Reviews
‘Addams Family Values’: A First-Time Watch Review
I have a first-time watch review of 1991’s The Addams Family in the books this November. With Thanksgiving coming, it was only right that I also take a look at its 1993 sequel, Addams Family Values.
Addams Family Values picks up about eight to nine months after the end of the original movie. I can pinpoint that because we first see Morticia Addams (Anjelica Huston) at the very end of her pregnancy. She swiftly gives birth to mustachioed baby Pubert (Kaitlyn and Kristen Hooper). As she and Gomez (Raul Julia) dote on Pubert, their children Wednesday (Christina Ricci) and Pugsley (Jimmy Workman) grow jealous. Enter Debbie Jellinsky (Joan Cusack), a black widow murderess with her eye on Gomez’s brother Fester (Christopher Lloyd). As the children are shuttled off to camp, Debbie weds Fester and finds him resolutely unkillable, despite her best attempts.
Is Addams Family Values a Worthwhile Sequel?
Having now grappled with my bafflement at what the Addams family’s deal is, I have come to appreciate them. Unfortunately, this epiphany came at the wrong time. I’m sorry to say it, but Addams Family Values does not find them at their best.
For one thing, the screenplay (by Paul Rudnick, replacing Caroline Thompson and Larry Wilson) is too keen to indulge in trite sitcom setups. It strikes me that the whole point of putting the Addamses into sitcom scenes is subverting them with macabre jokes. However, for the majority of the “double date” and “new baby” plotlines, for instance, they just… don’t. You’re telling me that Gomez and Morticia wouldn’t encourage their children to drop Pubert from the roof? In the last movie, Morticia replaced Wednesday’s knife with a medieval ax, the better to chase Pugsley with! Although there are still plenty of ooky punchlines to be had, there simply aren’t enough. The characters are bent so far out of shape to fit the needs of the plot that they just break. Morticia and Gomez especially barely resemble themselves for the majority of the film.
It lacks the bite of the previous movie’s screenplay, give or take a sequence like Wednesday’s Thanksgiving musical takeover. But perhaps the biggest sin the screenplay commits is leaning on Uncle Fester as its lynchpin again. That was the most glaring flaw of the 1991 movie, but here it’s even worse. The way it’s laid out siloes the characters off into three distinct movies of wildly varying quality. Also, speaking just to personal taste, I find that Fester’s flop-sweat drenched broad comedy gives him a repulsive screen presence.
Naturally, this speaks to how perfectly Christopher Lloyd is bringing the character to life, so I won’t complain about that. But still. No thank you.
Does Addams Family Values Hold Up On Its Own Merits?
Of course, what I can’t knock about Fester’s storyline is that it allows us access to pure, uncut Joan Cusack. She fits perfectly into the cartoon world of the Addams family, by taking the exact opposite approach. She is pure, oozing villainy wrapped in candy colors, whereas they’re a loving family wearing their ookiness on their sleeves.
As Joan Cusack’s electric performance proves, Addams Family Values takes after its predecessor in at least one major way. With both returning cast members and newcomers, it continues to shine a light on some of the 1990s’ best female comedy performers. Alongside Cusack, we also have a delectable performance from Dame Christine Baranski as a tooth-gnashingly peppy camp counselor. Another newcomer is the ever-delightful Carol Kane, stepping in for Judith Malina as Grandmama. She gets the least to do, but nails the hell out of her showcase moments.
The returning stars also shine. Anjelica Huston might be sidelined in this movie, but she makes every moment count. The movie itself warps around her grandeur, in fact. The cinematography gives her exaggerated, vampy eyelight in literally every shot, even those she shares with co-stars. But she shines even without the help of her exaggerated gothic aesthetic. One of the best scenes in the movie simply involves Morticia reluctantly but lovingly reading Dr. Seuss to Pubert. In that small moment, she communicates so much about Morticia’s relationship to motherhood that elevates an already funny scene. Christina Ricci also brings her A-game once again. Particularly in a scene where Wednesday slowly delivers one of the most radiantly creepy smiles ever committed to celluloid.
