This Guy at the Movies

“Black Christmas” (originally titled “Silent Night, Evil Night” and renamed “Stranger in the House” for TV) (Canadian; 1974; slasher horror/crime drama/mystery; running time 1 hour, 38 minutes; directed by Bob Clark, written by Roy Moore; rated R for gore, violence, thematic material including sexual assault, language; released in American theaters on Dec. 20, 1974, available on VOD and streaming services, including Shudder) is a jumble of tones and storylines with choppy editing and features mostly unlikeable characters played by actors who don’t seem to be on the same page. And then … a film considered pioneering in the slasher genre pulls it all together in the final act and gets good. Really good. Director Clark allows the story to settle in and finally focus on the search for a psychopathic killer who is already inside the house (the killing off of several characters helps streamline the proceedings), the bloodiness is amped up (though it is tame by today’s standards), and a twist and an open ending bring a satisfying finish to what would go on to become a highly influential movie (though it wasn’t much of a hit at the time), one that has attained cult status.

Set at a sorority house during the holidays, the film opens with an unseen man climbing the exterior of the house and entering it. Inside, the residents – Jess (Olivia Hussey), Barb (Margot Kidder), Phyl (Andrew Martin) and Clare (Lynne Griffin), among others – and friends are enjoying a Christmas party. The phone rings, and Jess answers to hear an obscene phone call by an already familiar voice the sorority sisters have nicknamed “The Moaner.” Soon, Clare goes missing. When her father (James Edmond as Mr. Harrison) arrives and is concerned, the sorority house’s drunken house mom (Marian Waldman as Mrs. MacHenry) offers to help him find her. Soon, they involve the police, who are dismissive at first, at least until Lt. Fuller (John Saxon) takes over the case. In the meantime, Jess is having relationship drama after becoming pregnant, and her musician boyfriend (Keir Dullea as Peter) is none too happy she wants an abortion. Peter is a bit of a hot head. Hmm. Mrs. MacHenry goes missing, and others follow. Little does anyone know that the killer is inside the house, and so are his victims. Will the police solve the case? Will any of the sorority house residents survive? Will Peter, who thinks it’s his decision when it comes to his girlfriend’s abortion and that she doesn’t have any say, go on to become a conservative lawmaker in a red state?

Not much of the violence would qualify as shocking by today’s standards, and the blood doesn’t always look like blood. But Clark — who would go on to make the more successful raunchy teen sex comedy “Porky’s” (1981) and the perpetually rerun holiday classic “A Christmas Story” (1983) – and screenwriter Moore create a palpable sense of doom, especially by putting the unidentified killer (he calls himself “Billy” in the prank calls, a name that has stuck through two recent sequels) in plain sight, at least to the audience. Clark and cinematographer also wisely employ POV so that viewers see what the killer sees, and it is eerie. One killing scene stands out, when the frequently intoxicated Barb has her turn, the killer utilizing a glass figurine as the camera cuts between Barb trying to grasp one of the figurines, Billy doing his thing, and hallucinatory imagery. The performances are as uneven as the tone, with Hussey apparently thinking this was Oscar bait and Kidder and Waldman hamming it up for laughs. Saxon, who would go on to also play a police lieutenant in “A Nightmare on Elm Street” (1984), strikes the right balance. “Black Christmas,” a film that practically was the template for John Carpenter’s “Halloween” (1978) and ensuing sequels, introduced now-familiar horror movie tropes, including characters worsening the situation with stupid decisions, law enforcement that at first doesn’t want to get involved, and the “final girl,” the last survivor. Audiences in 1974 weren’t ready for it (the retitled “Black Christmas” earned less than $300,000 during its initial U.S. run), but it helped shape what horror films have become today.

