Unseen Terror 2023: Bumpin' All Over Town (Days 16-17)

Yep, we're doing the yearly Goosebumps visit. Again. It's sort of an unofficial requirement for me these days, isn't it? Stick around after I quickly discuss these three episodes for something newer and potentially more exciting though.

The Headless Ghost was a Goosebumps book that unfortunately alluded me as a kid (sometimes you had to pick and choose what was available at your local library), so I'm going into this one completely blind. It's about two immature pranksters (one male, one female) who find themselves trapped in a seaside house that's presumably haunted by.... well, a headless ghost. It's perfectly fine. Considering the caliber of performances we've seen throughout this TV series; the kids here are surprisingly pretty decent (even if their characters are completely unlikeable jerks). The tour guide for the house is played by character actor Dennis O'Connor, who has made minor appearances in stuff like In the Mouth of Madness and Trilogy of Terror II. His mutton chops and the surprisingly good twists in the end helps it to receive a thumbs up. Updating this story to fit into the newer Goosebumps show on Hulu could prove to be a lot of fun and make that show even more enjoyable..........I think I just gave away something about the end of this post. Crap.

Sadly, I never read any of the "Tales to Give You Goosebumps" collections when those were being published, as I think I had already moved on to Stephen King and the like by then. Thus, the adaptation of short story Don't Wake Mummy doesn't really have any significance to me and again, I have no familiarity with the source material. The plot is pretty easy: a family inherits a sarcophagus that houses a living, breathing mummy. It's...okay. My main problem with it comes from the fact that after watching this and The Headless Ghost back-to-back (and recalling other episodes I'd reviewed in the past), I realized that this show had a seriously hard time trying to write young girls as anything other than obnoxious, assholes, bullies, or all of the above. Look, I know I'm complaining about a Canadian kids show from the 1990s, but it's still disappointing. Throwing a mummy's heart into a garbage disposal (which causes its body to fall apart like it lost a final round in Mortal Kombat) is pretty dope though.

Now we're getting somewhere! Thankfully, I DO remember reading The Barking Ghost, and somehow never saw the adaptation of it. Hell, that book cover alone didn't help with my cynophobia (nor did seeing Cujo and Man's Best Friend when I was far too young). Thankfully that started to slowly vanish over time, and once we got our first dog Ozzy, that disappeared for good. The story is a bit of an oddball, as it deals more with body swapping and possession than evil dogs (though in this case, the titular creature is actually a duo of thief spirits who attempt to swap forms with two kids). "Body switch" stories in kids shows can prove to be very fun, and I think this is pretty decent for the most part. The major difference between the printed story and adaptation is a slight variation in the ending, with it receiving a bit more of a "feel good" wrap-up in regard to our two leads.

Speaking of "feel good" though...

I was only made aware of there being a new television series based around the R.L. Stine books about a couple of months ago or so. Admittedly, I was nervous not because of it potentially being "bad" and tarnishing the legacy of Goosebumps (I've sat through enough of those old episodes to tell you that your nostalgia goggles need a thorough cleaning), but because the oversaturation of horror television shows (and milking a cash cow dry) can sometimes lead to quality taking a backseat to pandering or the idea of "it's horror, they'll watch it. Whatever." My spirits were lifted quite a bit when I saw that it had the involvement of both Rob Letterman, who directed the 2015 film adaptation of the franchise (plus Detective Pikachu!) and Nicholas Stoller, whose body of work while VERY mixed, has written some films that I think are legitimately great (Captain Underpants, The Muppets 2011). I said, "let's have at it."

As someone who had avoided any and all trailers affiliated with this show, I was completely taken by surprise when I discovered that 2023's Goosebumps, unlike its 90s counterpart, is NOT an anthology series, but rather a traditional story with connecting elements and influences from the books themselves. It's a bold choice, though I will admit that I kind of miss the standalone element. You could just throw on a random episode and not worry about if you needed to catch up on anything. For example, infamous stories from the Goosebumps catalog such as "The Haunted Mask" and "The Cuckoo Clock of Doom" make appearances in one, singular area (in this case a haunted house that harbors the spirit of a murdered teenager and a plethora of tainted relics), and the first few episodes follow individual characters who experience the aftermath of interacting with the objects from said tales. Weirdly enough, the house itself acts as a sort of "base" where anything and everything can go wrong, with each character eventually all meeting up with one another and fully convinced that they aren't the only ones experiencing some seriously bizarre stuff as of late. It is reminiscent of a fun little oddity from 2010 called Todd & The Book of Pure Evil, which I pray will someday get the love that it truly deserves. I'm sure that the main question on your mind is this though: can you stop yammering and let me know if the dang thing is any good? Well, yeah. I think it's pretty good.

