Reviews
[REVIEW] ‘MaXXXine’ Brings a Fun, Off-Kilter Closer to the X Trilogy
After a blood-curdling ordeal at a farmhouse in Texas, adult film star Maxine Minx’s road to true Hollywood stardom has been paved with nothing but trauma and blood. Still recovering from her encounter with Pearl and Howard Douglas in X, Maxine finally gets a chance to work on an actual Hollywood production: a B-movie horror sequel called The Puritan II. But amidst her change in luck is a series of mysterious murders plaguing Los Angeles, putting Maxine in the crosshairs of cops and private eyes, while the movements of the infamous Night Stalker set the city, and her hopes of getting the life she deserves, ablaze.
After a blood-curdling ordeal at a farmhouse in Texas, adult film star Maxine Minx’s road to true Hollywood stardom has been paved with nothing but trauma and blood. Still recovering from her encounter with Pearl and Howard Douglas in X, Maxine finally gets a chance to work on an actual Hollywood production: a B-movie horror sequel called The Puritan II. But amidst her change in luck is a series of mysterious murders plaguing Los Angeles, putting Maxine in the crosshairs of cops and private eyes, while the movements of the infamous Night Stalker set the city, and her hopes of getting the life she deserves, ablaze.
I was initially unsure of how MaXXXine would pan out, partly because of some bad feedback I saw of the film, and partly because I was worried it would hydroplane into some weird true crime stuff, given the mentions of the Night Stalker in promotional materials. Thankfully it doesn’t, not in the slightest. But, as the classic song “Bette Davis Eyes” played over the credits, I was left thinking one thing: people will either love this or hate this—no middle ground.
Having now seen it and seen people actually arguing leaving the theatre over the film, I can say, yeah, it’s not going to be for everyone. But for whom the Minx bell tolls, it tolls hard and wild. For me, it is a solid little movie that throws caution to the wind and becomes something pretty interesting because it’s slightly removed from its origins.
A STRAIGHTFORWARD CONTINUATION OF X, BUT A TONAL DEPARTURE
Though it is a continuation of the story that started in X, MaXXXine feels less like a cohesive third in the triad of films about scorned young women with dreams they’ll stop at nothing to attain. MaXXXine will divide audiences because of how radical the tonal change is from the preceding duology. This film is downright cartoonish at points, since it abandons hagsploitation and old Hollywood for an insane, snow-fueled ride into 80s mayhem.
I was fond of Pearl more than X because it was Ti West getting out of his usual mumbly zone of dark visuals and exploring old Hollywood’s technicolor glory days for what they really were: an unreal diversion built during a much bleaker time in history. I expected MaXXXine to dive more into those depths of unreality, something X and Pearl held as secondary to the film’s much more interesting conversations about sex, gender, and the breakdown of traditional American life in the post-war period, with all the byproducts that came with it (including the rise of modern Evangelical and fundamentalist movements).
MaXXXine, however, is much more interested in discussing that last topic, even coming with a handy montage at the beginning of the film to set the mood of a hazy, heat-stricken city clutched by the pangs of Reaganomics and Satanic Panic. That isn’t to say the film doesn’t have heavy thematic ties to the two movies that came before it (after all, all three are meant to invoke each other), but MaXXXine doesn’t mirror them as starkly as they mirror each other.
It’s in how MaXXXine explores these themes that it really lets you know: this is not a film-grain-pocked granny slasher contemplating aging, or a vibrant character study draped in a faded red white and blue dream. This is a fun, wild movie mocking the insanity of the era’s politics and supplementing it with gory, giallo-inspired horror.
TI WEST LOVES OLD HORROR (AND HE WANTS YOU TO KNOW IT)
That giallo aspect, of course, is a lot of aesthetic exercises in lighting and odd camera angles from Ti West and director of photography Eliot Rockett. The duo have worked well together for ages now, so why fix what isn’t broken right?
The film’s story is structured as a classic murder mystery would be, but takes plenty of pitstops exploring old horror in its many references and tributes: The Exorcist series, Four Flies on Grey Velvet, Blood and Black Lace, Pieces, and Psychoall get their due with West pouring out his admiration for the people who made those films with every flex of his cinematic muscles.
That’s not even getting into the fact that the special effects in this film are pure heat, with lots of practical effects that ooze blood as much as they ooze an appreciation for the craft. The way Weta managed to replicate the look of that bright red, paint-y blood used in 80s B-horror is so unserious-looking but so screen-accurate that I can’t help but love it.
MIA GOTH DELIVERS, BUT WITHOUT THE SAME SHINE SEEN IN PEARL
Of course, I can’t rule out the possibility this was all meant to be taken deadly serious and the film is not meant to be humorous. But I find that hard to believe given, in addition to the above factors, everybody in this movie is playing into the heightened character archetypes they’re assigned: the macho Los Angeles detective, the sleazy private eye, the hardass auteur director, everyone is playing a stock character in one way or another (albeit, fun ones and they’re doing a great job of it). Maybe the only one who isn’t is Mia Goth in the title role. Playing a stock character, that is, she’s still pretty good in this.