My score: 79 out of 100

“Arcadian” (American/Canadian/Irish; 2024; post-apocalyptic action horror; running time 1 hour, 32 minutes; directed by Benjamin Brewer, written by Michael Nilon; rated R for gore, violence; made debut at South by Southwest festival on March 11, 2024, in limited theaters April 12, 2024, available on VOD and streaming services, including Shudder) is a Nicolas Cage movie … and it isn’t. Cage is indeed the big-name star of the cast, and he plays a prominent role in a story about a man and his two teen sons trying to survive in a post-apocalyptic world that humans now share with scary creatures. But Cage’s performance is more subdued than usual, and if you came to this film expecting the big Nic Cage gonzo meltdown moment, you will be disappointed. And if you came to this film expecting to see Cage all the time, you also will be disappointed, as his character is debilitated for about a third of the story. But when he’s not around, the rest of the cast, including three solid performances by young adult actors, ably holds down the fort. “Arcadian” is thin on plot and offers little new to the post-apocalyptic genre … except its creatures. They are terrifying, hairy creepy-crawly things that (in a nod to a modest budget) show up in dimly lit bits and pieces (they don’t like light, after all) until all hell breaks loose and they are all over the place doing their menacing creature things, even when they have been set on fire. Welcome to the near future.

Cage is Paul, and when we meet him he is scavenging among a city’s ruins as we hear awful things going on out of sight. Paul is gathering supplies to care for himself and twin baby boys (we assume their mother is a victim of whatever has invaded Earth). Jump ahead 15 years later, and Paul and his teen boys (Jaeden Martell as Joseph and Maxwell Jenkins as Thomas) are hunkered down in a fortified old house in the countryside. They can go outside, but only during the daylight, and Paul has established boundaries for how far off his sons can wander before it’s time to head indoors. At night, whatever it is outside tries to get inside their house. The boys are teens and thus restless, especially Thomas, the bigger risk-taker of Paul’s boys (Joseph is more of an intellectual and hopes to trap one of the creatures so that he can study it). Thomas has discovered a nearby place called Rose Farms, and there lives a beautiful teen girl (Sadie Soverall as Charlotte) that Thomas is crushing on. If that sounds like a possible complication, it is. And others quickly follow. And the creatures, who dig around underground, are progressively getting more aggressive. Can Paul protect his sons? Is their house impervious to the creatures? What’s the end game for all involved?

“Arcadian” is all about machismo in the setup. That’s bound to happen when mom isn’t around. Paul asks his sons “Are we not men?” (a reference to a Devo song?) as they pound knives into their wooden dining room table. Paul is a man’s man, smoking cigars and taking full responsibility for his sons’ questionable decision-making. “Arcadian” isn’t a message movie; director Brewer and writer Nilon don’t even tell us why the creatures have arrived and what their motives are. And this isn’t a cautionary tale about the current state of the world. Instead, it’s just humans trying to survive in a world they don’t understand. And with creatures they fear. The creatures share traits with those from the “A Quiet Place” movies, but they are smaller and hairier, and they have jaws that chatter like machine guns. In one hallucinatory scene, they cover a victim in a reddish-pink goo. But the most tense moment is when Joseph is home alone and has fallen asleep in a chair, and one of the creatures has worked an arm/leg through an opening in a door. Brewer films the scene in a still wide shot that works far better than shaky cam that is employed too often elsewhere in the film. A battered Cage returns late in the movie and proves just how far he will go to protect his sons (and Thomas’ girlfriend). If you were going to survive a creature attack in a post-apocalyptic world, wouldn’t you want Nic Cage on your side? Yes, you would.

My score: 72 out of 100

“MaXXXine”

Genres: Horror/crime drama/suspense

Country: United States

Written and directed by: Ti West

Starring: Mia Goth, Elizabeth Debicki, Moses Sumney, Michelle Monaghan, Bobby Cannavale, Halsey, Lily Collins, Giancarlo Esposito, Kevin Bacon, Simon Prast, Chloe Farnworth, Charley Rowan McCain

Rated: R for strong/disturbing violence, gore, sexual content, nudity

Run time: 1 hour, 44 minutes

Release date: In theaters July 5, 2024

Where I saw it: AMC Classic Columbus 12 in Columbus, Ind., on a Thursday afternoon, $6.49, three other people in the theater

What it’s about: In the final film of a trilogy that also includes “X” and “Pearl” (both released in 2022) and a direct sequel to “X,” the setting is 1985 Los Angeles, and Maxine Minx (Goth) has become recognizable from her work in the adult film industry but wants to be a mainstream Hollywood star. She auditions for and gets a role in a horror film, “The Puritan II,” directed by Elizabeth Bender (Debicki). But there is a serial killer dubbed “The Night Stalker” on the loose, and the killer’s most recent victims are people connected to Maxine.