The cast is all solid, and I'll give extra points for diversity too (personality-wise the characters themselves will take some getting used to though). Apparently, there is a small contingent of people complaining about this online, but personally I'm all here for it. Besides, if I wanted to see inexperienced, awkward Caucasian kids act and scream terribly, I'd go watch the 1990s show or your parents' reaction after I push little Brydehn into a locker as punishment for them raising an incel. I only recognized two faces in this troupe, and they were both on the older side. Daily Show and Reno 911! vet Rachael Harris and Heroes star Leonard Roberts play some of teens' parents who may or may not know more about these freaky occurrences than they're willing to talk about. While they're both fun, they cannot hold a candle to the MVP of this new show: Justin Long. With his wonderfully wacky, weird, and deceptively creepy performance as the series' main antagonist (at least as of the 3 episodes I've watched), he's officially cemented himself as a "Scream King" in the genre. After all, Drag Me to Hell, Barbarian, Tusk, and Jeepers Creepers under his belt, who's to say he hasn't earned that title or his flowers? He's the glue that holds this whole thing together, and I am hoping that whatever happens later on in the season, he still somehow gets to stick around.

I'm expecting that 2023's Goosebumps won't be to everyone's liking, but I'm finding the experience to very enjoyable so far. It's a love letter to the books that also attempts to tell its own story (even if it's somewhat familiar territory), and it isn't too overly scary or vulgar that you couldn't watch it with your own kids. Check it out on Hulu or Disney+ if you have the time!

Unseen Terror 2022: Day 2

Look, I'm sure that I'm bound to make a few enemies by saying this, but I have to get it off of my chest: the original Hocus Pocus from 1993, while admittedly very fun, is a tad bit on the overrated side. Mind you, I do not dislike the film at all. I've enjoyed it going back to when I first saw it at a neighbor's Halloween party in (I want to say) 1994. I think Bette Midler is absolute fantastic in it. I think Doug Jones is immensely entertaining as Billy Butcherson. Do I consider it to be a bona fide classic in the genre though? That's kind of up for debate. Still, I was morbidly curious (and fearful) when they announced that a sequel to this (now) cult classic was being filmed and set to release exclusively on the Disney+ streaming service. Often times long overdue follow-ups end up disappointing to the degree where you tend to erase them from memory as fast as you possibly can (looking right at you Zoolander 2 and Anchorman 2).

Much to my surprise however, I found Hocus Pocus 2 to be pretty gosh darn fun. The plot isn't exactly complicated: two teenagers accidentally bring the abhorrent witches known as The Sanderson Sisters into modern day Salem and have to find a way to stop them from becoming all powerful and wreaking havoc upon the world. Simplistic storyline aside, I feel as though what makes a large chunk of this work is how enjoyable the cast is. The villainous Sanderson Sisters (who admittedly seem to be a tad toned down in terms of evilness this time around) are as splendid as they were thirty years prior, with Midler in particular just writhing in ecstasy every time that she gets to be the main focus. I also found Kathy Najimy to be far less irritating than she was in the first picture. Sarah Jessica Parker is...well, she's just swell. Yeah. As for their adversaries though? They're kind of a mixed bag. Whitney Peak (of Chilling Adventures of Sabrina fame) is a decent enough protagonist, but her companions feel a bit on the cliched side. On the "adult" side of things, we are blessed with the presence of the always entertaining Sam Richardson (whom you will likely recognize from television shows such as Veep and I Think You Should Leave) and a welcomed return of the aforementioned Doug Jones. The two of them have far better chemistry than anyone could have expected.

Here's where I may bum some readers out though: yes performance-wise, Midler, Najimy, and Parker are very good. But oof do they kind of drop the ball with the writing of their characters. Comical as they may be, there was still some hint of menace and malicious intent behind those ridiculous costumes in the first feature. Building up just the comedy and downplaying the fact that they are, y'know, witches who KILL AND EAT CHILDREN was certainly a choice, but I feel as though it will affect how many times a viewer is likely to revisit it. There is also an attempt to make them more sympathetic through an opening prologue that while amusing, reminds one of how Disney seems far too keen on utilizing the "sympathetic villain" trope. It was one thing in Maleficent, but I'm still pretty appalled by the fact they tried to make the titular character in Cruella likeable. This has also been bleeding over into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and I am kindly asking that you please stop this. Oh, and some of the CGI seemed rushed. There's that too.

