All posts by Daniel Bokemper

In a Violent Nature (2024)

While watching any of the 10 Friday the 13th sequels, have you ever wondered how Jason Voorhees conveniently winds up at exactly the right place to impale a promiscuous camper? Chris Nash’s deconstructionist slasher, In a Violent Nature, provides an undeniably poignant answer: He just walks.

Well, he walks after a random camper nabs a necklace that kept the monster buried beneath a charred sawmill. The plot is intentionally bare bones: The killer wanders into town, then finds an iconic mask and weapon before brutally dismembering folks with blood-chilling creativity.

The film rebukes most of the genre’s typical quick cuts and relentless jump scares. Instead, it favors a slow, methodical and over-the-shoulder approach that follows a reanimated serial killer as he slaughters foul-mouthed farmers, angsty campers and a lawman with a narratively convenient legacy. It’d be easy to compare the shifted focus to Scott Glosserman’s Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, though even that mockumentary falls headfirst into the conventions it tries to critique.

That’s not to suggest In a Violent Nature doesn’t lean on tropes, but it at least juggles and harnesses them in a unique and mostly satisfying way. Its contemplative pace and unflinching cinematography don’t beg questions, but evoke a feeling like David and Nathan Zellner’s Sasquatch Sunset. The film only wanes when it gives into slasher norms — specifically breaking away from the killer’s perspective — in what is presumably an attempt to break up the monotony. And though the frequent, slower sequences sometimes border meandering, they also allow the film’s bloated zombie to float above a swamp of nameless, uninspired killers.

In dissecting slashers, however, the flick also must lean into them. This means campy dialogue runs rampant. At times, it works to cast historically poor lighting in a different light, sort of like the ineffable chirps of some finches before they’re snagged by a bird-eating spider. A particularly egregious campfire scene almost squanders this effect, as the film spends a bit too long removed from its subject for the sake of dumping some ultimately unnecessary exposition. It’s as though Nash didn’t trust his premise, fearing it would veer into Skinamarink territory and bore the audience. While he might be right, leaning into the gory nature doc vibe a bit more could’ve help the film garner a little more permeance.

Some small stumbles aside, In a Violent Nature still manages to carve a path that should intrigue even those less inclined to slashers. Its clinical approach to kills paired with a genuinely haunting ending makes it a clear frontrunner (or maybe “frontwalker”) for the best horror film of 2024. —Daniel Bokemper

Get it at Amazon.

Monkey Man (2024)

Those less familiar with the source material for David Lowery’s The Green Knight might’ve been surprised by that decidedly nonviolent fantasy flick. And you wouldn’t be alone. Maybe the role even left its lead, Dev Patel, somewhat hungry for a more straightforward revenge tale. All he would need to do is write, direct and produce it himself.

Enter Monkey Man, Patel’s directorial debut that offers a frenetic and brutal film that stabs, slices and punches past a mob of John Wick imitators. (Yes, even you, The Beekeeper.)

That’s not to say Monkey Man is devoid of meaning, either. No, it doesn’t uproot the genre in the same way as Park Chan-wook’s Oldboy or Michael Sarnoski’s Pig. It does, however, give us a thriller as drenched in Indian culture, politics and mythology as it is by blood and dismembered limbs.

Set in the fictional city of Yatana, Kid (Patel) lives in poverty. He makes a “living” donning a monkey mask and intentionally losing boxing (but also kind of pro wrestling) matches. Kid saves what little money he can with the plans of killing a twisted police chief, Rana (Sikandar Kher), and an equally corrupt religious leader, Baba (Makarand Deshpande). Years prior, Rana murdered Kid’s mother and burned down his hometown under Baba’s direction to expand the figure’s holy empire. By killing these two and every goon at their disposal, Kid seeks to tear out of the heart of Yatana’s criminal underground.

Granted, it can sometimes be difficult to discern some of Monkey Man’s basic plot detail, given its constantly moving and whiplash-inducing cinematography. The technique works exceedingly well where it matters most (e.g., fight scenes and urban B-roll), but distracts from key dialogue. Granted, Monkey Man is a film filled with necessary compromises to work around stolen camera shots and, of course, Patel’s broken hand.

These setbacks could account for much of Monkey Man’s shortcomings, and more often than not, they don’t interrupt the action at hand. What truly hurts the film are formulaic character motivations and grossly repetitive framing. (Take a shot every time the camera follows a character to the ground like an ax splitting wood and you’d black out before the film’s second act.)

