October Positivity: Come What May (dir by Manny Edwards and George D. Escobar)

Posted on October 17, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

First released in 2009, Come What May tells the story of the Hogan family.

Judith Hogan (Karen Kelly) is an attorney at a prestigious law firm and has become so devoted to her work and her politics that her husband, a pro-life biologist named Don (Kenneth Jezek), is feeling left out in the cold. Don has written a book that argues that life starts at conception but he’s struggling to get it published and he knows that, even if he does find a publisher, he’ll probably lose his job as a result.

Meanwhile, their son Caleb (Austin Kearney) wants to transfer to Patrick Henry College so that he can join their championship moot court competition team. Judith agrees to pay for one year at PHC, on the condition that Caleb win the Moot Court Championship. If he doesn’t, she won’t pay for a second year and I guess …. well, I don’t know what will happen. I guess Caleb will have to go back to his old college. To be honest, it seems kind of petty on Judith’s part.

Judith has a lot on her mind because she’s going to be arguing an abortion case in front of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Caleb and his moot court partner, Rachel (Victoria Emmons), are going to be arguing for the repeal of Roe v Wade during their competition, despite Caleb’s fear that the moot court might not be willing to accept their arguments. Sitting on the moot court is the retired Supreme Court justice who wrote Roe v Wade. That would seem like a conflict of interest to me but what do I know? I went to a party school.

Come What May is a low-budget film, one that is made with more ambition than skill. It’s not the type of movie that’s going to change anyone’s mind about abortion and, if you’re pro-choice, you’ll probably be even more pro-choice after seeing this film. The film works best as a 90-minute commercial for Patrick Henry College. Seriously, the campus looks lovely! Watching this movie, I found myself missing college. There’s no better feeling that having your future ahead of you and also feeling like you know better than everyone else in the world. As for the acting, the cast was often amateurish, with the exception of Victoria Emmons, who gave a very earnest and likable performance as Rachel and who, at the end of the film, got to wear this floral dress that was just to die for.

Watching the film today, what’s interesting is how dated it seems. It’s 16 years old but, with its debate over whether or not Roe v Wade can be overturned, it feels like it might as well have been written and filmed a hundred years ago. We now all know that Roe v Wade not only can be overturned but, in fact, it would be overturned 13 years after this film came out. (Of course, the arguments that led to the overturning of Roe v Wade were a far cry from the largely emotional argument that Caleb and Rachel make in this film.) Seen today, Come What May feels like a time capsule.

Horror Film Review: Giant From The Unknown (dir by Richard E. Cunha)

Posted on October 17, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

In 1958’s Giant From The Unknown, something strange is happening in a California mountain town. Animals are being killed. Property is being destroyed. People are being murdered.

Sheriff Parker (Bob Steele) suspects that the murderer might be Dr. Frederick Cleveland (Morris Ankrum), mostly because Dr. Cleveland spends a lot of time in the mountains looking at fossils with his daughter, Janet (Sally Fraser). When a younger scientist named Wayne (Ed Kemmer) shows up to help Dr. Cleveland out with his research, Sheriff Parker is even more suspicious. Meanwhile, the local citizenry suspects that it might be a member of the local Native American community.

It turns out that everyone’s wrong!

The murderer is a formerly dead conquistador (Buddy Baer), who was brought back to life by a bolt of lightning and who is now wandering around the mountains and killing people. The conquistador walks around in his full conquistador uniform, which is in pretty good shape when you consider the fact that he’s been dead for over two hundred years, maybe longer.

The odd thing about the conquistador is that he’s regularly described as being a giant, even though he’s clearly not. I mean, he’s tall. He appears like he might be 6’5. That makes him taller than the average person but shorter than the average professional basketball player. The filmmakers regularly attempt to shoot him from a lower angle in order to make him look taller but there’s nothing that can be done to disguise the fact that he’s just a 6’5 guy wearing what appears to be a fake beard and mustache. If anything, he looks like the frozen-faced Burger KIng mascot. Maybe he would stop killing people if the sheriff would just order a cheeseburger and fries. I mean, seriously, his whole rampage could have been avoided.

The title is also incorrect about the giant being from the unknown. He’s very obviously from Spain. All one has to do is look at his uniform. I think the unknown element of this film is how the conquistador has spent centuries underground without losing any skin. For someone who has been dead for as long as this conquistador was, his hair is very clean and well-groomed. Watching this film, it’s hard not to feel that Dr. Cleveland should have spent some time researching conquistador embalming techniques because whoever preserved the “giant” did a very good job! Everyone should be so lucky to look that good for being dead for that long.

