Sister Yulia’s belly isn’t the first cinematic womb to hold demonic potential.

The key character in “Deliver Us” offers a neat twist on the horror trope. Sister Yulia has not one but two babies on board, and one may be evil incarnate.

Damien, call your agent!

The spiritual shocker serves up a sly twist to the “Omen” template, and it does so with all the bells and whistles of modern horror fare.

• Strong performances
• Chilling production design
• Ominous sounds filling the screen

“Deliver Us” never achieves a full boil, but the elements prove more than enough to recommend it.

Father Fox (Lee Roy Kunz, the co-writer and co-director) is summoned to visit a Russian nun with a curious claim. Sister Yulia (Maria Vera Ratti) says she conceived twins by immaculate conception, but given her struggles with mental illness those claims seem dubious at best.

Plus, she insists the babies are no mere mortals. One is the Antichrist, while the other is the Messiah.

Father Fox is a curious choice for the assignment. He’s fallen in love and is essentially on his way out of the priesthood and into the arms of his pregnant girlfriend (Jaune Kimmel).

Sister Yulia demands his presence, tying into the film’s collection of spiritual prophecies. Was this birth predicted many years ago? How does one character’s art collection tie into the big picture? And why do we shudder whenever a one-eyed priest (an ominous Thomas Kretschmann) enters the frame?

“Deliver Us” starts with enough old-school gore to make Art the Clown blush. The film’s overall aesthetic isn’t torture-porn adjacent, but when the narrative calls for it, the filmmakers don’t skimp on the body horror.

One good. One evil. @MagnoliaPics The mind-bending new horror film #DeliverUs is available everywhere September 29th https://t.co/gQdn0LB1ia pic.twitter.com/itglkt5aMn

— Lee Roy Kunz (@leeroykunz) September 22, 2023

Kunz and co-director Cru Ennis toy with dream sequences that double as cheap scares, but we there’s more to these moments than we suspect. The duo otherwise turns ordinary elements into nightmare factories, like the way they shoot long corridors, investing them with a supernatural patina.

The story, which begins with an audacious prologue, slows mid-film but finds its footing when the due date approaches.

The film’s most audacious element isn’t its shocking slabs of gore, but an abortion angle sure to anger some and lead to feisty, post-film debates.

Kunz’s character has plenty on his plate before meeting Sister Yulia and her complicated motherhood plans. He’s eager to explore his personal faith beyond the boundaries of the church, one reason he accepts a final assignment from his superiors.

Stalwart character actor Alexander Siddig classes things up as Cardinal Russo, a man torn between prophecy and tending to the single mother’s brood.

RELATED: WHY HORROR MOVIES ARE HAVING A MOMENT

Some subplots cry out for more depth. For example, Father Fox’s beloved runs a small but profitable factory, a company under fire as Sister Yulia’s babies near their birth date. We’re also told society is starting to unravel, an element suggesting, at least for once, that a longer running time wouldn’t hurt.

“Deliver Us” circles back to some “Omen”-esque themes about good, evil and the measures mankind might take to stop the latter from entering the human realm. The screenplay doesn’t belabor the point, nor does the story insult the faithful or diminish its place on this mortal coil.

Nuance abounds, and even characters you suspect offer a one-dimensional morality may surprise you.

HiT or Miss: “Deliver Us” loses narrative momentum mid-film, but a strong cast and powerful themes keep us engaged through the intriguing final act.

The post How ‘Deliver Us’ Puts Fresh Spin on Film’s Demonic Baby Boom appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Eve Hewson is no longer “Bono’s daughter.”

The actress’ bravura turn in “Flora and Son,” the latest musical drama from director John Carney (“Begin Again”), should squash any “nepo baby” cries.

Permanently.

Hewson’s emotionally bruised character shows how music can heal in ways nothing else can. It’s a recurring theme in Carney’s work, dating back to his 2007 masterpiece, “Once.”

Sadly, “Flora and Son” is the weakest of his musically-charged films to date, but it’s still a warm, winning look at life’s uncertain melodies.

Hewson plays the title character, a single Ma with a wayward son named Max (Orén Kinlan). He’s sullen and cranky, and he keeps getting arrested for minor crimes around their Dublin neighborhood.

Flora impulsively buys Max a guitar to give him something to focus on besides his budding crime career. He rejects the gift, convincing her to take a few lessons on her own.