My take: This is a worthy direct sequel to “X” and chronological (at least going by order of release) sequel to “Pearl,” and, like those movies, it does a lot of things right … up until about the final 15 minutes. Perhaps because the bar was set so high (especially by “Pearl,” my favorite of the three), and perhaps because the end of the final film in a trilogy is so vital, the conclusion of “MaXXXine” (and thus the trilogy) was not as satisfying as hoped. It’s not awful, and it includes a twist that is neither cringey nor predictable, but it’s not great. And great was what West needed to wrap up what is otherwise a brilliant set of horror films. Now a few words about what it does right: Time will tell if West’s trilogy makes Goth a big star, but she deserves to be. Were she working in any other genre than horror, she’d be earning high praise from those who hand out awards (awards not related to the horror genre). Goth played three roles in the films (Maxine in “X” and “MaXXXine,” an old version of Pearl in “X” and the young Pearl in “Pearl”) and was a tour de force in all. Maxine (who was trying to break into the porn business in “X”) never loses faith in herself and is singular in her mission – to become a huge star. She is ruthless and proves to be a strong young woman. And a strong young woman is what she needed to be to survive (literally) in Hollywood. Bacon has a fun turn (with a weird Southern drawl accent) as a detective hired by a mystery person to track down Maxine and remind her that whoever killed all those people at a Texas farmhouse where she had been six years earlier still hasn’t been caught. Like with the first two films, West perfectly catches the essence of an era in “MaXXXine.” His 1985 L.A. has little in common with the most often referenced aesthetic from the mid-1980s, “Miami Vice.” This setting is gritty and seedy, not unlike New York City in films such as “Taxi Driver.” Some familiar and not-so-familiar (at least to those who didn’t live through the ‘80s) needle drops and a spot-on score by Tyler Bates (synths and saxes sound so 1980s), and the frequent use of videotapes (there’s a message here about how they shaped society during the decade) help put this film squarely in its time and place. Horror fans would want more gore (this is as much crime drama as horror), but it hits with intensity when it hits. Maxine isn’t shy about using violence to get what she wants. And she never stops wanting what she wants.

My score: 71 out of 100

The pros and cons of “A Family Affair” (American; 2024; romantic comedy; running time 1 hour, 54 minutes; directed by Richard LaGravenese, written by Carrie Solomon; rated PG-13 for sexual content, partial nudity, some strong language; streaming on Netflix on June 28, 2024):

• Pro: It features recognizable stars that will appeal to a wide age range. It’s hard to imagine someone watching this and not knowing at least a couple of cast members. The inclusion of Nicole Kidman (age 57), Zac Efron (36), Joey King (24) and Kathy Bates (76) all but guaranteed Netflix users would be checking this out.
• Con: Kidman’s talents are largely wasted, and she (as Brooke Harwood, a widowed author) and Efron (as Chris Cole, a narcissistic but insecure movie star) have no romantic chemistry. King, as Zara, Chris’ personal assistant and Brooke’s daughter, carries most of the comedic load, with mixed results. Bates (as Leila Ford, the mother of Harwood’s late husband) makes the movie better when she shows up, but her character is thin, an older woman who is a dispenser of romantic wisdom and thinks she always knows what’s best for all involved. Efron leans into Chris’ awfulness in the first act, but the character’s abrasive personality feels like a plot device setting up his inevitable redemption.  
• Pro: Not taken seriously, “A Family Affair” exudes a certain light charm. It does the things a romcom is supposed to do, including a goofy meet-cute, the pairing of an unlikely couple, the usual complications, a death to drive the sentimentality, familiar needle drops, the dramatic turn and the happy ending. It’s a romcom, so there will be love.
• Con: Viewed more cynically, this movie does all the things a romcom is expected to do, and as such is predictable and almost completely unoriginal. The complications are exactly what you would guess they would be; the dramatic part lingers far too long (as does the entire movie by about 20 minutes) and is a string of annoying scenes of characters yelling at each other, and the ending (given the mismatched romantic couple) isn’t plausible.
• Pro: A little holiday cheer in July isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and the story includes a stop at a snowy cabin during the holidays, the perfect setting for Brooke, Chris and Zara to work through this thing, with some gentle nudging from Leila, of course.
• Including a Christmas scene is bound to prompt comparisons to Hallmark holiday romcoms, and is that what you want for a film starring a couple of respected actors like Kidman and Bates? Probably not.
• Pro: This is likely to satisfy fans of any of the actors at the top of the cast list, and anyone who enjoys romcoms because of what they do, prove to us that even the most unlikely of loves is possible and feed the fantasy that we could find romance if we were just one of the beautiful people living a lavish oceanside lifestyle.
• Con: I wanted to quit on this five minutes in, about how long it took for Efron’s and King’s characters to feel like fingernails on a blackboard. I trudged through it (with an intermission) because I want to believe that two mismatched characters can overcome all the obstacles and find lasting love. That, or I had a lot of free time on my hands.

