great. Part of the issue is the number of stupid things they do, like running alone toward danger. Director Corin Hardy (The Hallow) doesn’t even try and help the actors smooth over those moments, accepting the genre low-bar for expectations. Writer Gary Dauberman, who also penned the spin-off Annabelle series, was either rushed or simply didn’t put in the effort for the story which doesn’t quite hold together if you look at it too hard. The background ideas are engaging, but the execution is sloppy. I will grant him the humor and, rare, humanity he injects into the tale, but those moments stand out because of the story that surrounds them.

So, cash grab or not? Yeah, to my mind it is. This movie barely stands on its own. And, despite some fun moments, it is rife with bad horror tropes that make it too easy to stay ahead of dialogue or scares. If you’re a Conjuring fan, it is probably a lot of fun to see the genesis of the evil. And that’s one of the tricky parts: even knowing that it is a prequel helps give away a lot of the story, making a solid script even more necessary. As a distraction it isn’t a horrible 90 minutes, but it isn’t the first thing I’d queue up if you’re looking for an evening of chills and entertainment.

Searching

[3.5 stars]

When I’m wrong, I’m wrong. I honestly expected a really poor movie tied together with clever tricks. Instead, I got a rather good suspense/mystery that really captured a lot of how life has changed over the last 10 years or so for families. It is far from perfect and definitely gets some things very wrong, but it clips along nicely and has compelling characters.

John Cho (Gemini) gives us a father we can relate to and sympathize with, even as you want to occasionally slap him. But his hyperfocus and obstinance are necessary elements to drive the tale. Debra Messing (Like Sunday, Like Rain) surprised me as a very down-to-earth detective. She is very much in control, but not unemotional. It is a very different role for her, but one which she delivers on nicely.

First time feature director and co-writer Aneesh Chaganty made quite a splash with this low-budget thriller. There was lots of buzz about it as it over-performed in release, but I still felt like it would do fine on a small screen and skipped it in theater. To a degree, the result does feel familiar. 11 Cameras comes to mind, or even the more recent Disconnect. And it is timed unexpectedly well given the rise of social media as a primary source for news. However Chaganty also manages to create a driving mystery, with just enough technical wizardry to make it feel real but possible. And he gives us characters and high stakes without resorting to soap-opera like relationships.

Searching is a surprising film, if only because you just don’t expect it to be so engaging. The 100 minute ride is tight from beginning to end. I’m definitely curious to see what Chaganty delivers next. Meantime, for a good distraction, pop this one in or, more appropriately, stream it and enjoy.

Doctor Who (series 11)

[4 stars]

Beyond the series bringing us back to the sciencey end of the spectrum, it sets a new milestone with the first female Doctor in Jodie Whittaker (Venus, St. Trinian’s). Amusingly, and fittingly, that the Doctor is a woman really has no appreciable impact, at least no more than any new Doctor would. Whittaker has a good sense of the character historically and in energy. She is fun to watch, even if the series is slow to reveal her own particularly sensibilities and approach. In fact, a lot of the season is spent dealing instead with the new companions. With their three, overlapping stories, we lost time focused on the Doctor herself till well into the sequence.

Before the series kick-off, I rewatched the bittersweet finale of series 10 and Capaldi. It is a brilliant end to the cycle and Moffat’s vision. I didn’t always like his choices, but he pulled it together for his final go-round before Chibnall (The Great Train Robbery, Broadchurch, Torchwood) stepped in. With his arrival there has been a definite shift in sensibility. The show has returned to the darker and more of a science fiction feel. I, personally, prefer that mode of Doctor Who. It was always science-fantasy, but it was never really just fantasy. Moffat, by his own admission, disagreed with that and always pushed for the pure fantasy end of the spectrum. Forgetting his struggles with building seasonal arcs, it was that aspect of the last several years that tended to drive me bonkers.

As a whole, the series is fast paced and more political than in the past. There is much social commentary, but also lots of high adventure and humor. The individual episodes feel somewhat rushed and breathless, but definitely entertaining. I expect I’ll pick up more on rewatching some of them.  And there is a complete arc holding it all together, which builds on the efforts the new Who has had in play since it rebooted in 2005.  For Chibnall first season, it isn’t a bad indication of things to come and things to build on. My hope is that he’ll learn how to let the show breathe a bit more. The 10 episodes went by extremely quickly. The focus on the companions more than the Doctor herself also needs to shift a little so we understand and root for the Doctor more. She’s a bit mercurial during this introductory series; hard to pin down and sympathize with.

