The Grouchy Editor

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)

The Ghost and Mrs. Muir

As I rewatched, after many years, The Ghost and Mrs. Muir recently, I tried to recall why I had such fond memories of it. It’s a pleasant enough yarn, in which a young widow (Gene Tierney) encounters the ghost of a ship’s captain (Rex Harrison) when she moves into a seaside house.

The story was charming and amusing, but no more so than many other romantic comedies of its era.

But then … the final 20 minutes of the movie transpired, and I was struck by how powerful the ending was. Amid all the playful banter between the ghost and Mrs. Muir, screenwriter Philip Dunne had been planting seeds about the things that we regret in life, and the things we do not regret.

The payoff is motion-picture magic and a good example of why we say, “they don’t make movies like that anymore.” Release: 1947  Grade: A

Would I watch it again?  Yes.

*

Civil War

An admission: I had already reviewed, in my imagination, much of this movie from reading other critics and pundit analyses shortly after its release in April. From what I read, Civil War appeared to be just another “woke” bulletin from Hollywood, issuing warnings about “threats to democracy” from the right.

The actor playing the U.S. president, according to the articles, resembled Trump — a cowardly Trump. One horrific scene featured MAGA-like militiamen terrorizing the protagonists, four heroic journalists on their way to Washington D.C. during a new civil war. Worst of all, those journalists were painted in quite a positive light. This during a time when journalism as a profession is at its lowest point.

Now that I’ve seen the movie, it turns out there is some truth in all of that conjecturing of mine. If the movie leans politically, it’s certainly to the left.

But what I did not expect was the bigger picture. Alex Garland’s film is primarily a powerful warning. If we can’t bridge our differences, we’re headed straight into a national nightmare — for both the left and the right. Release: 2024  Grade: A-

Would I watch it again?  Yes.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Abigail

Pros: If you are into “comfort horror,” in which you don’t expect major twists in the story nor deep psychological insight, this movie is for you. It’s got a small group of people trapped in a spooky mansion with a killer on the loose who is picking them off, one by one. That’s the (familiar) plot.

I liked that. If it worked for And Then There Were None, it’s good enough for me.

Cons: It’s not a big spoiler to reveal that the killer is a little-girl vampire who is into ballet. She is played by a young actress who makes faces and dances and wears Dracula fangs. That’s the hook.

I didn’t like that. The girl is not very scary, and the gimmick wears thin. Also, the other characters are shallow, there is little wit in the dialogue, and gore replaces suspense. This is not And Then There Were None.

But if you just want something familiar, here you go. Release: 2024  Grade: B

Would I watch it again?  If I am stressed and need something silly but comforting, possibly.

*

Pearl

Here is what Pearl is: gorgeous to look at, well-acted, thought-provoking, and original.

Here is what Pearl is not: much fun.

Maybe it’s a product of our times, and Ti West’s trilogy of terror (along with X and MaXXXine) simply reflects the national mood. But I can’t help comparing X to 1974’s The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Pearl — a psychological profile of a murderess in the making — to early ‘60s melodramas What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? and Hush … Hush, Sweet Charlotte.

West’s fondness for those earlier movies is apparent. The plots and/or themes are similar in all of them. And yet …

Chain Saw and the Bette Davis films were scary-good fun, horror with an underlying sense of humor. West’s movies are technically impressive, but bleak and unpleasant. Release: 2022 Grade: B

Would I watch it again?  Not likely. See above.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)