Again, it’s hard to hold these issues too much against the film knowing how much of a beast it was to make. Still, one could easily wonder how much more memorable Monkey Man could be if it exercised even slightly more restraint, especially when it comes to the few dialogue-driven scenes.

Granted, most of us didn’t show up for the talking. The film thrives with its low-to-the ground, drag-out fights. A attempted assassination in a bathroom quickly followed by a confrontation with an ax-wielding brothel owner are among Monkey Man’s most riveting sequences. Similarly, the movie’s final two fight scenes offer an equally gory as it is satisfying conclusion, even though the cinematography loses a bit of its luster by that point.

Other than a notch in what we’ll hopefully cascade into a storied career for Patel, Monkey Man doesn’t pack a lot of a staying power. At the very least, however, it’s far from a boring or uninspired revenge thriller. Perhaps a sequel could suture some of the film’s more apparent gashes and give its protagonist a bit more depth. (Hopefully Patel’s hand will have fully healed by then, too.) —Daniel Bokemper

Get it at Amazon.

Mad Props (2024)

Aside from the script, performers and digital effects, movies are an amalgam of stuff we find lying around. The alien from John Carpenter and Dan O’Bannon’s Dark Star was just a painted beach ball with rubber feet attached. The crew of James Cameron’s Aliens double-dipped into their gear and used Steadicam arms to create the Colonial Marines’ M56 Smartguns. And the walls of the Nostromo from Ridley Scott’s original Alien featured a coffee grinder. (Granted, the space truckers probably just need a decent cup of joe every few million miles.)

Props — regardless of what they’re made of — give movies life. Tulsa banker Tom Biolchini, the subject of Juan Pablo Reinoso’s documentary Mad Props, seeks to preserve that life and celebrate props for what they ultimately are: art.

Though it doesn’t seem like this were ever in question, you probably don’t hear much appreciation for visual and technical designers not named Tom Savini, Phil Tippett or Ray Harryhausen. We love their work, true, but maybe we tend to give directors like Guillermo del Toro and Peter Jackson credit that’s at least partially due to their prop artists.

That compulsion to find and recognize those masters makes Mad Props more endearing than it otherwise could be. Because let’s be real: Watching a hugely successful banker drop hundreds of thousands of dollars on the Holy Grail from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade isn’t exactly relatable. (Especially when you consider the didactic of that flick was how you shouldn’t obsess over one-of-a-kind treasures — Indy’s dad even shed a tear over it!)

If a wildly prohibitive hobby were all there was to Mad Props, it would frankly be a detached, insufferable trudge of a doc. Fortunately, the film makes a point to profile not just those who collect props, but the people who make and curate them, too. Biolchini has an infectious enthusiasm about this craft.

And while you could make the argument someone who collects a certain thing would want said thing to be recognized as art because that would likely inflate its value, that’s not quite how it would work since these items already command such a steep price. It seems Biolchini genuinely wants to preserve them in an era when less props are taking a physical form at all.

The behind-the-scenes stories Mad Props covers, like the nightmare that was the Goro suit from 1995’s Mortal Kombat, perfectly captures how much effort special effects demand even for just a few minutes’ worth of footage. A giddy Robert Englund recounting the many gloves of Freddy Krueger helps, too.

Mad Props really only wanes with the auction coverage. It just isn’t very interesting and does little to convey appreciation for film. In fact, the documentary finds meaning the further it drifts from the hobby and more into curation and prop production. It also helps that the doc is incredibly easy to watch. At its heart, it’s a light profile of movies and fans who love them. Like, a lot. —Daniel Bokemper

Get it at Amazon.

The Beekeeper (2024)

Between moonlighting as a smuggler, hitman, mercenary, peasant turned warrior and Megalodon-killing marine biologist, any of the machismo-brimmed hats Jason Statham has worn shouldn’t surprise us. In Suicide Squad director David Ayer’s The Beekeeper, however, he dawns a mask. (At least for the first six minutes.) Regardless, the film’s initial impression as a Great Value John Wick doesn’t work against it, instead amplifying its gun-toting buzz.

The film follows Adam Clay (Statham), a physically imposing beekeeper who rents a shed from his elderly neighbor, Eloise (Phylicia Rashad, Creed). One night, a phishing scam — secretly run by Derek Danforth (Josh Hutcherson, Five Nights at Freddy’s), the god of insufferable tech bros — drains Eloise’s savings and a community trust account, spurring her to suicide.