And now, as has been my tradition, an ep by ep set of responses, done as they were aired, to help keep me honest and to see how the series built.

Episode by Episode (with some spoilers)

The Woman Who Fell to Earth
Jodie Whittaker comes in with all the bravado and confidence you could have hoped for. The switch in gender is certainly commented upon, but hardly an issue. Who drives forward business-as-usual, as it should. This opener is an odd episode in that it breaks from tradition for the opening and it feels less like the Doctor finding his new crew than it does just an interesting story with that aspect eventually taking over. It may also be indicative of what’s to come as this opening show’s ending, much like its Christmas tale lead-in, is a cliff-hanger rather than a resolution. Of course, Twice Upon a Time left a lot of threads to clean up, so I’m glad Chibnall didn’t try to resolve them all in a rushed initial episode.

The Ghost Monument
Really, this is part 2 of the series opening. And it is a good one. Whittaker is really coming into her own and her posse is coming together. The delightful addition of Susan Lynch (Killing Eve) and Shaun Dooley (Misfits) to carry the storyline was great fun. Now that stuff is established, I’m ready for things to start happening (though a clear series arc has begun to form) from a Who point of view. Up till now, things are occurring, but are there as backdrop for the Doctor to get her feet under her. That’s fine, but I’m ready now so, allons-y!

Rosa
A powerful and powerfully told story that resonated nicely with today. Though clearly with an agenda, it wasn’t overly preachy and with some solid impact. On a Doctor level, however, I’m ready to start to get to know the Whittaker Doctor better. She’s quick witted, but unlike previous versions, we aren’t really getting a sense of her yet, only a delightful patter and set of wins. I want to see what’s beneath the surface, not just hear about it. Still very much enjoying the season, but it’s time to get real with it since there are only 7 left to go.

Arachnids in the UK
This episode riffs on a number of classic and reboot Who. From the classic side we have the coal mine refuse causing havoc with the bug life (remember those maggots?). And from the new Who we have the turning point for the companions, who have to shift from being pulled into the circle of the Doctor to making a choice to be there. What we don’t have yet is enough of the Doctor herself. She’s active and entertaining, and clearly we’re leading to something, but I’m a bit weary of the “I’m still figuring myself out” thing that is continuing. Jump in and commit already! As a story, this one made my skin crawl nicely and did expose some emotional cores of the characters. It also got to take some very unveiled swipes at the US with Chris Noth as a reflected stand-in for Trump. I still really enjoy the sensibility of this new season, but I want to get to the meat now. I can feel it building, but not with the same sense of tension and fun that Davies managed in his first sequence of the reboot. I may yet revisit that statement when it is all said and done, but this is purposefully a running log, not a recap. I want to track how it works as it unfolds. And, so far, it is working ep to ep, but not quite coming together for me as a series.

The Tsuranga Conundrum
In some ways, this is the weakest of the series so far, despite being another Chibnall episode. It has a lot of action and some nice emotional lines for the side characters, but the monster in play isn’t realistic (and folks seem to know far too little about it despite having more than enough data to have gotten to the solution before the Doctor). Also, again, we’re not seeing a lot about the Doctor herself. It all feels very surfacey so far. Well executed. Entertaining. Just not feeling like a full meal yet. I expect that the main arc will reassert starting with the next episode. This was a hard left for the series as a whole with a new show runner, a new (and newly gendered) Doctor and crew. It needs some time to get its feet. I’m not disappointed, just not quite sated yet.

Demons of the Punjab
What has become clear this series is that the focus is very much on the companions, even more so than the Doctor. However, with this episode we’re starting to get a little more of who she is. We’ve yet to have a story the focuses explicitly on her and we’ve yet to see the main arc come back, after two early hints, but things are coming together. Another aspect that is coming clear is that Chibnall is not afraid to reflect the current world in politics or comment on what is going on. Who has always had social commentary, but Chibnall has stepped it up a notch and made it a little more pointed. Tackling Partition was certainly brave…taking it on in such a personal way was inspired.

Keblam!
A clever and fun respite as the trajectory of the series bends toward finale. It is pretty much a standalone (or appears so), but with the focus, finally, mostly on the Doctor. Ultimately enjoyable, even though I got somewhat ahead of it (in the hope that they were going to go the interesting way). It was surprisingly devoid of strong emotion, however, even with a couple of really painful moments. It tried to make up for that with the show close and the reaction of main bad guy, but still was surprising. Curious to see where the last three eps. take us.

