The Grouchy Editor

Until Dawn

Settle down, kids, no nudity in this movie

Until Dawn opens with an overhead drone shot looking down on a forest as a vehicle moves along a lonely road. Inside the car is a group of five young people: three girls and two guys. They stop at a gas station, where an older man at the cash register creeps out one of the girls. Seems somehow … familiar.

How many horror movies have opened this same way?

Sigh. That opening should have warned me about the rest of this film, in which our young heroes discover something is going to kill them. And kill them again. And again. You know, like in Groundhog Day or, more apropos of the genre, Happy Death Day.

The plot, such as it is, checks a number of woke boxes: The alpha male turns cowardly; the beta male turns heroic; the final girl has girl-boss attributes and no romantic interest in the boys — that would no doubt be too heteronormative. Instead, her main interest is her sister.

The movie is well produced, competently directed, and doesn’t embarrass any members of the cast. There are a few effective moments. Lots of jump scares, lots of gore. 

But how many times do we need to see this kind of crap?

Release: 2025  Grade: D

Would I watch it again? I had a difficult time watching it once.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Brute 1976

I was well into Brute 1976, a new homage to young-people-in-peril slashers like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, when I realized something was missing from the film.

Most of the ingredients were present: foolhardy young people, an isolated location in the sticks, and a family of … uh, colorful villains. But something was lacking.

Pros: The movie has a nice, 1970s look and setting, perfectly in harmony with Chain Saw, The Hills Have Eyes, or any number of other such cult fodder. There is one scene involving a prosthetic appendage and a glory hole that, well, you can imagine. Or you don’t want to. There is a bevy of attractive actresses.

Cons: You’ve seen it all before. The only update, I guess, is the inclusion of a trans person in the clan of wackos who make life miserable for the young folk.

I finally realized what was missing. There was no nudity. In the 1970s and 1980s, movies like this one always featured gratuitous skin. Did “intimacy coordinators” put the kibosh on naked ladies?

Montalvo

But it turns out I was wrong. I rewound to the opening of the film in which two cuties explore an abandoned cave and — lo and behold — Bianca Jade Montalvo, a 5’9″ actress with all of two film credits on her IMDB page, does indeed get naked. But it was too damned dark to see her in the cave. And is she really … oh, never mind; I get in enough trouble these days.

For your viewing pleasure, I lightened the scene. Click on any pic for a larger view:

Release: 2025  Grade: C-

Would I watch it again?  Now that I’ve gotten my nudity fix, probably not.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Alien: Romulus

Halfway through Alien: Romulus, when I realized that I was not likely to care about the film’s characters, I began to dread the final hour, which I (correctly) guessed would be frenzied, loud, and unoriginal. The cast, composed of attractive, vapid young people, had the charisma of teenagers trapped in cabins in the woods. This was not a crew of fleshed-out, interesting adults on a spaceship.

The plot, in which our youngsters attempt to escape manual labor on a space outpost, is just a series of greatest hits from its inspiration, the original Alien movies. Here is a partial checklist: milky android blood, acidic alien blood, chest-bursting, face-hugging, humans stuck in xenomorph goo. We saw it all before in the original films. Every time there was a reprise of some special moment, I was reminded of how much better the first flicks are.

That leaves jump scares and special effects, which are impressive, but not impressive enough to compensate for a lazy script.

I would be remiss not to mention this film’s ties to the age of “woke.” The deaths are predictable (it’s not good to be a white male; you are either evil or early alien-meat). As for our heroine, unlike beloved Ripley, whose battle chops are explained in the first two movies, young Rain (Cailee Spaeny) has no apparent training nor skills. Yet she is more than a match for the nasty aliens. And did they really swap Ripley’s pet cat for Rain’s pet black man? Doesn’t seem very woke to me. Release: 2024  Grade: C-

Would I watch it again? No. There are much better films in this franchise.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Nosferatu

There’s good news and not-so-good news about Nosferatu, Robert Eggers’s update of the 1922 classic vampire movie:

A.  Eggers’s film has wonderful visuals and a creepy atmosphere … but it’s not very scary.

B.  The plot is faithful to the original story … but Bram Stoker’s tale has been filmed so many times that it’s now overly familiar. (Long story short: Nosferatu is Dracula with changed names.)

C.  Bill Skarsgard plays the title role … but Skarsgard is so altered — facially and vocally — that his vampire seems more like a special-effects creation than an actual human.

The biggest problem with Nosferatu is that it’s a long movie with too many dull stretches.

Silver linings: “Knock” and knockers. Simon McBurney, as a character named Knock, chews the scenery magnificently. Katerina Bila, as a character with nice knockers, rides a horse in the nude magnificently (below). Release: 2024 Grade: B-

Would I watch it again?  It nearly put me to sleep during my first viewing, so, not likely.

**

One of Them Days

As the headaches mount for Dreux (Keke Palmer) and Alyssa (SZA) in One of Them Days, I was reminded of another buddy comedy, Planes, Trains and Automobiles. In Planes, an odd couple faces one obstacle after another on their quest to get home for the holidays. In Days, an odd couple is repeatedly frustrated in their struggle to pay rent by the end of the day.