My score: 25 out of 100

My son and I were talking movies the other day, the way we do, and were discussing if this has been a good year for film thus far.

My original conclusion was that 2024 has been a weak one as I struggled to come up with what I thought was Best Picture Oscar material working strictly from memory. It’s early in the year (we recently passed the halfway mark), and it’s not unusual for Hollywood to backend the release of Oscar-caliber movies from about September on so that they are still fresh in the minds of Academy voters during awards season.

But thus far (and this is strictly based on 2024 movies I have watched, and I have not seen every release), two films seem like they have a shot at making the list (presumably 10) of Best Picture nominees, and only one of those would be considered a lock. “Dune: Part Two,” Denis Villeneuve’s epic sci-fi sequel to 2021’s “Part One,” seems destined to make the list of finalists. And deservedly so. It’s a classically told story, with stunning visuals and sound, and star performances across the board, but especially by leads Zendaya ad Timothée Chalamet (and a memorable villainous turn by Austin Butler).

Another film starring Zendaya, “Challengers,” just had the feel of an Oscar movie when I saw it. Also starring Mike Faist and Josh O’Connor as friends-turned-rivals tennis players, it’s a sexy and stylish story about a love (and lust) triangle set against the backdrop of a relationship- and career-defining tennis match. But “Challengers” hit theaters in late April, and at this point it would appear to be on the bubble at best.

If you really need to stretch the bounds of Oscar hopefuls a bit more, “Civil War,” “Inside Out 2” and “Thelma” would be worthy nominees, but none is likely to make the top 10 unless every film released from here on out is a dud.

Though 2024 is (so far) short on Best Picture material, it has produced great, entertaining movies, not all of which are the type of films that garner awards attention. With that said, here is a list of my five favorite movies from 2024, with some honorable mentions:

1. “Challengers”: I had every intention of seeing this multiple times in a theater and inexplicably did not make that happen. The filmmaking gets a bit showy, especially in the final act, but the story and the performances more than hold it together. This is about as sexy as a movie can be and not include much actual sex. The most intriguing part of the triangle is the one where Faist’s Art Donaldson and O’Connor’s Patrick Zweig reside.
2. “Thelma”: I was concerned that the premise – a 90-plus woman seeking revenge in an action adventure/comedy – would wear thin, but it does not, thanks largely to a trio of wonderful performances, led by 94-year-old June Squibb and supported beautifully by the late Richard Roundtree and Fred Hechinger as the title character’s grandson. A charming film that was consistently amusing.
3. “Dune: Part Two”: I put this at No. 3 simply because epic sci-fi movies are not my thing. And I am not a big fan of sequels/franchise movies. Especially ones that last nearly three hours. But make no mistake: This is great filmmaking that will earn its share of honors, especially in the technical categories.
4. “Late Night with the Devil”: A low-budget found-footage horror film will not be on Oscar’s radar, but this movie was a surprise low-key hit among audiences and critics alike. The story of a late-night talk show in the 1970s (with convincing set designs and wardrobes), it features a much-deserved starring role for longtime character actor David Dastmalchian, who nails his part as a TV host who is so desperate for ratings that he might just sell his soul to you-know-who.
5. “The Taste of Things”: This is purely a niche movie, one that appealed to the intersection of the arthouse crowd and foodies. A love story set in 1880s France and about a gourmet (Benoit Magimel as Dodin Bouffant) and the cook (Juliette Binoche as Eugénie, and Binoche and Bouffant were a couple in real life) who has worked for him for 20 years, it is slow, but the cooking and food are filmed so gorgeously that you’ll hunger for a delicious meal.