The Witchfinders
This season continues to beat the political drum loudly, and I’m all for it as Chibnall is using history to reflect on current issues. In this case, it is more subtle than Rosa was earlier in the run. The episode itself interesting and fun, if a little forced in the clues and resolution (which is about as hand-wavy as you can get). But we are starting to see more about this Doctor and that is welcome. This had a very stand-alone feel to it, so I’m guessing this is the breath before the wind up to a finale (2 eps left, plus the New Year’s show which replaces the traditional xmas day episode).  At least I’m hoping so. There was clearly an arc being built at the top of the series, but we’ve not seen it built on much.

It Takes You Away
Some nice emotional work in this episode. And some additions to the Who canon as well. This is a fast-paced tale with some nice twists, and a few shortcuts. It isn’t brilliant Who, but it is inventive and full of some great asides by several of the characters. It also has begun to bend the arc back to the beginning of this series, which is necessary given the proximity of the finale. It’s been a good ride getting here, but it isn’t feeling like a cohesive whole yet. There is lots of character work and some big milestones, but the shape is a little amorphous and Whittaker is still a little vague as a character, ceding focus to the companions a bit too much in my opinion. However, I still feel like it is headed somewhere, so willing to have faith. Even if I end up unfulfilled on that point, it has been a fun season and a fairly smooth transition of Doctors and show-runners.

The Battle of Ranskoor Av Kolos
Wow, that was a fast season, but it definitely came full-circle, as expected. I’m not sure I felt as much a sense of completion as I’d have liked. The main arc was hard to hold onto and respond to since it didn’t get echoed quite enough to keep it fresh for me, even with the previous episode refreshing our memory of it, and Grace in particular. Still, a rich and complex story with a nice part for Mark Addy (Oasis, Game of Thrones) and button for the Tardis crew. I’d have liked something that felt like it came to more of a plateau, but it isn’t without a bit of bittersweet joy and an indication of new directions for the extended family in the blue box.

The Wife

[5 stars]

It is rare to find a near-perfect movie, from the acting to the writing to the directing. The Wife is in that category and you need to see it.

First and foremost, it is brilliantly acted by Glenn Close (Crooked House). Close dominates this film but for a single scene where, by design, Elizabeth McGovern (The Commuter) takes over. Jonathan Pryce (Breaking Glass, Game of Thrones) manages the tricky job of being at the center of the on-screen action, but ceding the focus to Closes’s title character. All around the couple are a host of well cast supporting players. Even the petulant portrayal of the son by Max Irons (Terminal) slots in wonderfully.

And while the performance alone are worth taking the time to see The Wife, that is only part of its worth and power.

Björn  Runge directed this drama wonderfully. He reminds us of what an art form the media really is. For, while Jane Anderson’s (Olive Kitteridge) script is very natural, believable, and subtle, it is Björn Runge’s direction  and choices that make it work. While the dialogue unrolls on screen, it is the small looks, the action in the background, and the slowly building tension that drive the tale, rarely the words themselves. This is a movie of almost pure subtext, delivered through visual cues and great acting. I do, however, give Anderson credit for her adaptation of a book that must have been loaded with internal dialogue and making that work on screen.

And then there is the ephemeral aspect of timing of this move that helps set it apart. Not to confuse things, this film would have been good at any time it was released. However, the themes are also pitch-perfect for the current times in ways that would have been hard to predict and which resonate in wonderful and uncomfortable ways.

Make time for The Wife so you know why you’re going to hear so much about it during awards season. Close is brilliant, a study in subtlety and determination. The movie gripping and inexorable. The results powerful. It approaches cinematic perfection in terms of craft and will leave you breathless through its inexorable and accelerating pace that picks you up and carries you along to the final punch. Now, forget all the hyperbole and just go let it do its thing on screen for you while it is out there to see.

Christopher Robin

[3 stars]

I happen to be a serious Pooh fan. One of my most treasured items from childhood was my father’s copy of Winnie the Pooh, which became mine, which I handed down to my niece. There is something magical about the easiness with which Pooh and his friends approach and survive the world and its day to day joys and disappointments. They are are a blueprint for getting through modern life.

Marc Foster (World War Z) wasn’t an obvious choice as director, though he certainly tackles more emotional material as well. While he found the characters and a sort of balance for his movie between adult and child, it never quite got to magical for me. Which isn’t to say that it doesn’t eventually get to a sweet point; but, like a local train can, it sure took its time.