Clay discovers her body right before Verona Parker (Emmy Raver-Lampman, Netflix’s The Umbrella Academy), an FBI agent and Eloise’s daughter. After tense introductions, Clay contacts “the Beekeepers,” a secret organization he retired from that specializes in keeping the peace with a lot of guns. Clay obtains an address for an assuming office in Massachusetts, and the body count starts rising.

As you could imagine, not a lot happens under The Beekeeper’s hood — and that’s the beauty of it. Beyond the recurring use of the phrase “protect the hive” and the increasingly concerned looks of Jeremy Irons (Justice League), what a Beekeeper actually does is never explained. Though arguably oversimplified, the lack of a monolithic organization like the Continental, Kingsman or Expendables keeps the action’s focus exactly where it needs to be: on Statham.

Unfortunately, effectively dumbing down the secret society angle also means The Beekeeper noticeably lacks substance when its lead wanders off-screen. Most of the banter between Parker and her partner falls flat, as if their wit is the only thing preventing the movie from diving headfirst into a vat of ridiculous honey. The action’s set pieces emerge through an equally uninspired formula:

  1. Clay kills the bad guy(s).
  2. Bigger bad guy(s) called in to retaliate.
  3. Clay kills them, too.
  4. Repeat approximately five times.

That being said, how we get to the shootouts and explosions isn’t nearly as important as how they’re orchestrated. Fortunately, The Beekeeper finds Statham in peak, stoic form. Even if the violence lacks any permanence, it’s still a joy to see Clay outmaneuver a minigun or take out a team of commandos with some ratchet straps and an elevator.

The Beekeeper doesn’t offer much more than B-roll for an inevitable Statham documentary, but it doesn’t really need anything more than that. It’s not like The Transporter or Crank franchises offer substantially different experiences, yet they still persist as (vaguely) quintessential 2000s action flicks. Between this and The Meg, we could be closing in on the twilight of Statham’s generously prolific career. Check The Beekeeper out, and don’t stop bee-lieving in its star. —Daniel Bokemper

Get it at Amazon.

When Evil Lurks (2023)

Who knew the season’s best possession film released last month wouldn’t be The Exorcist: Believer? Probably everyone who’s familiar with David Gordon Green. Still, between Talk to Me from earlier this year and now Demián Rugna’s When Evil Lurks, the subgenre still has plenty to give — and take, considering all the pets and kids that meet their end in this Spanish-language ride through hell.

Life moves slow for brothers Pedro (Ezequiel Rodríguez) and Jimi (Demián Salomón, Rugna’s Terrified) in their quiet farming community. That is, until the dismembered corpse of a state-appointed exorcist (aka a “cleaner”) winds up on the border of their property. With their neighbor (Luis Ziembrowski), the siblings investigate a nearby home, only to find an old acquaintance afflicted with a demonic possession under the care of his family. The trio resolve to drive the “rotten” hundreds of kilometers away and dump his body into field. Problem solved … until the demonic influence spreads throughout the town, kick-starting a shitstorm of homicide and suicide.

The film hemorrhages chaos and desperation. Dread creeps in the first act. One untimely goat possession later, and the pace hits a nonstop sprint. Rodríguez almost single-handedly carries this feeling, as if he’s been dragged through an abyss, simultaneously frantic and hopeless. Once the protagonist’s children join the mix, the unending violence strikes a different tone. Even as the film starts to lose itself in the second half, the stakes only climb.

The possessions themselves take an especially sadistic turn. You won’t find demonic voices or fiery visions of doom, but cold-hearted deception, self-harm and good ol’ fashioned cannibalism. The film carefully lays out logic for how possessions spread, like through animals and by gunpowder. Thankfully, Rugna refrains from clearly answering what the rotten looks like. It lures us into thinking the plight can be understood, only to quickly pull the rug out from under us with a rabid dog or a schoolhouse of manipulative children.

This disarray carries most of the film, but fuels its biggest weakness, too. Pedro’s knee-jerk response in the climax — to take advice from a possessed kid — makes little sense in retrospect. At least, it doesn’t without the appropriate build. Despite fleshing out the disaster in spades, Rugna doesn’t rein it in enough to earn an otherwise emotional conclusion. Yes, the film is bleak, but stoking what little hope it has just a little more could’ve made what should be a gut-wrenching finale also poignant and memorable.

When Evil Lurks is far from perfect, but its intensity, breakneck pace and unflinching brutality make it a great companion to high-octane gorefests like Yeon Sang-ho’s Train to Busan and Jung Bum-shik’s Gonjiam: Haunted Asylum. Check it out — and don’t let your bulldog lick the rambling man’s jeans. —Daniel Bokemper

Get it at Amazon.