Best of the rest: “Civil War,” “Inside Out 2,” “Perfect Days,” “The Fall Guy,” “Hitman,” “LaRoy Texas”

“Goyo” (Argentina; 2024; romantic drama; running time 1 hour, 36 minutes; written and directed by Marcos Carnevale; rated TV-MA for smoking, language, sexual references; streaming on Netflix on July 5, 2024) takes delicate subject matter and treats it, well, delicately. And with compassion and tenderness. The story of a neurodivergent 30-something man who falls hard for an older woman, the film makes a couple of tonal shifts that are not jolting but noticeable, the story meanders and takes a superfluous detour in the third act, and it tries too hard to visually and sonically simulate what being on the autism spectrum might be like. And the central love story is implausible. But it exudes charm, is buoyed by two winning lead performances and hits the right emotional notes when it needs to. And it has a central message that will resonate: We all have personality quirks that, in the eyes of the right person, won’t get in the way of love and happiness.

Nicolas Furtado is the title character. About age 30, he has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, a condition on the autism spectrum. In look and manner, he is a cross between Talking Heads frontman David Byrne and Billy Bob Thornton’s character Karl Childers in the 1996 movie “Sling Blade.” All the Asperger’s characteristics are there. Goyo struggles to make eye contact, is freaked out by loud noises, takes most everything literally and is obsessive/compulsive. The latter helps him in his job at an art museum, where he serves as a tour guide with a wealth of knowledge and a penchant for the work of Van Gogh. One day he sees a woman (Nancy Duplaa as Eva) struggling with her umbrella in the rain, and Goyo is smitten. Eva, who has just been hired as a security guard at the art museum where Goyo works, unknowingly becomes Goyo’s muse (he is a painter). Eva is about age 50 and her own issues, including a no-good husband who she has just kicked out and a troubled teen son. One day after work Goyo stalks Eva, following her onto a subway train, and his awkwardness and male gaze freak her out. Goyo apologizes at work the next day, and away we go on a romantic trip. Well, sort of. Goyo gets relationship advice from his restauranteur older brother (Pablo Rago as Matute), but Goyo’s overprotective sister (Soledad Villamil as Saula), a famous concert pianist, is concerned Goyo might get his heart broken. Will he? Is Goyo capable of handling rejection? Is Eva taking advantage of him? Is Goyo a proxy until Eva lets her husband move back home? How much leeway should Goyo’s guardians give him?

Though their romance is a tough sell (and they can’t quite fully sell it), Furtado and Duplaa handle their characters with great care and warmth. Furtado keeps Goyo from being a caricature by making him more than a sum of his symptoms. It would be easy to consider Duplaa’s Eva the villain in the third act (and Goyo’s sister tries her best to pin the situation on Eva), but Duplaa’s performance convinces us that Eva is lost, lacks self-esteem and is just doing the best she can in a tough situation. She has never been treated by a man the way Goyo treats her, so it’s understandable she would fall for him at least a little, even though she is cognizant of Goyo’s condition. Their romance seems doomed, though, not just because of the age gap but because those on the autism spectrum frequently struggle to maintain relationships. A couple of moments in “Goyo” are funny, including when Matute, who has not yet met Eva, asks Goyo if she has an ass and Goyo replies, “Everybody does, Matute,” and then describes Eva’s backside as “harmonious” and her chest as “harmonious and robust.” The story’s detour comes when Goyo’s estranged biological mother (Cecilia Roth as Magda) arrives to presumably save her son from heartbreak and then delivers a lengthy monologue about how challenging it has been to be the mother of a neurodivergent son. But the film’s shortcomings are minor and don’t blur the message about acceptance and understanding, and how Eva and Goyo deserve happiness however they define it.

My score: 76 out of 100

“Kinds of Kindness”

Genres: Black comedy anthology

Countries: Ireland, United Kingdom, United States

Directed by: Yorgos Lanthimos

Written by: Lanthimos and Efthimis Filippou

Starring: Emma Stone, Jesse Plemons, Willem Dafoe, Margaret Qualley, Hong Chau, Joe Alwyn, Mamoudou Athie, Hunter Schafer 

Rated: R for strong/disturbing violence, language, full nudity and strong sexual content, including sexual assault

Run time: 2 hours, 45 minutes

Release date: Made debut at Cannes Film Festival on May 17, 2024; in theaters June 21, 2024

Where I saw it: Landmark Keystone Arts Cinema on the northside of Indianapolis, on a Thursday early afternoon (July 4), $10.50, about 20 other people in the theater

What it’s about: In a trio of fables tied together thematically with a common character and the same cast, Robert Fletcher (Plemons) follows every order given to him by his controlling boss/lover (Dafoe as Raymond) until Raymond asks him to kill a man; a police officer (Plemons as Daniel) mourns the disappearance of his partner (Stone as Liz), a marine biologist who went missing at sea, but when she returns, he is convinced it’s not her; and Emily (Stone) and Andrew (Plemons) are cult members looking for a woman (Qualley as Ruth and also as her twin sister Rebecca) with the ability to reanimate the dead so they can bring her to a compound run by Omi (Dafoe).