After all, her ex Ian (Jack Reynor, “Sing Street”) is a musician. Why not her?

Flora hires an L.A.-based musician named Jeff (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) to teach her via a Zoom-like connection. Their sessions turn into a series of awkward dates, with chord progressions giving way to personal confessions.

Meanwhile, young Max is making music on his own terms, hopefully to woo the heart of a local teen. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Apple Films (@applefilms)

Carney’s knack for weaving music into the rhythms of modern life remains near-perfect. His films makes us want to grab a paper and pen and start jotting down potential song lyrics.

He makes music accessible, and the hunger to create after seeing his films is almost impossible to resist. It’s a dizzying effect and one reason “Flora and Son” wins us over.

Hewson takes over from there.

The actress turns a potentially off-putting character into someone real and vulnerable. Flora’s first reaction to men is often sexual, and she’s combustible with friends and strangers alike. The film opens with an awkward one-night stand, and the minute she makes a connection with Jeff she turns on the sex appeal in a wildly inappropriate manner.

Why?

Carney’s screenplay isn’t always sure.

Apple TV+ Flora and Son (2023) musical comedy-drama film with Eve Hewson, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Oren Kinlan | Soundtrack by Gary Clark, John Carney and Flora and Son Casthttps://t.co/5SLl4Diyjd#FloraAndSon #soundtrack #AppleTV #musical #ST

— Soundtrack Tracklist (@tracklistOST) September 19, 2023

Flora had Max at a tender age, and her life revolves around motherhood. She’d do anything for the lad, but she’s also wondering what life has in store for her. What about her needs, her dreams?

Her exchanges with Jeff offer some clues, and the filmmaker’s trick of staging their sessions as if Jeff is right next to her is a simple, but effective risk.

“Flora and Son” offers wonderful sequences, small but wise laughs and the sense that music will once again play a starring role in the finale. Yet the third act plays out in such a conventional fashion it’s as if another, less sophisticated storyteller took over.

Carney’s films marinate in hurt and heartache, and he avoids lazy sentiment at all costs. That makes Flora’s attempts to connect with Max matter. The film’s final moments feel like a quiet, but necessary betrayal of Carney’s instincts.

The director’s music background – he played with The Frames in the early 1990s – allows him to pen songs that heighten the emotional brush strokes. His songs here aren’t as memorable as in “Sing Street” or the sublime “Begin Again,” but they charge select scenes with the appropriate tones.

Now, where’s that scratch pad again?

HiT or Miss: “Flora and Son” lacks the emotional grandeur of John Carney’s best work, but his latest musical odyssey is still well worth a look.

The post Eve Hewson Radiates Star Power in ‘Flora and Son’ appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Artificial Intelligence is top of mind for just about everyone.

Hollywood fears it. Tech giants crave it. Politicians wonder how they can leverage it against their opponents.

The rest of us worry A.I. will make movies like “The Terminator” into tomorrow’s reality.

“The Creator” has something fresh to say on the subject. To reveal more could undermine the film’s essence, which makes traditional review tactics tricky. Director Gareth Edwards of “Rogue One” fame delivers a cautionary tale, all right, but audiences may not see the blinking red light coming.

Once they do, they may recoil in record numbers.

John David Washington stars as Joshua, introduced as an undercover agent in the film’s opening stages. He’s part of an effort to eliminate A.I. from the planet. A nuclear catastrophe convinced the U.S. government to take a final stand against the onslaught of A.I. robots living among us.

And they are … everywhere … at the start of the film.

The military creates a massive, floating station that seeks out, and eliminates, any signs of A.I. “life.” Joshua, still mourning the loss of his beloved wife (Gemma Chan), leads a strike force to find a weapon that could wipe out humanity.

Except the weapon walks and talks like an adorable pre-teen girl (Madeleine Yuna Voyles).

Is this an immigration parable? A warning about unchecked technology? A peek at our probable future? Here’s guessing it’s all of the above, but Edwards’ vision is uncompromising.

“The Creator” depicts a future where “simulants” walk among us, indistinguishable from humans save the empty, cone-like shape where their ears should be. The CGI is breathtaking and wildly convincing.

That goes for the rest of the production design, a flawless canvas that lets Edwards and co. do whatever they want to tell their story.

