Connect with us

Reviews

‘Addams Family Values’: A First-Time Watch Review

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Brennan Klein is a millennial who knows way more about 80's slasher movies than he has any right to. He's a former host of the  Attack of the Queerwolf podcast and a current senior movie/TV news writer at Screen Rant. You can also find his full-length movie reviews on Alternate Ending and his personal blog Popcorn Culture. Follow him on Twitter or Letterboxd, if you feel like it.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Reviews

‘Them That Follow’ Review: A Bleak and Brilliant Thriller

Published

on

From Blood Shine to now, I’ve really been eating my words with my “don’t like cult horror” attitude. Maybe all I needed was a gigantic break from the hundreds of cult-based horror films that were being churned out. Or, maybe the subgenre just needed some space to find its footing? Anyway, imagine the shock on my face when I was researching snake-based horror films and came across Them That Follow, starring Walton Goggins, Olivia Coleman, Kaitlyn Dever, and *checks notes* Jim Gaffigan!

Lemuel (Walton Goggins) is the pastor of a snake-fearing religious group, tucked away deep in the Appalachian mountains. His daughter, Mara (Alice Englert), is set to marry Garret (Lewis Pullman), a man she seemingly has no interest in. As their young love comes into question, Johnny Law starts breathing down their necks. With her best friend Dilly (Kaitlyn Dever) on her side, Mara questions everything she’s known about her life thus far. Will she go forward and marry a man she may not even love? Or, will her former fling, Auggie (Thomas Mann), win her affection and get her to leave this awful life behind?

A Slow-Burn With Style

Writer/directors Brittany Poulton and Dan Madison Savage bring a wholly unique feature to the table with Them That Follow. At first, the film’s meandering and lackluster pace is grating. WHEN will something happen? WHAT will move this story forward? Slowly but surely, Poulton and Savage’s story serpentines its way into nihilistic horror. If you have zero control over your life, what kind of life is it? Them That Follow is a harrowing, albeit slow, exploration of grief in a way that “elevated horror” typically fails at doing. Rather than forcing audiences into its grief, Poulton and Savage craft an excellent story around it.

Them That Follow explores not just grief, but groupthink. In a world where deeply religious political parties storm pizza restaurants with automatic weapons and kill in the name of their god, this film acts as a harsh mirror. YOU may not be aware that groups like this exist…they do. One of my favorite articles is written by someone who embedded himself in a Q-adjacent cult as he chronicled just how broken some of these groups are. (I wish I could remember the title/author, sorry!) Them That Follow does an incredible job at visualizing some of the things I read in that article. Those who believe Lemuel see nothing wrong with letting one of their friends get bitten by a venomous snake and slowly drift into a quiet death in the name of their god.

Outstanding Performances and a Surprising Cast

What really excited me about Them That Follow is how wonderfully miserable the cast is. Never have I seen people portray misery as entertainingly as this cast. Walton Goggins embodies his violent optimism in a way I haven’t seen him do before (though I haven’t seen Justified). Olivia Coleman is brilliant as always. But it’s everyman comedian Jim Gaffigan who really caught my eye. His performance is subtle and refined, something I didn’t think he could pull off. And if you ever thought you would see the day where Jim Gaffigan and Olivia Coleman play husband and wife on screen, you’re lying.

Advertisement

It’s not until the final act that the film goes from stagnant (positively) forwardness to amped up energy. I was concerned Them That Follow wouldn’t nail an interesting stinger, but Poulton and Savage wrapped a bloody brilliant bow on the end of this gift. I did wish they had gone in a different, less realistic angle to the film’s ending; something more grotesque. But I can’t fault them for leaving the film grounded in a reality that is justified and believable. Not all films like this have to end with a supernatural, Lovecraftian twist. And for that, I tip my ten-gallon hat to them.

Why Them That Follow Deserves More Attention

Them That Follow was an incredible surprise, and a wonderful change of pace for what cult-based horror films typically are. With a stacked cast, brilliant writing, and stunning performances, I’m shocked more people haven’t stumbled across this film. It utilizes its snake-based horror well and doesn’t vilify those slithery sneaks in a way many snake-based horror films do. At the very least, watch this film to see what it would be like if Olivia Coleman and Jim Gaffigan were married.

Continue Reading

Reviews

‘Five Nights at Freddy’s 2’ Review: Fanservice Wrapped in Mess

Published

on

I have no illusions that Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 entertained me due in no small part to personal bias. There was genuine enjoyment to be had for how silly and fun it was and enjoy it I did. I, of all people, am not immune to nostalgia. But there’s no mincing words: the second outing at the cinemas for creator Scott Cawthon’s behemoth horror franchise is, in no uncertain terms, a movie of mixed to low quality. It’s kind of bad. And that’s okay.

Its effects are simultaneously better and worse, its dialogue ranges from alright to atrocious, and its performances are all over the place. The premise it runs with, remixing the second game with its shiny new Toy versions of the Fazbear Entertainment gang, is a fun time fueled by fan service and busting at the seams to try and accommodate it all to an under two-hour runtime. But it’s messier than the backrooms of the pizzerias it takes place in.