My take: This is experimental filmmaking, and it feels like watching an experiment. A long, strange experiment that works spectacularly sometimes and fails just as spectacularly at others. Lanthimos, on the heels of critical and commercial success with last year’s “Poor Things” and 2018’s “The Favourite” (both nominated for Best Picture Oscars), is stretching out here while also returning to his less accessible roots. It feels like the work of a director who has earned capital in Hollywood and is going to spend it however he pleases. All three segments of “Kinds of Kindness” feature the absurd weirdness (much of it related to sex, nudity and bodily fluids but also inexplicable and dysfunctional behavior) we’ve come to expect from the filmmaker. It’s all held together (loosely) by the performances from a star-studded cast, as Stone, Plemons, Dafoe, Qualley, Chau and Athie (they appear in all three segments) show off their versatility by playing wildly different characters each time. Lanthimos has given them much room to do what they do, and in return they have given him awards-worthy efforts that match the film’s tone. It would be only natural to compare the segments, and perhaps because the movie is so long, the first one (upon first viewing) was the freshest and strongest (and most focused), with gradually diminishing returns as the second and third segments unfolded until it reached the point of feeling every second of its run time. The camera of cinematographer Robbie Ryan, who also collaborated with Lanthimos on “Poor Things” and “The Favourite,” produces images that are both beautiful and disturbing, occasionally simultaneously. The score by Jerskin Fendrix (the composer for “Poor Things”) is mostly off-kilter single piano notes and chants, the perfect accompaniment for the subject matter. If there’s a point here (and this will be fodder for debate), it’s that human beings are prone to being manipulated and manipulative and that the line between free will and conformity is not always so clearly defined. But you might glean different meaning from it. Or no meaning at all. And not care.

My scores: First segment, 91; second segment, 79; third segment 62; overall average 77.3

The title character in “Dr. Giggles” (American; 1992; slasher horror/comedy; running time 1 hour, 36 minutes; directed by Manny Coto; written by Coto and Grame Whifler; rated R for some language, violence, gore; in theaters Oct. 23, 1992, available on VOD and streaming services, including Shudder) is a doctor (or at least pretends to be) who giggles a lot. And that might be the most sophisticated aspect of a low-budget, low-brow, high-cheese slasher comedy that delivers on the promise made on both ends of its genre description. Sure, it’s a parade of horror movie clichés and character stereotypes. And, yes, the razor-thin story is just (barely) an excuse for a string of grisly killings. And, sure, most of the script falls into two categories: exposition delivered flashback style and doctor-related double entendre. But Larry Drake, as the “good” doctor, delivers his corny lines as if he got that this was a joke. And he brings the blood, usually with some sort of medical instrument. Laughs and gore. In a film like this, you don’t need anything more.

Drake (if you are a fan of Sam Raimi’s work, you know him as the villainous Durant from 1990’s “Darkman,” though he was more famous for his role as Benny Stulwicz in the NBC drama series “L.A. Law”) is Dr. Evan Rendell Jr., though he’s not really a doctor. He just plays one in his mind. He’s insane, and we know this because we first see him performing “surgery” in front of a bunch of mental patients in a psychiatric institution. He escapes and returns to his hometown of Moorehigh, and flashbacks tell us that he was a weird kid who performed “surgery” on his stuffed animals. His father was an actual physician, at least until he went mad when his wife died from a heart condition and he started cutting hearts out of live patients. That’ll  happen. None of this means anything, really, except it places the doctor now known as Dr. Giggles back in Moorehigh so that he can kill pretty much the entire cast of characters, most of which are either horny and stupid teens or skeptical cops. He is particularly interested in one teen girl, Jennifer Campbell (Holly Maries Combs, who would later in the decade star as Piper Halliwell in the WB series “Charmed”), because she has a heart condition, and thus Dr. Giggles can use her as a proxy for his long-dead mother, give her a new heart (by picking one from the bucket full he has collected, which seems like an unsanitary way of storing still-beating hearts) and fix his mommy issues.