Giant From The Unknown attempts to do the usual thing where the monster falls for the only woman in the entire film. (Indeed, it was hard not to notice that town’s population seemed to be 99% male.) Unfortunately, the giant was a pretty silly monster so it was difficult to get wrapped up in his emotional journey. There are some monsters that you feel sorry for and there are other monsters that you just wish would go away. The giant is a monster who probably had a lot of good haircare tips and who could have probably helped out the entire town …. if only they had been willing to listen!

What Lies Beneath (2000, directed by Robert Zemeckis)

Posted on October 17, 2025 by Jedadiah Leland

Claire (Michelle Pfeiffer) is a former cellist who is still struggling to recover from a serious car accident and who has been at loose ends ever since her daughter left for college. Claire’s husband, Norman (Harrison Ford), is a scientist and a college lecturer. After their neighbor, Mary (Miranda Otto), disappears, Claire becomes convinced that Mary’s husband (James Remar) did something to her. Claire also becomes convinced that Mary’s ghost is trying to contact her, by appearing in the lake and filling the bathtub up with water whenever Claire isn’t looking. Norman tells Claire that she’s imagining things and pushes her to see a therapist. As Claire investigates, she discovers that Norman knows more than he’s letting on.

What Lies Beneath is a long and drawn-out ghost story that Robert Zemeckis made because he had time to kill while the filming of Cast Away was on hiatus so Tom Hanks could lose weight and grow a beard. That this movie was not a personal project for Zemeckis is reflected in his direction, which is surprisingly impersonal for a Zemeckis film. The film is a showcase for Michelle Pfeiffer, who gives a good performance as the emotionally fragile Claire and holds the film’s many disparate elements together. Harrison Ford sometimes seems disinterested but his casting still pays off when Norman gets to say and do some things that you normally would never expect Harrison Ford to do.

I remember seeing this in a theater in 2000 and being surprised by the ending. Looking back on it today, I just can’t believe that I sat through the entire movie.

Wolf (1994, directed by Mike Nichols)

Posted on October 17, 2025 by Jedadiah Leland

Will Randall (Jack Nicholson), the editor-in-chief of a New York Publishing house, doesn’t get much respect, not from his wife (Kate Nelligan), not from his boss (Christopher Plummer), and certainly not from Stuart Swinton (James Spader), the sleazy executive who is plotting to steal his job and destroy his marriage. But then, one night, Will runs over a black wolf on a country road. When he tries to helps it, the wolf bites him. Soon after, Will starts to feel different whenever the moon is full.

I remember that, when Wolf came out in 1994, some people said that casting Jack Nicholson as a werewolf seemed like typecasting. Nicholson apparently understood this as well so he actually downplays his usual mannerisms for the first part of the movie and gives a convincing performance as a harried executive who is worried he’s about to lose his job. It’s only after he is bitten that Will Randall starts to come alive. Not only does he develop the predator instinct necessary to survive in New York City but he also, without fear, pursues his boss’s daughter, Laura (Michelle Pfeiffer, at her most beautiful). Typecast or not, Jack Nicholson is excellent in Wolf. Equally good is James Spader as Will’s business rival, who starts to show some predator-like aspects of his own.

Director Mike Nichols was not normally a horror director and, around the midway point, his direction falters and there are times when he just seems to be going through the motions. He gets good performances from his cast but doesn’t know how to craft a good jump scare. The best parts of the movie are when Wolf uses lycanthropy as a metaphor for petty office politics, with Will “marking” his territory while talking to Stewart and showing a renewed killer instinct. Wolf works better as a social satire than as a horror movie.

Fans of Frasier will be happy to see David Hyde Pierce in a small but key role. He delivers the film’s best line. Fans of Friends may also notice David Schwimmer in a small role. He says nothing worth remembering. Their presence, though, is a reminder of just how much American culture changed in 1994. By the end of the year, both went from small roles in Wolf to co-starring in the two of the most popular sitcoms in America.

October True Crime: The Hunt For The BTK Killer (dir by Stephen Kay)

Posted on October 17, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Dennis Rader is pure evil.