In X, Mia Goth had a brilliant double role as both villain and victim and got to showcase an incredible amount of talent with her physical acting as an aged Pearl. In the prequel, Goth had a sort of Vampire’s Kiss era Nicholas Cage charm; she was completely and utterly unhinged, but that virulent madness of hers was robed in a magnetism that most people couldn’t avoid being hooked by.
The Maxine she portrays in this film skews more towards her work in Pearl, but never really hits the same peaks of the buck-wild screaming she does at the projectionist or her hypnotizing speech to Mitsy in Pearl. She still has some incredible moments here though, with my favorite being a scene early on confronting a would-be attacker and holding nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) back.
WHAT’S THE VERDICT FOR THE MOST UNIQUE SEQUEL THIS YEAR?
So, the bottom line you might be asking after all this is, “Should I go see it?”. For what it’s worth, I think it’s an obvious yes. But the major caveat you should have sussed out by now is that you should not go into this expecting anything like the previous two films. I would go so far as to say this is probably going to be the Scream 3 of Ti West’s filmography for how polarizing it is; if you like it, you love it, and if you don’t like it, you’ll want to burn down all the studios in Hollywood over it yourself. Unfortunately, I like Scream 3 a lot, so interpret that info as you will.
MaXXXine is a unique little follow-up to X and Pearl, with just the right wild cinematography and just the right wild performances to make it work. And it’s an hour and forty-four minutes of fun on tap– as long as you’re willing to indulge in something a little different, and willing to shed some notions of what your ideal X sequel “should” look like.
Reviews
[REVIEW] The People Vs. ‘The Exorcism of Emily Rose’
The Exorcism of Emily Rose is a unique take on exorcism films. The film follows Erin Brunner (Laura Linney), a high-profile defense lawyer. Brunner is fresh off a murder case where her client was cleared of all charges–only for that client to turn around and commit another set of murders. In the hopes of becoming a partner at her law firm, Brunner is talked into taking the defense for Father Richard Moore (Tom Wilkinson). Father Moore finds himself in the hot seat after a series of exorcisms resulted in the death of Emma Rose (Jennifer Carpenter). The twist? Erin Brunner is agnostic! OooOOoooOh.
The second film I wanted to cover, that’s “based on a true story”, is one that utterly fascinates me…and not for the right reasons. After Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, I felt let down. I am by no means a Henry Lee Lucas expert, but even with someone having the bare knowledge of the case, I couldn’t believe they dared to refer to it as having anything to do with the Confession Killer. Could The Exorcism of Emily Rose pull me out of this pit of despair? Can it get some basic information right? Ugh.
The Exorcism of Emily Rose is a unique take on exorcism films. The film follows Erin Brunner (Laura Linney), a high-profile defense lawyer. Brunner is fresh off a murder case where her client was cleared of all charges–only for that client to turn around and commit another set of murders. In the hopes of becoming a partner at her law firm, Brunner is talked into taking the defense for Father Richard Moore (Tom Wilkinson). Father Moore finds himself in the hot seat after a series of exorcisms resulted in the death of Emma Rose (Jennifer Carpenter). The twist? Erin Brunner is agnostic! OooOOoooOh.
This film brings us the dramatized events of Emily’s tragic final days through the setting of a courtroom drama. There’s something fun about this idea. It’s surprising this idea hasn’t been reused. Laura Linney and Tom Wilkinson are an excellent duo, they play off each other very well. If only the real-life lawyers were as likable as Erin Brunner (we’ll get there later). The real star of the show is Jennifer Carpenter. Tasked with doing justice to the real Emily Rose (Anneliese Michel), Carpenter handles her performance with class.
The story jumps back and forth between the courtroom and Emily’s experiences. There is great information for the film to base its script on, and it doesn’t do it interestingly. One of the most notorious pieces of evidence in this case is the leaked audio of the 67 exorcisms performed on Michel. The Catholic church did not release this audio until around 2011, but Carpenter does a great job of channeling the pain you can hear in the audio.
An interesting angle of the real Anneliese Michel story is how the lawyers were really trying to put the devil on trial. Unlike the film, Michel’s parents were also put on trial, as well as the two priests who initiated the exorcisms. Rather than the film’s dramatic guilty plea with time served as a sentence, the German justice department thought the parents had suffered enough and that the priests should just get fined. In reality, both the parents and the priests deserved to go to jail. The complete neglect of Anneliese’s ailments was thought nothing more than the dirty hands of the devil. Anneliese’s parents and the priests were the cause of her death. Their extreme beliefs in a bearded man in the sky trumped the reality of what was actually happening with their extremely sick daughter.