Drake certainly understood the assignment, and he is about 90 percent of the reason to watch “Dr. Giggles.” The whole double entendre thing could have become annoying (or predictable, because often you can guess what he is about to say), but not in Drake’s hands. Whether it’s “If you think that’s bad, wait until you get my bill,” or “It’s a good thing I make house calls,” or “Time to do what doctors do best” before picking up a golf club, Drake elicits laughs that go beyond mere giggles. And his giggle, while funny, is going to haunt you. Trust me, and I’m not a doctor. Dr. Giggles is almost always cutting into someone (skipping the whole anesthesia thing), and his “procedures” are jolting, like when he sticks a probe about a foot long up a woman’s nose. Or when he performs surgery on himself, while lying on his back and using the operating room mirrors above him, to remove a bullet. This stuff’s not for the squeamish. If you don’t take this too seriously (or at all seriously) and focus on the cheesy fun and blood and not the film’s plethora of shortcomings, “Dr. Giggles” is just what the doctor ordered.

My score: 80 out of 100

“Baghead” (British/German/American; 2024; supernatural horror; running time 1 hour, 34 minutes; directed by Alberto Corredor, written by Christina Pamies, Bryce McGuire and Lorcan Reilly, based on a 2017 short film of the same name directed by Corredor and written by Reilly; rated R for violence, gore, fear; available April 5, 2024, on VOD and streaming services, including Shudder) has a promising premise, a creepy creature, a couple of better-than-average performances, a chilling score, suitably goth design and a dark, cavernous single-location setting. So why does it fall so flat? The unnecessarily complicated story mostly, but also repetitiveness, tedium and a lack of genuine scares. It feels like a short film (which it was) turned into a feature that should have stayed a short.

A young British woman, Iris (Freya Allan, the main human in this year’s “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes”), learns that her estranged and widowed father (Peter Mullan as Owen Lark) has died and left her a spacious old building that includes a pub. Iris visits the place and decides she wants to keep it, at least temporarily, instead of selling. Little does she know that something or someone is lurking in the (of course) basement. A widowed man (Jeremy Irvine as Neil) pays a visit and offers Iris 2,000 British pounds to visit whoever or whatever is in the basement. Iris is at first dismissive but senses financial opportunity. Who or what is in the basement? It’s (spoiler alert, though “Baghead” gives away the secret in the early going) an old woman with a burlap bag on her head (think Cillian Murphy’s Scarecrow from “Batman Begins”) who lives in a hole in the wall until summoned to sit in a chair and be strapped to it. The woman is a shape shifter. And when you bring her a token from a deceased loved one (like, say, a wedding ring), she eats it and then morphs into the deceased. Here’s the catch. You get two minutes before she starts reverting and gets all Satan like. This being a horror movie, no one will heed the two-minute warning or the instructions not to go into Baghead’s hole in the wall. And, as you might have guessed, horrible things ensue.

“Baghead” is loaded with exposition, including a videotape (what year is this, anyway?) labeled “instructions” that Owen has left for whoever comes along after he tried to burn the building to the ground to get rid of Baghead but instead burned himself to the ground. There’s more exposition where that came from, including the entire backstory of the building, and at this point the film goes from cool stuff about an old curse to so much BS. Director Corredor and the team of writers just keep adding layers that never move the narrative forward. The old building is cool, dimly lit and creaky (the atmosphere heightened by Suvi-Eeva Äikäs’ unnerving score), and the basement would be scary even if an old lady who can become dead people wasn’t inhabiting it. But Corredor has the camera cut to old photos of people (victims?) on the walls so many times that it feels like filler. Allan and Mullan are the standouts in the cast, with the former’s performance rising above her clichéd character’s suspect decision-making and the latter improving the movie each time he is on screen, which isn’t often enough. Legitimate scares and more gore were needed, but instead “Baghead” reaches for a mood just out of its grasp. Being able to talk to dead loved ones for even a couple of minutes is an idea with potential, especially for exploring grief. Instead, “Baghead” mostly explores the bounds of the audience’s patience and interest.

My score: 42 out of 100