A Remix of Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 (And Others), Heavy on Fanservice

This time, the primary antagonist puppeteering a cast of aggressive animatronics is literally a puppet; the Marionette, a scorned victim of the previous film’s antagonist William Afton. Slain and bound to the very first restaurant Afton started, a group of ghost hunters unleash its evil when a recording of their show goes horribly wrong. It’s up to Mike (Josh Hutcherson) and Vanessa (Elizabeth Lail) to try and seal it away again, or risk their lives being torn apart by the supernatural once more.

For the game fans this film was crafted for, it will satiate any lore craving they might have. Well, at least until the third film, when Mike will combat oxygen deprivation that causes him to hallucinate phantom animatronics (no, that sentence is not a joke, that actually happens). There are tidbits of foreshadowing for sequels, confirmations of theories, retcons, and somewhat amusing cameos. For everyone else, you’ll get a good laugh and the occasional scare, but you will have a plethora of questions.

The Screenplay Has Been Springlocked

The script for this sequel is riddled with oddities, nothing characters, and genre cliches that are in a quantum state of “good because it’s hilarious” and “bad because it’s genuinely bad” depending on who is delivering them. The story isn’t always predictable just because of the adaptation factor it relishes in, but its dialogue is undeniably silly and hamstrings what could otherwise be good performances with a need to rush along lore and forced character development.

Advertisement

Hutcherson’s go around as Mike this time is phoned in, and it doesn’t help that he wasn’t given anything to work with other than being a stereotypical single father figure to his kid sister. It’s not all bleak; Lail does actually deliver the film’s best bits in a genuinely frightening dream sequence delving into Vanessa’s backstory. She also gets a few fun final girl moments, but hasn’t reached the level of iconic that would garner calling her a scream queen; we’ll see if that changes in 3 given the radical shift in character she goes through here.

Great Villains Hamstrung by an Imperfect Script (And Effects)

Piper Rubio is once again fit to her role as Abby, though the character she’s playing is oddly one note for a child who is psychic friends with the ghosts of dead kids. The brief voice lines for the animatronics by guest stars garner little in the way of memorability, but long-time Freddy voice actor Kellen Goff does manage to make a solid impact with the one or two lines he receives.

While we’re on the topic of those new fiendish animatronics, they are much better than anticipated. Their practical puppetry bases and how they’re composited with the CGI isn’t bad at all, with game designs translating well and moving nicely. The Marionette’s myriad forms, however, do feel exceptionally goofy despite the terrifying concept of a slithering octopoid puppet ghost with no concrete skeleton. They’re the lowlight of the film’s effects, but it’s kind of endearing how silly they look.

The biggest victim of the film, however, is Freddy Carter. He plays the creep factor of his character up to a thousand in a way that absolutely would work with better writing and a darker tone. But he’s shackled by the lore implications of being a character people have been waiting for, in a way that feels more offensive to the story than the constant easter eggs. Every word that leaves his mouth feels comically bad, laden with exposition or just outright limp and cold linework.

We Underused Matthew Lillard Again (And Skeet Ulrich This Time Too)

Which is a shame, because our minor villain does get to have fun. Matthew Lillard’s brief screen chewing time in the sun as William Afton once more is delightful, playing a deranged killer in a yellow bunny costume with all the glee that visual would indicate.

Advertisement

Skeet Ulrich as fan favorite character Henry Emily, however, doesn’t get nearly enough time to shine. Despite being a perfect casting for the role and delivering a convincing turn as a grieving father, he’s relegated to just delivering a plot device that gets 30 seconds of screentime. Here’s to hoping the next film reunites the Scream alums, allowing the long-time rivals of the game to finally cross paths.

Can Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 Be More Than Fan Service?

I suppose the constant reiteration of that last point is important to address: the current train of thought is that hopefully, eventually, the kinks will be worked out as far as the Five Nights at Freddy’s films go. Though I’m not holding my breath.

There are no reservations that this is, first and foremost gateway horror for younger audiences, with a nostalgia barbed fishhook to sink into in older fans as well. My humble prediction is that almost all of these films will remain roughly the same level of quality (middling to poor), the same level of frightening (more than you’d think and much less than you’d hope), and the same level of entertaining for the segments of the population it hits for (a fairly fun time).

And maybe that’s enough. To simply be entertaining gateway horror is fine, I don’t think there’s a screaming necessity for these to be masterpieces. This movie is kind of bad, and that’s okay if all you need is some fleeting entertainment or to see your favorite game adapted to film. But films with this much franchise potential should be treated as all others. They can be strong horror films with great iconography rather than features beholden entirely to that iconography.

Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 fails to wow in any particular department other than being “for the fans” and much of its unintentional humor. Still, there’s a glimmer of hope here in its silvery eyes that this can all be something more down the line.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria
Advertisement
Advertisement