That story isn’t as mesmerizing as it appears on paper. The action sequences lack stakes or coherency, and the film’s legion of plot holes keep ripping us out of the experience.

Like, how do you sneak up on A.I.?

It’s just one of many nagging questions “The Creator” won’t address.

The film’s themes, which cannot be shared here without epic spoilers, are both nuanced and maddeningly one-dimensional. That duality does the film few favors. “The Creator” understands the depth of the human experience but too often pretends it doesn’t.

Other elements fascinate, like how easily robots integrate into modern society. It’s seamless and frightening, and our hero personifies that uneasy alliance. Joshua is missing an arm and a leg, but both are perfectly replicated by robotic parts. He’s as good as new.

Technically.

Once again, the effects here are flawless. Even better? They don’t call attention to themselves. The impression is subtle and powerful.

The great Allison Janney is wasted as Joshua’s commander, as is Marc Menchaca of “Alone” fame. “The Creator” is less invested in its human characters, and it shows.

The early sequences are the most powerful. A prologue introducing us to the robot-infested world marries 1950s-style news reels with chilling computer advancements. Our first glimpse of Washington and Chan registers as real, but we’re expected to buy everything that happens later based on that connection.

It’s just not enough.

“The Creator” has plenty in common with the “Avatar” franchise, and not just on a technical level. The visionaries behind them have a view of humanity that may send some audience members scrambling for the exits.

HiT or Miss: “The Creator” offers a brave new vision of the future, but the story stumbles too often to sell it.

The post ‘The Creator’ Has an ‘Avatar’ Problem appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Writer/director Brian Duffield paints himself into a corner in “No One Will Save You.”

And, like too many genre storytellers, he never writes his way out.

Don’t blame star Kaitlyn Dever.

The “Last Man Standing” alum delivers a powerful turn, with nary a line of dialogue, that anchors the ambitious thriller. It’s still not enough to paper over nagging questions that balloon in a stupefying third act.

And the less said about the resolution, the better.

Dever stars as Brynn, a young woman living in near isolation. She makes the most of it, crafting a mini town in her expansive home and cooking wonderful meals for one.

She hears someone entering her home one night, assuming it’s your garden-variety hood. Instead, it’s a skinny grey alien who looks like every extraterrestrial sketch we’ve seen over the past 50-odd years.

“No One Will Save You” embraces that UFO trope, but that doesn’t reduce the ick factor. The being moves and talks in ways that burrow under the audience’s skin, along with Brynn’s.

What starts as a slick spin on the home invasion thriller blossoms into something more sinister. This alien isn’t alone, and Brynn’s neighbors have already met them.

Freaky new poster for No One Will Save You, coming to Hulu this Friday. Artist: @cmloweART pic.twitter.com/xUcQdKCo2J

— Bloody Disgusting (@BDisgusting) September 19, 2023

Duffield fleshes out Brynn’s back story slowly, ensuring it’s a critical part of the narrative. Dever does the rest, imbuing every scene with a grittiness that few genre actors can match.

It’s hard to imagine what “No One Will Save You” would be like without her.

Still, the story has to go somewhere, and the deeper into the invasion we go it becomes clear Duffield of “Spontaneous” fame has his work cut out for him.

A smaller-scale thriller might have worked out the story knots. Instead, the film takes some head-scratching turns that actually ratchet down the tension. We’re finally told the secrets behind Brynn’s solitude, but they arrive too late and make little difference in the big picture.

Alien invasions dwarf personal tragedies. Sorry.

Duffield delivers some strong individual scares, suggesting a major talent is at work. The film’s sound design more than makes up for the dearth of dialogue, and Dever registers a fear that’s both relatable and genre friendly.

We’d be scared, too, in her shoes.

FAST FACT: A young Kaitlyn Dever spent all of one month in Los Angeles before snagging the first role for which she ever auditioned. She’s also been home-schooled since the fourth grade.  

Brynn is no Mary Sue, but a resourceful young woman scrambling to live another day. She escapes one pickle after another, but eventually we see the screenplay’s strings in the process.

“No One Will Save You” wraps with a tonal compromise that won’t leave anyone satisfied. That leaves us mulling too many plot contrivances for a story that could have been a stunner with a serious rewrite.

HiT or Miss: “No One Will Save You” offers a brilliant turn by Kaitlyn Dever but can’t live up to its potential.

