Popcorn (1991)

I have heard from every horror fan imaginable about the film 'POPCORN' without ever having been able to obtain and see it for myself and for many years that's how it was for many. Now having finally sat down and watched through it, did it live up to its cult status and love? Not really, but this is still a fun little gem if you've yet to hear about it. Released in 1991 to absolutely zero fanfare and considered a box office bomb at the time of release, 'Popcorn' unfortunately came after the 80's boom of slasher and horror films and people were pretty sick of them. It's even more sad considering Wes Craven's masterpiece 'Scream' would only be a few short years away however while many do call this film a slasher, it almost feels like a strange mish-mash of various horror tropes and pop culture references.

The setup is your standard fare: A group of film students at the local college decide to set up a horror movie marathon, consisting of various gimmicks and props much like the films of the mid 1950's but especially the films of William Castle (13 Ghosts, The House on Haunted Hill). During these times, going to the movies was more than taking a seat, eating some junk food, and sitting through whatever blockbuster Michael Bay vomits out. That's not to say the films of that time were good, in fact they were cheese all the way, but it was these fun little gimmicks that made them memorable far beyond the silver screen. Castle would implement all kinds of fun stunts at his shows, ranging from flying skeletons to shocking audience members in their seats and 'Popcorn' takes these memorable moments in film history and makes them into a fun tribute.

The three films within films shown are the highlight of the film and you almost forget that you're watching a slasher flick. 'Mosquito' features cheesy death effects, 3D glasses, and a flying Mosquito prop chasing the audience around. 'The Incredible Electrifying Man' features Crispin Glover's brother as a death row inmate who shocks his victims leading to the chairs in the audience getting the same. Finally, the Japanese horror 'The Stench' has various stink bombs flooding the theater. I wish movie going was still like this, I'd never want to leave the theater. After all that praise however, when it comes to the final product of 'Popcorn' itself, the film is a mess when it gets down to the slashing.

For one, the filmmakers behind it were not really going for a slasher in the first place but rather a more traditional and loving tribute to the days of old, a idea better implemented later with Joe Dante's 'MATINEE'. In all honesty, I don't really understand what they were trying to accomplish here, since you hear in the documentary included with this Blu-Ray set that they had intended for a PG-13 film if not for the MPAA's insistence that the film was 'Too Intense'. That's funny when considering that there's absolutely NO blood in this entire flick. For someone who was expecting a slasher film and not getting that, you instinctively will be pretty bummed like I was the first time. The story of a killer attacking others in the theater is not a bad idea in itself, but here it feels distracting in comparison to the other scenes with the audience enjoying the corny B-Movies and that's not what you want in a movie.

Is 'Popcorn' worth watching though? Yes, especially if you enjoy old B-Movies like myself but I really want people to know what exactly they're getting into, because the film's marketing and everybody who told me about it sure as hell didn't. Know that you're going into a bland and standard slasher plot, but the film festival itself is what will keep you from turning it off. 'Popcorn' has a lot of problems and it's hard from high-art even in the horror genre but it's still something that needs to be seen at least once.

( C- )

The Mummy (2017)

'The Mummy' uses the famous quote from 1932's 'Bride of Frankenstein' as its tagline, although if this latest incarnation of the monster classic is what Universal considers 'A New World of Gods & Monsters' then we are in for a very grim world indeed. Those who know me have already heard my cries of anger since the announcement of a 'Dark Universe' in which the classic monsters will basically be reduced to a cash in to the current superhero trend so I will skip that for the most part. The story tells of Nick (Tom Cruise) who is a thief that just happens to stumble upon what he thinks is a major pay day only to unleash the ancient evil mummy Ahmanet (Sophia Boutella) and now must work with Dr. Henry Jekyll and his special unit known as S.H.I.E.L.D...I mean the Prodigium. And the rest of the surprisingly short film is all padding and set ups for a future line up of films that may or may not even come to be if this film doesn't scrounge up enough box office dough.

'The Mummy' is a film I like to use as an example in recent film arguments that I call 'Film ADHD'. When Marvel Comics began it's cinematic universe back in 2008, it began a huge phenomenon that I doubt even those in the business could have predicted and naturally everyone wanted in on the success. Since then, we've had DC barely able to catch up with its own works (with 'Wonder Woman' being the only one worth a damn so far) and now we have Universal's 'Dark Universe' and like DC's 2016 'Batman v. Superman', the studio has their focus on the future and the moolah rather than focusing on the task and films at hand. In fact, everything about 'The Mummy' feels jumbled and confusing. The film's screenplay was written by at least four that I know of which naturally results in a confusing story and bland and forgetful characters.

Amazingly, the film looks like it was shot on the cheap as well. We get some really mundane and generic cinematography or those typical shots you'd see in a summer blockbuster film such as this. According to the producers, this is supposed to be one of the higher budgeted films in this so-called universe too, which makes me cringe at what horrible looking sequels they can come up with later. If there is one saving grace to 'The Mummy', it would have to be the cast. Tom Cruise is fine, doing what he usually does and does it well but he's just never been for me personally. Sophia Boutella as the Princess Ahmanet is really good actually and her performance is by far the most interesting to watch. Finally, there's Russel Crowe's Dr. Jekyll who was in the film more than I thought but he does his job well too. His introduction here is to set up the later movies, but with such an important role like this why is he only in the middle half of the film?

That's one of the biggest issues I had with the movie, why does it set up without any kind of payoff whatsoever? Not even the scenes of exposition really work all that well, and we don't even get a nice post-credits scene to set something up or give us horror fans a fun Easter egg to leave on a high with. 'The Mummy' was sadly everything I predicted it would be, and that's not a good thing. The film is a horrible mess that should have stayed buried and the film devoured by Scarab Beetles. This is Universal Pictures' legacy now: mediocre rehashes of the very films that stood as pillars to the studios' very foundation. Carl Laemmle would be ashamed of what his studio has become and its beloved monsters. Skip this film at all costs, and see 'It Comes At Night' or even watch your old copy of 1999's 'Mummy' remake. You'll be better off.

( D- )