A Funny but Flawed Sequel
Addams Family Values ain’t all bad, is what I’m saying. Not living up to The Addams Family isn’t a crime. That said, it does have other flaws that the original movie couldn’t have dreamed of in its wildest nightmares. Only one of the newly introduced sets has the same feverish verve as the original’s production design. And the editing of Debbie’s final scene frankly sucks. It makes a hash of spatial geography that shouldn’t be possible in a major motion picture.
Also, I take back every mean word I’ve ever said about MC Hammer’s tacky rap song “Addams Groove.” Tag Team’s “Addams Family (Whoomp!)” haphazardly jamming the phrase “Addams Family” into their hit “Whoomp! (There It Is)” is… troubling. It does things to rhythm and meter that should be punishable in all 50 states. It makes me want to go back in time and make sure human beings never evolved ears.
So, yeah. Ultimately, in my eyes, there’s no getting around the fact that Addams Family Values is a mixed bag. It has its moments, but it just doesn’t hit the heights that should have been well within its reach. If I ever had to watch two Addams movies in quick succession again, I’d just do the 1991 movie twice.
Most people find that stretching their dollar still barely gets them by in today’s economy. I am very particular about what I spend my spare money on regarding extracurriculars. And no one likes to feel like their money is wasted. Madame Morbid Trolley Tours wasn’t an experience I had been familiar with. Maybe that’s because I’m chronically offline for most of my life. So this leads to the perfect question: in today’s turbulent economy, is Madame Morbid Trolley Tours worth the price? The short answer is unquestionably, yes. But it’s more than just a simple yes.
My wife and I arrived at the designated meeting point 15 minutes before the scheduled departure time. A handful of minutes later, a gorgeous, e-candle-lit trolley pulled up to the side of the road. We were greeted by impeccably on-brand Allison Chase, our tour guide, and trolley driver ‘Mad’ Matt Zaller. The wonderfully cheery duo invited us on the trolley, and the tour was set to begin.
400 Years of Death, Destruction, and Infrastructure
After a welcoming video intro from someone who knows a thing or two about busting ghosts, we set off on the inaugural Madame Morbid Trolley Tour in its ninth year of operation. From the Brooklyn Naval Yard all the way to Dumbo, and more, this tour magnificently chronicles 400 years of history, the good and the bad, expertly. No matter how much you think you may know about Brooklyn history, I can bet there will be something new learned within the first 15 minutes of the tour. From the first-ever plane crash to one of the worst theater fires in history, this tour covers tragedies that the greatest horror writers couldn’t conceive.
The Deadly [Charming] Docent
Allison Chase led the fascinating tour in character from the moment we stepped on the trolley until our departure. But Allison’s character was not forced or fake; you could feel Allison’s passion for not just morbid history, but the accuracy of it. Some of the stories we heard were steeped in historical context, and it was not boring for a single second. The Madame Morbid Trolley Tour is not your standard full-talking tour. It’s a mixed-media adventure of some of Brooklyn’s darkest moments.
During “downtime” (the times between locations), we were edutained by mini documentaries (that were quite funny). Some of the “downtime” was filled with traffic trivia (I won a needle pen!). And other times were show-and-tell-like, with objects passed around for us to examine. But there was never a moment of silence that wasn’t purposeful. All in all, Allison’s knowledge and passion shone like the luminosity of a full moon.
Is Madame Morbid Trolley Tours Worth It?
The Madame Morbid Trolley Tour was not just a fun night out for my wife and me, but it was a delightfully dark night of edutainment. It should also be noted that ‘Mad’ Matt’s driving skills were fantastic. There was a time when I had become enamored with how Matt handled the narrow streets of Brooklyn before realizing that I needed to refocus my attention on Allison. The Madame Morbid Trolley Tour is an exceptionally fun evening of horror and history that will make you think twice next time you walk down the streets of Brooklyn. It is worth the money, and then some. There’s no better activity for a cold, dark October night than the Madame Morbid Trolley Tour.
For more information on Madame Morbid Trolley Tours, and to get your tickets, click here!