I feel confident saying that, though I’ve never met him. He’s currently eighty years old and in prison, serving several life sentences for a series of murders he committed in the 1970s, the 80s, and the 90s. Because he committed the murders at a time when Kansas did not have the death penalty, he escaped being executed. That said, he won’t be eligible for parole until the next century so we can rest assured that Dennis Rader will die in prison.

Dennis Rader was a serial killer who decided to give himself a nickname. He wrote letter to the local media in Wichita, Kansas and demanded to be known as The BTK Killer — for Bind Them, Torture Them, and Kill Them. It was a dumbass nickname but it stuck. Everything about the BTK case is disturbing but one that always gets me is that nearly got away with it. His last known victim was an elderly woman who he killed in 1991. By the time the current century rolled around, The BTK Case had gone cold and was being forgotten about. Rader couldn’t handle that so he started writing the local media and eventually the police again in 2004. Rader, being a moron, didn’t consider that he was mailing a DNA sample with every letter. Eventually, he sent the cops as floppy disk of his “writings.” What he didn’t realize is that the metadata from a deleted Word Document was still stored on the disk.

Dennis Rader was a deacon in his local church. He was also an dog catcher and compliance officer for Park City, Kansas. You know the self-important jerks who send you a letter threatening to fine you if you don’t mow your grass? Dennis Rader was one of those guys. When Rader was finally arrested, he was described as being a trusted member of his local community but let’s be honest. Everyone hates their local compliance officers. Most serial killers are driven by a need to control and dominate. Perhaps one reason why Rader had stopped killing was because he was able to channel his sadism into his job.

After he was arrested in 2005, he was on television constantly and he was such a continual presence that he even worked his way into a few of my nightmares. Rader confessed to his crimes in court, giving a monologue in which he dryly discussed each murder. Later, one of the primetime news shows interviewed Rader in prison and again, Rader discussed each murder in a flat tone and only showed emotion when he talked about the prospect of never leaving prison. It was disturbing to watch and listen to and sadly, the media made sure that we heard and listened to it a lot.

The Hunt For The BTK Killer was a made-for-television movie about Dennis Rader (played by Gregg Henry) and the detective (Robert Forster) who eventually arrested him. It aired in 2005, the same year that Rader was captured and eventually sentenced for his crimes. It’s a movie that was obviously shot very quickly to capitalize on the media attention that the case was receiving. As is often the case with the movies like this, it was filmed up in Canada. (Canadian film mainstay Maury Chaykin appears as a true crime writer.) All that said, it’s still an effective film. Gregg Henry, under a ton of makeup, plays Dennis Rader as being the type of busybody who gets off on telling people what to do and who believes that being a deacon at his church will absolve him from the murders that he committed. It’s a good performance and Henry is well-matched with Robert Forster. Forster’s naturally world-weary vibe made him the ideal choice for playing detectives who have seen the worst that humanity had to offer. Most importantly, the film shows how fear can change a community. When BTK is on the loose and sending taunting letters to the newspapers and the local television station, the people of Wichita soon start to suspect their neighbors and what was one a friendly town becomes a place where even Forster is at risk of getting accidentally stabbed by his terrified wife.

Dennis Rader was someone who obviously enjoyed the fear that he generated. He cried when he went to prison and hopefully, he’s still crying now.

Horror Review: Revenge (dir. by Coralie Fargeat)

Posted on October 17, 2025 by Arleigh

“Violence is a language written in blood; it tells the story of those who refuse to be silenced.”

Coralie Fargeat’s 2017 film Revenge is an intense and striking blend of horror and thriller that refreshes the rape-revenge genre with a strong emphasis on female empowerment and resistance. At its core, the film follows Jen, a young woman who is brutally assaulted and left for dead in a desert. Against all odds, she survives and seeks brutal revenge on her attackers. What makes Revenge stand out is its blend of graphic, realistic violence and a striking, highly stylized visual approach, resulting in a film that is both visceral and symbolic.

Revenge sits within a long tradition of rape-revenge films that includes both grindhouse exploitation and serious art films. One of the earliest and most influential films in this tradition is Ingmar Bergman’s The Virgin Spring (1960), a somber and moral exploration of a father’s response to his daughter’s rape and murder in medieval Sweden. Bergman’s film inspired many later works, including Wes Craven’s famously brutal The Last House on the Left (1972), which reinterprets the same story through the lens of exploitation horror. Other notorious examples include I Spit on Your Grave (1978), known for its graphic depiction of sexual violence and violent retaliation. More recent films like Jennifer Kent’s The Nightingale (2018) revisit these narrative themes with psychological and political depth. Fargeat’s Revenge draws on this history, combining symbolic storytelling and thematic depth with the raw brutality and energy of grindhouse exploitation.