The film plays off Brunner as someone who needs to see the light. Brunner is put on this case to help rectify her previous case (the one where she got the murderer off without charges). God put her in Father Moore’s hands. So, by this logic, co-writer/director Scott Derrickson thinks that for one person to receive redemption, another must die. The Exorcism of Emily Rose is nothing more than religious propaganda. “What if god is real,” Erin Brunner asks the jury. Even if god is real, a young woman is dead! God isn’t on the chopping block, Father Moore is. This latter half of this film plays strictly to the Bible Belt.
Also, Erin Brunner is written as someone who can be redeemed and will be redeemed, a tragic character who has accepted greed over truth. Do you want to know who defended the Michels in real life? Lawyers who defended Nazis in the Nurenberg trials. Scott Derrickson can fuck right off.
Everything about this film feels like nothing more than Catholic-funded propaganda. Rather than owning up to their mistakes and accepting the punishment they deserved, the Michels and priests never had to answer for their true crimes. They left a young woman to die a truly horrible death and all got off with a slap on the wrist.
All of this went down around the same time as Vatican 2. The Catholics who were against Vatican 2 were hoping that they could find a way to prove that Anneliese was possessed because god wasn’t happy with the Vatican II overhaul. If they could prove god’s anger, they could use that as fuel to ensure Vatican II didn’t happen. Anneliese’s mother gaslit her into refusing the idea that her neurological issues could be the cause of all this. See, Anneliese wanted to be a teacher, but her mother forced her to believe that no one would hire her as a teacher if she had all of these issues. People won’t hire a crazy teacher.
Failed by those around her, Anneliese was posthumously deprived of any justice. If there is a god, I can only hope the Michels and the two priests do not meet him. Instead of breaking down all of these fascinating aspects of the case of Anneliese Michel, Scott Derrickson crafted a shell of a film. His lack of care for the source material is beyond disrespectful to Anneliese’s pain in her short time on earth. Scott Derrickson’s classless and [seemingly] Catholic-funded sophomore feature film is nothing more than a film that has a few solid scares that rely on you taking him at his word. For a film that starts with the title card “based on a true story,” there is not a lick of truth in this nearly two-hour film.
Reviews
[REVIEW] ‘Dreadstone: The Beginning’ Is a Gold Rush of Terror
We continue to start our year by looking at short films that either ran their festival circuit in 2024 or will soon be running the festival circuit. Western horror is a subgenre that’s often overlooked, usually because it offensively centers around Native Americans attacking groups of white people who have taken over their land. Bone Tomahawk and The Burrowers are unfortunate examples of painting Natives in a negative light for the plight of the whites. Who knew all it would take for a well-done Western horror is an Italian director at the helm?
Dreadstone: The Beginning follows Jeb (Grid Margraf), a tired and weathered man who is left in charge of his non-verbal autistic daughter Adeline (Alexandra Boulas). Jeb finds himself in possession of a purple-glowing gem that may be more nefarious than meets the eye. The two traverse across harsh lands in search of the source of the gem. But things turn south when they find out what they were looking for may have answers to questions they never intended on asking.
Written by Avery Peck and Riccardo Suriano, and directed by Riccardo Suriano, Dreadstone: The Beginning is a fascinating start to a tale as old as time. Peck’s cinematography beautifully brings their words to life and effortlessly blends cosmic horror with the overwhelming fruitless nature of greed and the human condition. Cosmic and Western horror aren’t typically put together, but they work incredibly well with the ideas behind Dreadstone and its themes. Jeb’s gem is a practical MacGuffin and is a great stand-in for the concept of greed; this opulent-looking rock in a no-tech world. It’s a simple object that’s incredibly effective.
The frontier setting of Dreadstone works to create an isolating setting. This large setting singularly frames these two characters and makes them feel like the only people in the world. It isn’t until the film’s final shot that we realize they are definitely not the only people around. Dreadstone: The Beginning is a drastic change from Suriano’s previous film, Along Came Ruby. Besides the obvious time difference between these two films, Ruby sets itself as a Last of Us-like post-apocalyptic film, whereas Dreadstone: The Beginning sets itself to possibly be a pre-apocalyptic film. These two films also differ in tone, but both films prove that Suriano is confident with his overall voice and vision.
Alexandra Boulas stars in both Along Came Ruby and Dreadstone: The Beginning. Boulas excels in both films but gives a more reserved and confident performance in Dreadstone. With the exception of a few moments, Boulas’ performance is silent…but commanding. Watching Ruby shows that Boulas can easily deliver lines, while Dreadstone proves there’s more to her acting than line delivery. Fingers crossed we see her in more films in the near future, I think she has a promising career ahead of her.
Dreadstone: The Beginning is a unique take on Western horror that forgoes the [racist] Native Americans against white people trope that the subgenre is fraught with. A touch of cosmic horror, a hint of coming-of-age, and a heaping spoonful of good ole greed make Dreadstone: The Beginning a short film that will stick with you long after the credits roll. I’ll tell you what…this made me look forward to Dreadstone: The Aftermath!