The post ‘No One Will Save You’ Crumbles at Worst Possible Time appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

It’s impossible to hate a movie about immigrants embracing the American dream.

Even “Flamin’ Hot,” which turned the “inspired by a true story” phrase upside down, showcased the hustle and heart it takes to fulfill this country’s promise.

“A Million Miles Away” falls squarely in this genre, and the character in question actually did what the movie suggests (phew!). Jose Hernandez left Earth for space, fulfilling a lifetime dream against every odd you can imagine.

What starts with cliches and hokum slowly gives way to something profound. This isn’t just an immigrant’s success story. It’s a tribute to marriage.

Young Jose Hernandez (Juan Pablo Monterrubio) bounces from field to field with his migrant family members. It’s the late 1960s, and Mexicans like Jose work the crops that find their way to dinner tables nationwide.

It’s back-breaking labor, but the Hernandez clan does it without complaint. They have little choice.

Money is scarce and so, too, is opportunity. The lad can’t help dreaming big, and his loyal teacher (Michelle Krusiec) sees something special in the boy as his gaze reaches for the stars.

Awwwwww.

Except these opening sequences feel so familiar, so mechanical, that we’re left thinking we’ve stumbled into an old-school, made-for-television film.

New episode with Rick Telles on his new Amazon Prime film documenting the life of NASA astronaut José Hernández starring Michael Peña called "A Million Miles Away," General Hospital, Rick Springfield, MTV Road Rules, VH1 Surreal Life, and so much more… https://t.co/EWfJIv0ybx pic.twitter.com/6ohNW8ZsXf

— Scott Williams (@scottwilliamsib) September 8, 2023

The story gets a bounce when we flash forward 15 or so years. Jose is now a young man, played by a 47-year-old Michael Pena. At least “Private Parts” had Howard Stern directly address why a 40-something actor was playing a college student.

Here, we wince watching Pena pretend to be young without de-aging or other screen tics. It doesn’t help that Jose’s on-screen parents appear untouched by the years.

Huh?

We also see a clueless white person assume Jose is a janitor, not an engineer, even though the young man is perfectly dressed and wears a tie. How many janitors show up to work looking like that?

Woke Alert! 

“Million” comes to life the minute Jose meets Adela (Rose Salazar), a car salesperson who connects with the shy engineer. Their courtship is so old school it hurts, but Jose refuses to let anything get in the way of their romance.

Jose still has dreams of soaring above the earth, and it may take a miracle for that to happen.

Few films capture the sacrifice and wonder of marriage quite like “A Million Miles Away.” It’s not about infidelity or fights over too many late night poker games. They’re a unit, a couple juggling parenting responsibliies and their dueling dreams.

The film treats Adela’s restaurant dreams as background fodder, which is a mistake. What’s far richer is how she isn’t treated like “The Wife” but an integral part of Jose’s story. We expect Pena to bring something special to a film like this.

Salazar is more than his match here.

The actors have a wonderful, lived-in chemistry that’s hard to reproduce. The screenplay takes their marriage, and the various challenges, seriously. That gives dramatic heft to Jose’s quest to reach the stars, knowing it won’t matter if he comes home to a broken marriage.

“A Million Miles Away” doesn’t shy away from film formulas, but in treating the elements beyond Jose’s space dreams with the gravity they deserve, the biopic rises above the competition.

HiT or Miss: “A Million Miles Away” takes time to warm up, but when it does it’s a poignant ode to the power of dreams and the institution of marriage.

The post ‘A Million Miles Away’ is the Marriage Mash Note We Needed appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Hercule Poirot has an almost supernatural knack for solving murders.

That makes “A Haunting in Venice” a natural extension of the character’s old-school universe.

“Venice,” adapted from Agatha Christie’s “Hallowe’en Party,” offers a horrific twist on the genre, and it’s more than an agreeable fit. Murders abound, as do things that go bump in the night. It’s all orchestrated with aplomb by star/director Kenneth Branagh.

Poirot’s gargantuan mustache has been downgraded, but there’s nothing small about the pleasures in Branagh’s third outing as the celebrated sleuth.

Our mustachioed hero has settled into a cozy, if lonely, retirement in Italy as the story opens. No more murder mysteries for him. It’s about leisure, first and foremost.

His tranquility gets a nudge from an old friend.