Still, I'm legitimately shocked that I enjoyed this as much as I did. Perhaps watching with the right company can enhance one's enjoyment of this silly romp and help you ignore some of its weaknesses. Truth be told, there is a slim-to-none chance that anyone watching this hasn't seen its predecessor, but much like with this year's Clerks III, you can tell that it was made for that particular fanbase and nobody else. As it so obviously says on the poster, Hocus Pocus 2 is streaming on Disney+ and I don't see it leaving that platform anytime soon.

Tomorrow, we head to Japan for a kaiju flick unlike any other!

....no, seriously!

Maleficent (2014) Review

In an enchanted world populated by magical and powerful fairies and assorted creatures, a young fairy named Maleficent lives peacefully and joyously among her brethren. After a chance encounter, she begins to develop feelings for a human named Stefan, who comes from the fairy's bordering neighbors, and eventual enemies, the human kingdom. Over the years, Stefan's lust for power and leadership of his kingdom leads him to commit a terrible act towards the fairy, hoping it will culminate in speeding up his ascension towards the throne. Enraged and saddened, Maleficent begins a long and arduous path towards evil, which will culminate in a dark gift for the newly-crowned king's firstborn, Princess Aurora.


Despite what some of my friends or frequent visitors of Into The Hive may think, I'm always welcome to a new interpretation of a classic story, especially in the realm of classic fairy tale lore. Perhaps Bill Willingham's acclaimed graphic novel series Fables is partly to blame, or it may be my own maturity and attitude towards films of all variety which has helped. When I first caught a glance of Angelina Jolie and Elle Fanning as noted and famous Disney stalwarts Maleficent and Aurora, I was somewhat intrigued, but my apathy towards anything Disney-related that ISN'T animated wasn't leading me towards a ticket purchase. The first round of teasers and full-length trailers did little to bring about any enthusiasm, and discovering that this was in the hands of a first time director made me skeptical, even though this has worked for a multitude of films in recent memory. But for every Evil Dead or District 9, there is always an Aliens vs Predator: Requiem. So, where does this one lie in the pantheon of risk takers?


Though she has her number of naysayers, Angelina Jolie was born to play this role. She brings layers to a character that had never particularly captured my own affection. Admittedly, I was always more of an Ursula or Cruella de Vil fan, and even though she's guilty of chewing the scenery on a handful of occasions, Jolie manages to make you sympathize with the titular tragic villain whose heart may not be as dark as the original story from The Brothers Grimm would have you believe. This version of Maleficent has the right to be furious at the human race, and it can be argued that she is a stronger female role model than most modern day heroines (she's inarguably better than someone like Twilight's Bella Swan). Disney also must have listened to the masses' feedback about Sharlto Copley's villainous turn in last year's Elysium as well, since he plays the twisted and paranoid king whose slow descent into madness doesn't exactly inspire empathy from the public, be it in the theater or from his own servants. He may be difficult to understand for younger audiences though, but being from South Africa and attempting a Scottish/Irish/Brad Pitt-from-Snatch accent will do that to you. As for the supporting cast, Sam Riley, best known for playing Joy Division's Ian Curtis in Control, portrays Maleficent's right hand….erm, crow, and he's fine for what he is (he could be a dead ringer for Dominic Cooper or Orlando Bloom). The trio of the good fairies are all entertaining and more lively than I expected them to be (being led by the usually brilliant Imelda Staunton certainly helps), but goodness gracious, did all of their humorous bickering and banter have to feel like throwaway gags and routines from The Three Stooges? At least they weren't making Groucho Marx-style puns, otherwise I would have groaned rather audibly in the cinema hall…..actually, now that I've mentioned that, puns such as those would have been pretty awesome, if not incredibly out of place.


A large chunk of Maleficent's visual effects are pretty gorgeous to look at, if not flat out enchanting (makeup is provided by the extraordinarily talented Rick Baker). I went into the film initially having paid for a 3D experience, but the 2D reel was mistakenly played instead. While it didn't upset me in the slightest (I was given a refund for any future screening of my choice. Too bad this didn't happen with Rob Zombie's Halloween), I imagine that a three dimensional screening would have actually looked very impressive, post-conversion or not. From an all around visual standpoint, Maleficent looks pretty damn good and the cinematography is adequate. Great detail has gone into the wings of Jolie's character, and especially with her very elegant, if not slightly ghostly appearance, which is all the more fitting given that she has remained a mystery or myth to many simple-minded humansx. Part of me wonders how much of it actually comes from Angelina Jolie's natural beauty and how much came from computer generated imagery, and in this case, the perplexing nature of this works to the film's advantage.