Ewan McGregor (Our Kind of Traitor) hits just the right tone of father, worker, and lost soul to neither scare children nor come across as too unbelievable for adults. And, as his wife, Haley Atwell manages something similar, though she has to stay a bit more bound to the real world by design. The only other major role was Mark Gatiss ( Doctor Who: Twice Upon a Time),  who seemed to be in a different movie; something a bit more wacky than realistic. He isn’t bad, he just doesn’t fit.

Part of the challenge with the movie is the story itself, which has to set up a lot of information before it even gets going. Along with that they changed quite a bit of Milne’s history too–you cannot separate Milne’s family from Pooh easily, especially with other flicks out there like Goodbye Christopher Robin released so recently. Admittedly, this was not supposed to be about Milne, but I had a hard time separating the the intention and reality in this case.

The result is ultimately a nice, family-style adventure. Not a brilliant classic, but certainly a nice pass-time film. You can also see Disney rev’ing up to redo Mary Poppins, having stolen a good part of the main spine of that story and overlaying it here.

Inferno (1980) and Mother of Tears

[2.5 stars]

Let’s talk horror.

What makes a movie scary? Disturbing sound effects? Gore? Twisted sets? Violence? Creepy music? Dark scenes? Surprises? Sure, all of that can add to the atmosphere, but if you don’t have characters and a story to tell you might as well just make paintings with some ambient sound to accompany it. You also need to be able to identify and engage with the characters. Part of what has brought horror into the mainstream with massive blockbusters like Get Out and It is the characters we could connect with, not just the situations and the events. Even those that rely more on humor, like Cockney’s vs. Zombies and Happy Death Day, or even those that rely simply on cleverness like the Saw or Final Destination series, provide both shock and character with the laughs…but they would fail without the characters.

OK, with all that in mind let’s dive into the last two parts of The Three Mothers trilogy by horror icon Dario Artento (Suspiria).

Inferno

A lot happens in this midsection to the trilogy, but it doesn’t have any real impact. There are no characters to latch onto, no real story to tell, just exposition that explains a bit of Suspiria and what potentially may come. There are some interesting visual moments but the script is painful at times; so is the acting. It is also very much a film of its time, 1980, in look and feel.

What Inferno does do is set up an interesting framework for the bigger story of the Three Mothers…and it would take Argento another 27 years to attempt it in The Mother of Tears, but I’ll get to that shortly.

I can tell you that, as a curio, sure you can give Inferno time. Just don’t expect a good movie. Go for the splatter and the explanation. Honestly, some of that information may be in the original Suspiria, but I saw it so many years ago, I can’t recall. I can say that the remake of Suspiria certainly included some of the background supplied in Inferno.

Mother of Tears

This is probably the most polished of the trilogy. That isn’t a complete surprise as it was made in 2007, 27 years after Inferno; you’d hope that Argento had improved his abilities in that amount of time. Mother of Tears does complete the trilogy in much the way you’d expect given the previous two installments. Building on the information in Inferno, but tying it back to Suspiria, we get a suitable climax to it all. 

But no, it isn’t a wonderful film. There are moments and there are surprises (sound familiar?). There is also gratuitous violence at times, as well as story-serving violence at others. The gore gets extreme and characters, such as they exist, are sometimes just, well, stupid. In fact, the entire impetus that frees the Mother of Tears is based on actions that just wouldn’t occur. Sadly, it could have been easily worked around, but Argento simply took the easy way and decided that truth should be as damned as the world he creates.

At least some of the acting was slightly more believable than the other two films. Asia Argento isn’t brilliant in the lead, but Valéria CavalliCristian Solimeno and Adam James added some credibility to the cast (given the direction they were given). And a small role by Udo Kier (American Animals) was a gift to his fans.

Overall, am I glad I completed this sequence? Yes, but more from a filmography point of view rather than feeling entertained. My time could have been spent on better choices. I am not a huge splatter fan, but when it is done well and to a purpose, be it humor or commentary, I can get on board. Argento seems to use violence for no purpose other than to purge his own demons or simply to shock. He has his followers, and if you are one then you certainly should fill in any gaps you have in his opus. For general or casual audiences of horror, or those who prefer the more mature approach, steer clear. There is little meat on the bones and too few moments of entertainment to make it worth your effort.

Art, writing, life explained… or at least commented upon…