Ariadne, a mystery author played by Tina Fey, wants her old pal to debunk a local mystic who holds phony seances to trick the locals.

Or so she assumes.

Could this mystic, played with a detached air by Michelle Yeoh, actually hold the key to the afterlife? Will Hercule find himself drawn back to his particular set of skills? And what happens when a dead body inevitably appears?

Hercule’s arrival means someone won’t live to see the final credits.

We’ll share no more but know that Branagh’s Hercule remains a deliciously droll figure unlike any on screens today. He’s smart but self-aware, a touch arrogant but with a nagging sense for the common man.

Ariadne has his number, and their banter may be the film’s sublime selling point. Michael Green’s screenplay isn’t brilliant, but it’s wise and clever when the scenes demand it. That could be with the Hercule-Ariadne playful bickering or the sense that this particular mystery will test even Hercule’s considerable talents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by 20th Century Studios (@20thcenturystudios)

“Venice” could use some more star power. Maybe we’ve been spoiled by “Death on the Nile” and “Murder on the Orient Express,” but another larger-than-life player could have spiked the cinematic punch.

Jamie Dornan plays a widower trying to care for his precocious son, but his morose presence weighs down some of the fun. Dornan’s character suffers from PTSD, as does Hercule, a subplot that does add gravitas to a nimble mystery.

You won’t solve the puzzle in play, and when Hercule starts putting the pieces together you’ll marvel at the script’s ingenuity.

What sets “Venice” apart is the production design and cinematography. Branagh’s vision is so knowing, so keenly aware of the genres he’s combining that even the quietest scenes hum with vitality.

This film is gorgeous to behold, like a haunted house where no expense is spared to leave visitors unmoored.

The new Hercule Poirot films are a minor miracle in today’s Hollywood. They’re neither splashy nor rushed, and they take great care to tell old-fashioned stories the old-fashioned way.

Long may Branagh’s Hercule reign.

HiT or Miss: “A Haunting in Venice” lacks the star power of previous Kenneth Branagh mysteries, but it’s still a jolly good time.

The post Branagh’s ‘Haunting in Venice’ Offers a Spooky Good Time appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

We didn’t need a third helping of the “Big Fat Greek Wedding” franchise.

Series star and creative force Nia Vardalos doesn’t argue otherwise. Her third film in the saga, which she wrote and directed, is another excuse to celebrate Greek culture and share mini-stories from the Portokalos clan.

Your appetite for the threequel depends on a willingness to accept sub-sitcom gags and plot developments with little heft or gravitas.

The threequel opens with the family’s aging matriarch (Lanie Kazan) detailing the film’s plot. Toula (Vardalos) and her brood must jet to Greece so they can share the patriarch’s journal with his childhood friends.

Kazan’s character literally says this out loud.

So off they go, visiting the land where Papa Gus (the late Michael Constantine) once roamed, eager to fulfill his dying wish.

Except the story isn’t laser focused on that plotline. Instead, we’re treated to lighter-than-air subplots which often resolve themselves in minutes.

• Will Toula’s daughter Paris (Elena Kampouris) rekindle her interest in an old flame?
• Can Uncle Nick (Louis Mandylor) trim his body hair and nails in every room of the vacation house?
• Will we see someone break out the Windex bottle, again?

Running gags abound, and while none overstay their welcome they don’t draw many laughs the first time around. The humor here is obvious, broad and inconsequential. The original film, as corny as it was warm, delivered big belly laughs.

The franchise no longer even tries to match that feat.

The Greek vistas are wonderful and for some worth the price of admission. Still, the country has been showcased to greater effect in other films – even 2020’s “The Trip to Greece.”

Vardalos’ direction is perfectly suited to the material … and that’s neither a compliment nor a dig.  her on-screen husband John Corbett looks either distracted or bored at times, as if he got the reunion invite but wasn’t sure what to make of it.

We also get endless hugs, cute nods to Greek culture and the biggest question of all. If the extended brood loves Greece so much, why did it take three movies to visit the actual country?

Andrea Martin does what she can to steal her scenes as Aunt Voula, but the screenplay does her few favors.

A few moments connect, like Toula and Nick discussing who should be the “head” of the family now that their father is gone. It’s a moment the actors sell with quiet dignity.