Days isn’t in the same league as John Hughes’s 1987 classic; there are few laugh-out-loud moments, and the screenplay isn’t as witty. Then again, as an older white male, I’m not exactly in this film’s target audience.

But I was amused and charmed by the travails of Dreux and Alyssa. And the movie has a lot of heart. Release: 2025 Grade: B

Would I watch it again?  Possibly.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Watcher

On the surface, 2022’s Watcher is a tough sell to the casual viewer. A plot synopsis reveals that not much happens in the story. And if you’re expecting a big surprise at the end, you might be disappointed.

But here’s the thing: As written and directed by Chloe Okuno, Watcher is a moody blast from the past. It’s a mix of two classics: Roman Polanski’s Repulsion, and Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window.

Maika Monroe plays a newlywed American in Romania who grows increasingly lonely — and possibly paranoid — as she wanders the streets of Bucharest while her husband is at work. She doesn’t speak the language, she’s unemployed, and her new life seems, well, foreign. Because it is.

But wait — is that man in the apartment across the street spying on her? And, later, is she being followed out of a movie theater? It doesn’t help her state of mind when she discovers that a serial killer is on the prowl.

I loved the movie’s callback to poor Catherine Deneuve alone in an apartment, and I am always a sucker for Hitchcock-inspired thrills. Release: 2022  Grade: B+

Would I watch it again?  Yes, definitely.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Emilia Perez

Is Emilia Perez a great movie? No. Is it a good movie? Yes.

You might not feel that way if you listen to the film’s detractors (“Worst movie of the year!”), nor its champions (“13 Oscar nominations!”). I think the truth, as it so often does, lies somewhere in the middle.

Karla Sofia Gascon plays a fearsome Mexican-cartel leader who hires a young lawyer (Zoe Saldana) to help him accomplish two goals: transition from male to female, and, as far as his enemies know, to drop off the face of the Earth.

Did I mention that Emilia Perez is also a musical?

The songs aren’t particularly memorable, but the choreography and visuals are kick-ass. Kudos to director Jacques Audiard for that. And the acting is very good, especially by Saldana and Gascon.

My pre-viewing misgivings were largely overblown. Yes, the main character is trans, but no, the story isn’t preachy. Yes, the infamous hospital song is bizarre, but it ain’t dull.

The script does have credibility issues, but the big picture is this: The movie is interesting and it’s entertaining. Release: 2024 Grade: B

Would I watch it again?  Possibly. Eventually.

*

The Menu

The plot:  A group of snobbish food connoisseurs is invited to an exclusive dinner on a mysterious island, where the courses are served with horrific surprises.

As a movie with a “twist,” The Menu is mundane. You expect some sort of plot surprise, and you get one, but it’s not exactly earth-shaking. The story is like a lesser episode of The Twilight Zone.

But I recommend it anyway, for one reason: Ralph Fiennes.

The late, great Bette Davis said the following in 1971:

“The English, they’ve always had the majority of great male actors. Always. We’ve (Americans) had more women. It’s always been true.”

What Davis said then still rings true today. Fiennes might be our finest British actor. He’s playing a “villain” in The Menu, yet it’s a multi-dimensional bad guy — and you can’t take your eyes off him. Release: 2022 Grade: B

Would I watch it again?  Despite fine work from Fiennes, probably not.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Saltburn

Saltburn falls into the “love it or hate it” category.

I loved it and I hated it. Let me try to explain ….

The plot:  Shortly after meeting big-man-on-campus Felix at Oxford, young Oliver is invited to Saltburn, the aristocratic home of Felix and his, uh, eccentric family. Drama ensues.

What I loved:

It’s a film with a point-of-view so strong that it feels more original than it actually is. I noticed similarities to The Talented Mr. Ripley and to Brideshead Revisited. That didn’t bother me because: A) Writer-director Emerald Fennell infuses her story with enough passion, and memorable scenes, that it seems fresh. This is the kind of personal film that used to be routine in the 1970s. B) If you’re going to borrow from other stories, you can do a lot worse than The Talented Mr. Ripley and Brideshead Revisited. C) It’s a black comedy. Black comedies (good ones) are in short supply these days. D) I am a sucker for lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-famous settings, especially when the photography is as striking as it is in this movie.

What I hated:

Hate’s a strong word. Let’s go with “dislike.” A) I disliked the fact that, as a straight male, I am not likely in this movie’s target audience. Many scenes are tailored to the “female gaze” or the “gay gaze” — take your pick. I will not harp on this because, lord knows, I am a fan of movies with the “straight male gaze.” B) I am not disposed to enjoy bodily fluids on the screen. There are two scenes (the ones you probably heard about) featuring bodily fluids. Yuck. Release: 2023  Grade: B+

Would I watch it again?  Eventually, yes — although I might skip the last five minutes of the movie (if you know, you know).

*

The Fall Guy

The recipe for a romantic action-comedy: Take two well-established, glamorous movie stars; put them in an exotic location; give the director a decent budget; marinate all of that in a script with romance, action, and comedy.