While it seems like I'm fellating nearly everything related to this picture from that which surrounds Angelina Jolie, this does bring me to two rather vocal complaints that I have. First off, I get that your picture is called Maleficent, so naturally, you want her to be the main focus and be the most well-rounded and developed character. This is understandable. That being said, would it have been so hard to do this as well with your supporting cast? Aurora's presence doesn't feel nearly as important as it should, and even after the introduction of Prince Phillip (the man who would break the "Sleeping Beauty" curse in the source material), we don't get a good sense of who he is and why he cares for her. Yes yes, I know it's just storybook love, but I guess I just expected a bit more from this particular subplot, and I feel it detracts from all of the potential praise it could receive from critics and moviegoers alike.


The second criticism, and perhaps the oddest thing about Maleficent overall (well, odd by a fantasy movie's standards at least) is its criminally short running time. If I remember correctly, Disney has been hyping this particular re-imagining for close to, if not more than two years. With a case such as this, why make the final project a mere ninety seven minutes long? That is just absurd, and I felt a tad bit bamboozled when it seemed to just suddenly end. Something as grandiose as this deserves to at least cross the two hour mark. I do know that this particular motion picture went through several reshoots, so perhaps they're saving what was left on the cutting room floor for the presumably stacked Blu-Ray release to come.


Still, in terms of recent retellings of classic fairy tales and Disney lore, Maleficent stands above the competition (it is infinitely better than Tim Burton's messy 2010 version of Alice in Wonderland), if not a bit awkwardly. They've also accomplished the impossible by piquing my interest as to what the upcoming Kenneth Branagh-directed Cinderella will end up looking like.





Then again, I doubt it will have fire-breathing dragons, so it'll probably be less than stellar.

Brave Review

Young Scottish Princess Merida has reached her teen years, and as is customary in her kingdom, she must pick a suitor in order to preserve peace between the lands. A visibly and vocally unhappy Merida would rather choose her own fate and future though, as opposed to following what her family (specifically her mother) wants her to do. These choices may bring about turmoil and trouble to her family and kingdom, however, and soon the princess must undo a dangerous curse that could change everything for the worse.



I'd like to start off this review with the usual praise reserved for any and all Pixar films (outside of the Cars franchise), but I'd be lying to myself if that were the case. Brave is Pixar's thirteenth full length feature film, and perhaps thirteen really IS an unlucky number. Don't be mistaken, this isn't a terrible film by any means, but it has it's fair share of flaws. Let's start off with the positives.

For starters, the film is wonderfully gorgeous to look at at. I almost feel dirty praising visuals in anything nowadays, seeing as how it isn't a valid excuse for a film being lackluster anymore (case in point, The Last Airbender looks pretty, but is a hollow piece of excrement inside). Pixar's animators and the like continue to get better, and scenes that explore the splendor of the outdoors are truly breathtaking, even if it is in a cartoon. The voice acting is top notch as well, with Kelly Macdonald and Emma Thompson doing fantastic jobs as Merida and her mother Elinor. Billy Connelly is entertaining as Merida's father, but was on the verge of crossing over into the "over-the-top" realm. Thankfully the Scottish accents aren't reaching the level of incomprehensible either, so you won't be asking for a rewind of any particular scenes. The score is fine too, with a mixture of flutes, bagpipes, and various other instruments that add to the atmosphere and occasional fun vibe of the film.

I feel like I absolutely have to address the negatives though, as much as I am opposed to doing it. This is friggin' Pixar, I fear I may burst into flames with any criticism. All things considered, the story and the structure it has is rather simple, which is surprising for this studio. It plays out in a fairly predictable manner, with no real surprises to speak of. It felt more akin to a Dreamworks production at times. I also thought the film ran rather quickly, and had they decided to add on another twenty minutes or so, we could have gotten more well rounded characters and less throwaway ones. Finally, this film lacks a strong villain. We're alluded as to who it may be earlier in the film, and when we finally meet the villain, they have a total screen time of perhaps ten to fifteen minutes. It is massively underwhelming and incredibly disappointing, especially considering how vital and vibrant someone like Lotso was in Toy Story 3.

All of those complaints aside, I can still recommend Brave, though not strongly. When this film is finally released on DVD and Blu-Ray, give it a rent and judge it for yourself. It does have a better message than most pieces of media targeted to young girls in 2012, so surely that can't be a bad thing.