The film offers a soupcon of woke in the form of Victory (Melina Kotselou), the Greek town’s mayor who happens to be non-binary. The script, again, screams its intentions during one clunky sequence. That’s where the woke starts and happily stops.

It’s hard to get grumpy about a generic sequel like this third “Wedding.” The cast is having a blast and the sense of camaraderie is profound. Plus, it’s still rare for a mainstream comedy to toast Greek culture nearly 20 years after the first “Wedding” rocked Hollywood.

HiT or Miss: “My Big Fat Greek Wedding 3” offers another round of amiable chaos from Toula and company, an agreeable tale that’s impossible to hate but easy to forget.

The post ‘My Big Fat Greek Wedding 3’ Offers Less of the Same appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

When was the last time a movie shocked you?

We’re not talking about a torrent of blood and guts, or the umpteenth improbable plot twist. Imagine a scene that completely catches the viewer off guard.

We get such a moment in the Scandinavian import “Good Boy,” one of the year’s nastiest surprises. The less said about the story, the better, but just know it touches on dating mores, cultural upheaval and, of course, the oldest canard in the dating handbook.

Must love dogs.

Sigrid (Katrine Lovise Øpstad Fredriksen) just wants to meet a nice man, and she thinks she struck gold with Christian (Gard Løkke). He’s tall, handsome, a whiz in the kitchen and, as she learns later, obscenely rich.

There’s just one catch (and there always is, right?).

Christian lives with a grown man who pretends to be a dog named Frank. Yes, Frank wears a furry blue/gray dog costume complete with a snout. It’s not remotely convincing, but his constant panting and fidelity to the part sure is.

Deal breaker you say? Not to Sigrid, who is a bit of a mess but desperate to be open to any new experience. The film’s commentary on dating tropes and our collective tolerance is delicious and understated.

Sigrid pushes forward, spending more time with Christian and even scratching Frank behind his fake ears.

At this point, we crave more information about the Christian-Frank dynamic, which is why the plot summary portion of this review is officially over.

Just know first-time filmmaker Scandinavian filmmaker Viljar Bøe tells his story with maximum efficiency while letting the key players reveal themselves in tantalizing bursts.

Sigrid is always late, spends too much time on her phone and isn’t sure where her studies will take her. She’s still a kind, soul open to almost anything.

That trait will come in handy.

Christian is a control freak, but there’s a sadness to his immaculate exterior. It may explain his unique living arrangement.

“Good Boy” unleashes its surprise mid-movie, turning a tightly coiled curiosity into a profoundly entertaining affair.

There’s a catch here, too.

Twisted Scandinavian Horror GOOD BOY, premiering at @FrightFest ahead of it's UK Digital release.. https://t.co/of1zocqQl6 pic.twitter.com/iBxIreMPYh

— Simon (Dark Angel) (@RealmofHorror) August 16, 2023

The film’s third act requires an extreme suspension of disbelief, but if you consider the surreal setup it doesn’t take much effort. It’s far easier to get lost in the story, one that feels vibrant and open to interpretation.

Is this a commentary on the male/female dating dynamic? Our willingness to accept almost any cultural deviation for fear of being labeled a hater, or worse? Does “Good Boy” slay the PatriarchyTM far better than “Barbie” ever could?

It’s hard to get “Good Boy” out of your head. Even better? It’s impossible to look away once Frank enters the frame.

HiT or Miss: “Good Boy” brims with meaty topics, all wrapped in a brisk, 80-minute tear.

The post Why ‘Good Boy’ Does What Few Films Can appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Joseph Ruben’s “The Good Son” (1993) gives us mixed feelings right from the start.

The opening credits’ font and Elmer Bernstein’s score suggest a tender family drama, akin to “My Girl” (1992), both of which star Macauley Culkin. The twist is that, whereas Culkin became a massive star from the PG-rated mega-blockbuster “Home Alone” (1990), and “My Girl” is best remembered for the shocking tragedy surrounding his onscreen character, “The Good Son” was something else altogether.

Ruben’s film was famous for positioning Culkin, among the biggest and youngest movie stars in the world, in the lead of an R-rated psychological thriller where he would play a 1990’s variant on “The Omen” (1976).

Understandably, lots of kids attended the film’s opening weekend and were horrified that their star was murdering people on screen, as opposed to setting up wacky/ghastly traps for the deserving Wet Bandits.