My question: Why does that formula work so well for something like 1984’s Romancing the Stone, yet fall so flat in The Fall Guy?

The plot: Ryan Gosling plays a dimwitted stuntman who pursues the girl of his dreams, a movie director played by Emily Blunt, on the set of her debut film being shot in Australia. When the vainglorious star of the movie goes missing, complications, danger, and stunts galore ensue.

This sort of comedy worked well for Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner in Stone, so why not here?

The problem is in the script. Everything (and everyone) has been “dumbed down” so as not to offend anyone in the audience.

We aren’t intended to like Gosling’s character even though he’s a lunkheaded man-child; we are intended to like him because he’s a lunkheaded man-child. You know, the way a 12-year-old adores The Three Stooges.

We aren’t intended to like Blunt’s character because she’s an empowered “girl boss”; we are intended to like her because, when the chips are down, she can morph into a female Bruce Lee.

This kind of nonsense might amuse the average 12-year-old, but it made me cringe. Romancing the Stone was unbelievable, but clever. The Fall Guy is just plain dumb. Release: 2024 Grade: D

Would I watch it again?  No way, Jose.

*

My Old Ass

The plot: During a drug-induced hallucination, a Canadian teen (Maisy Stella) meets her 39-year-old future self (Aubrey Plaza), a mystery woman who imparts advice in hopes of improving both of their lives.

When I finished watching this charming movie, I thought of another film I watched — and loved — more than a decade ago. Like My Old Ass, low-budget Short Term 12 (2013) featured a breakout performance from a young actress (Brie Larson) and a story that caught me off guard with its heartfelt sincerity.

And yet, 11 years later, I can’t recall a single thing about the plot of Short Term 12. Will the same thing happen to me with My Old Ass? Is it another “little” movie I like very much — and then forget? I hope not. Release: 2024  Grade: A-

Would I watch it again?  Yes.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Conclave

Story: When the pope dies, cardinals are sequestered in Vatican City to elect a new one. The man in charge of this process (Ralph Fiennes) must navigate competing factions and secrets kept by the deceased pope.

Pros:

A.  It’s refreshing to watch an intellectual drama, as opposed to an emotional drama or, God help us, another comic-book flick or sequel.

There are scenes in Conclave that might appear dull on paper but are gripping on the screen. It’s why I love good chess movies like The Queen’s Gambit and Searching for Bobby Fischer. You don’t need chase scenes or explosions to generate suspense. Conclave uses great acting to convey a dramatic power struggle.

B.  The sets look gorgeous. The atmosphere is suitably claustrophobic.

C.  It’s educational for non-Catholics. Aside from the famous smoke signal when a new pope is elected, I knew nothing of the selection process.

Cons:

A.  The ending.

I am not referring to the big twist, which has been criticized as being “woke.” I thought the twist was more thought-provoking than virtue signaling. What I disliked was the scene preceding the big reveal, in which the conclave of cardinals, having listened to a stirring speech by a colleague, make a major, about-face decision about their vote. I didn’t buy it.

Release: 2024  Grade: B+

Would I watch it again? If I get thirsty for a brainy thriller, yes.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Voice of Shadows

A critic’s dilemma:  When reviewing a low-budget movie from a first-time director, is it fair to hold the film to the same standard that you would for a more pedigreed production? Rookie filmmakers should be excused some missteps. On the other hand, the customer pays the same amount for Voice of Shadows as he pays for something from Steven Spielberg.

Pros:  For the most part, the movie looks and sounds professional, and most of the actors are fine. Director Nick Bain creates a suitably creepy atmosphere. The premise — three young people move into a house plagued by evil spirits summoned by an elderly woman — isn’t bad. Also, I liked Guillermo Blanco in the lead.

Cons:  The first two-thirds of the film are a slow burn. Slow burns can be good if the characters are intriguing. Unfortunately, the slowness in Voice is punctuated by a stream of tiresome horror-film clichés. Chairs rock themselves. Lights suddenly go out. Something bad is in the basement. An old book explains the evil spirits. The only thing missing is a cat jumping out of a closet.

Verdict:  Not a bad way to fill 90 minutes on a dark and stormy night. Just don’t expect anything groundbreaking. Release: 2023  Grade: C

Would I watch it again?  Not likely.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Homicidal

Back in 1960, schlock movie producer William Castle (The Tingler, House on Haunted Hill) saw Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho and had an idea. If Hitchcock could make a black-and-white, psychological horror hit on the cheap, why couldn’t Castle do it, too?

The result was Homicidal which, although not in the same league as Psycho, does boast one helluva clever twist.

I’m giving Castle’s movie an above-average grade based almost entirely on its surprise ending. Until the denouement, Homicidal resembles nothing so much as a dull episode of the old Perry Mason series: cheap sets, stilted dialogue and—well, I almost said poor acting, but that wouldn’t be true. There is at least one sterling performance.

The plot: A peculiar family in Solvang, California is harboring a deranged killer. Or so it seems. Sorry, I can’t say more than that. Release: 1961  Grade: B

Would I watch it again?  Yes, mostly just to see how much, if any, cheating Castle does in the set-up for the film’s big reveal.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)