I don’t know what’s wrong with me. I should have watched the Stephen King adaptation Cujo a million years ago. First of all, I was a voracious King reader in middle school. The other thing I was obsessed with during those years was Friends. You know, the show that hinges a major episode’s subplot on Rachel (Jennifer Aniston) watching Cujo for the first time. Whatever the reason was, I never got around to it, but I’m rectifying that oversight now.
What is Cujo About?
Cujo tells a relatively simple story. Donna Trenton’s (Dee Wallace) a housewife who’s cheating on her husband Vic (Daniel Hugh-Kelly) with local handyman Steve (Christopher Stone). There’s no accounting for taste, because Vic is 10 times hotter and Steve doesn’t own a bed frame. Look, Donna. I know Vic has that awful David Hasselhoff hair, but I promise the 1980s will end sooner or later. It’ll be OK.
Donna’s attempted termination of this affair ultimately leads to its discovery. Amid this drama, her car breaks down at a mechanic’s isolated farmhouse, trapping her and her son, Tad (Danny Pintauro). You see, the mechanic’s dog, Cujo, freshly christened with rabies, is patrolling the area and attacking everything in sight.
Dee Wallace Is Cujo’s Not-So-Secret Weapon
It would be impossible to start a worthwhile review of Cujo without praising Dee Wallace. The woman is a genre icon, naturally. Think about this: She had only appeared in seven theatrical movies before starring in Cujo. Four of those movies are The Stepford Wives, The Hills Have Eyes, E.T., and The Howling. But this woman didn’t become an icon simply by accidentally stumbling into some iconic titles. She is simply terrific as Donna, using her darting eyes and taut expression to deliver oodles of subtext. You instantly get the sense of how trapped she feels by marriage and motherhood without her uttering a single word.
A good performance is vital, here. Because there’s a hell of a lot of drama to get through before she’s trapped in that damn car. But Wallace instantly shoves you into Donna’s perspective, whether you like it or not. This makes it all the more potent when she is menaced by Cujo. Her desperate attempts for survival, also impeccably performed, have true weight because she seems like a real person. She is also given an incredible scene partner in Danny Pintauro. The future Who’s the Boss? star, who was only six when shooting Cujo, has a perfect everychild quality. His innocence heightens the peril. But so does that fact that he is just as irritating as every six-year-old you’ve ever met.
This movie truly captures how annoying it must be to be stuck in a life-and-death situation with a child. This is a compliment, I swear! Donna is worn down by every aspect of the situation, including her own son’s inability to cope with it. And this ratchets up the tension even further, to an almost unbearable degree.
Cujo Is a Mixed Bag, But Worthwhile Overall
The movie doesn’t work if Cujo himself doesn’t work, and at first I was real worried that he wouldn’t. In the first half, the St. Bernards that play Cujo onscreen are often shown to be wagging their tails in delight. Which kind of undercuts the reality of the situation, I’d say. But the editing and the special effects step in to fix what animal training couldn’t. The attack scenes in the second half are constructed with quick cuts that never let you get too much purchase. It’s a good approach for keeping viewers off-kilter.
Also, Cujo becomes less and less recognizable as a cuddly canine the further the movie gets. It’s a simple trick, really. He ends up getting coated with more and more slime. Saliva, pus, blood, and what have you. This is good for making him feel like a true movie monster. Plus, it’s a good mirror for the sliminess inside the car as it gets covered in sweat, blood, and grime.
The second half of the movie ultimately works like gangbusters. It’s a shame that Cujo is too cowardly to get Donna and Tad in the car before the halfway point. This decision is somewhat faithful to the book’s structure as I remember it. However, it diminishes the weight of the long days that they spend in the car. We really need to feel that crushing stretch of time, and we don’t. When Tad is suffering from dehydration, it’s not a gut punch. Honestly, I just found myself asking, “Already?” It’s good that they gave the movie a happier ending, because the classic grimdark Stephen King finale wouldn’t have landed.
Is Cujo Worth Watching in 2026?
At the end of the day, Cujo is a solid movie and I’m glad I finally watched it. However, it’s not such a stone-cold classic that I’m not at least a little intrigued by that upcoming Netflix remake…