Film periodicals reported that Culkin was receiving a giant paycheck to star in “The Good Son,” but also that the film was a part of family deal making, as the star’s father wouldn’t allow his son to make another commercial vehicle (the second “Home Alone”) without stretching in a non-comic role.

Hence, here’s Culkin, acting alongside Elijah Wood and failing to keep the would-be Hobbit from stealing his big dramatic movie from him.

Wood plays Mike, whose mother has passed and is sent to stay with his cousin Henry (Culkin), who needs a friend and a partner for the havoc he’s about to unleash on his household.

Even the poster felt like a bad call, with a tight picture of a smiling Culkin, under a tagline that read “Evil Has Many Faces.” Informing your audience that you’re not supposed to like the most endearing child star of his generation seemed like a stretch.

The Good Son. This movie traumatized me as a kid because I loved Macaulay Culkin after Home Alone. Plus it’s not like he’s supernatural evil, he’s just regular person evil in a kid. pic.twitter.com/LsWcrne6di

— Shoshana Kessock (@ShoshanaKessock) June 1, 2023

Culkin’s introductory scene, where he emerges wearing a mask not out of place in David Lynch’s “Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me” (1992), poses a problem; is he too cute to be playing such an evil character or is the character too evil for an actor so cute?

Coming only a year after “Home Alone 2: Lost in New York” (1992), this far-too-early career stretch for Culkin fascinates in its unsteady attempts to embrace the darkness of the story.

Wood carries the film, and the premise is lean and direct enough to provide for entertaining trash. The problem is that it’s Wood who provides the film’s center, and not Culkin’s look-how-bad-I-am turn, that powers the movie.

Culkin’s self-aware line readings were funny in “Uncle Buck” (1989) and “Home Alone” but come across as amateurish here. Perhaps he and Wood should have swapped roles. Culkin has some good moments, but his self-conscious acting is a stark contrast to the always believable Wood.

Ruben is a good director, but he nailed this kind of material in “The Stepfather” (1987), which also sported a perversely riveting concept (based on a horrific true story) and was anchored by Terry O’Quinn’s unforgettable performance.

Too light for horror movie fans and too sick for children, “The Good Son” has none of the bite of the Damien Thorn films (any of them) and can’t hold a candle to latter like “Joshua” (2007), the best version of this genre of movie.

Macaulay Culkin and Elijah Wood on the set of the movie The Good Son. 1993 [1200×941] pic.twitter.com/HstPixXPXt

— Historyland (@HistoryIand) August 22, 2023

“The Bad Seed” (1956) is cited as a key in this subgenre, but Ruben’s film wants to go all-in and embrace the madness of “Bloody Birthday” (1981) and “The Children” (1980) but keeps pulling back.

There is social commentary and parental reflection to gauge within these types of movies, but the story’s twisted potential is softened by an overly safe approach.

It’s a weird experience watching “The Good Son,” in that we want the film to get much gnarlier but cringe whenever the film is cruel enough to suggest that Kevin McCalister would stoop to killing a dog for fun.

The screenplay is by Ian McEwan and likely would have played better without the stunt casting. McEwan’s novel, “The Comfort of Strangers,” became a jolting Christopher Walken-led 1990 Paul Schrader drama.

I had an especially strange experience seeing “The Good Son” in a theater on opening night.

It was playing on multiple screens and the usher accidentally sent my father, brother and I into a sold-out theater where there were almost no seats left and the film was 20 minutes from finishing.

The three of us sat down, got to hear the adorable young star declare “Don’t f— with me” to a theater full of gasps and, just a few scenes later, the movie was over.

We realized what had happened, and my dad arranged for us to see the film from the beginning. Yet, seeing the film in its entirety was almost exactly like watching the extremely truncated version: we’re there to watch Culkin majorly misbehave and do really bad things, then the movie is over.

The perverse attraction of the film was present in either experience.

In the final scene, a mother makes a choice that allows for a feel-good voice over before the end credits. Had the mother made the trickier, more dramatically richer choice of choosing to save a different kid, it would have made for a darker, more thought-provoking conclusion.

Everything about “The Good Son” is like that – as ugly as this gets, it barely earns its R-rating and soft peddles a story that needed filmmakers unafraid of whom was playing the very bad seed.

The post Why ‘The Good Son’ Was a Misfire Then … and Now appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.