The narrative structure of Revenge is familiar: Jen, introduced as the mistress of a wealthy man, is assaulted by his friends. Her lover Richard tries to silence her by pushing her off a cliff, but Jen survives, severely injured and impaled on a tree. Her journey is one of intense physical suffering, but also resurrection and fierce empowerment. The film’s use of bright, vivid colors such as hot pinks and blues shifts the story into a surreal, symbolic space where gender roles are exaggerated and the desert becomes a mythic battleground where Jen fights to reclaim control.

Fargeat depicts Jen’s trauma and physical recovery through graphic and detailed body horror—not simply for shock, but as a visual metaphor for reclaiming agency. For example, Jen’s self-treatment of her impalement wound with a hot beer can brands her skin and symbolizes her rebirth and determination. These elements mark a clear departure from earlier rape-revenge films that sensationalized female suffering, shifting the focus to the survivor’s power and autonomy.

Cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert’s work enhances this dynamic, contrasting the bright, harsh desert landscape with the cold, sterile luxury of Richard’s home. This contrast symbolizes the clash between raw survival and social control. The violence throughout the film is explicit and often hard to watch, but it is deeply rooted in the reality of trauma rather than fantasy.

Matilda Lutz’s performance as Jen is a key strength of the film. She transforms from a vulnerable, objectified figure into a fierce, focused avenger. The male antagonists are less developed, serving as archetypes of toxic male dominance—entitlement, violence, and cowardice—and their downfall reflects the collapse of that social order.

While Revenge maintains the fast pace and suspense of a thriller, its focus on graphic body horror and trauma places it firmly within the horror genre, aligning with the French Extremity movement known for its intense depictions of suffering and transgression. The source of horror here is not supernatural but very much rooted in the physical and psychological impact of violence.

The film has been praised for its technical skill and its focus on female resistance and empowerment. Instead of exploiting female suffering, it forces audiences to confront violence and trauma in a way that centers strength and rage. This is a clear reimagining of the revenge narrative through a modern lens that highlights resilience.

Revenge stands as both a tribute and a reinvention within its genre. It nods respectfully to the moral complexity of Bergman’s The Virgin Spring, the shock tactics of grindhouse staples like The Last House on the Left and I Spit on Your Grave, and the psychological depth of The Nightingale. Yet it simultaneously reinterprets these influences, making a statement that is both timely and provocative.

Coralie Fargeat’s Revenge is a powerful and contemporary entry into the rape-revenge genre, blending horror and thriller conventions with a focus on survival and agency. The film explores the physical and emotional effects of trauma and the possibility of reclaiming power through violence. Its vivid visuals, symbolism, and intense violence challenge audiences to rethink assumptions about gender, justice, and survival. It is a film that provokes strong reactions while delivering a deeply felt story of empowerment and resilience.

Horror On The Lens: Attack of the Giant Leeches (dir by Bernard Kowalski)

Posted on October 17, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I love the 1959 film, Attack of the Giant Leeches.

The set up is a classic one. In the humid bayous, a sweaty and unappealing store owner (Bruno VeSota) discovers that his much younger wife (the great Yvette Vickers) has been cheating on him. In one scene, he forces his wife and her lover to enter the swamp. It’s terrifying because the swamp is full of …. GIANT LEECHES! I’m a Southern girl. I’ve spent some time in the bayous. Let me tell you, swamps are creepy enough without the addition of giant leeches.

Full of sultry melodrama and bayou atmosphere, Attack of the Giant Leeches is one of the best of the giant monster films of the 50s. It’s amazing was radiation can do!

October Positivity: The Moment After 2: The Awakening

Posted on October 16, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

2006’s The Moment After 2 picks up where The Moment After ended.

In the days after the Rapture, the Global Alliance has taken over the world. The government seeks to control everything. Paper money is becoming a thing of the past and instead, everyone is expected to pay via a chip that’s been implanted in their hand. Not having a chip means going to prison and probably being executed for being a subversive. The Global forces, led by the sadistic Commander Fredericks (Monte Rex Perlin), are hunting down dissidents. People are being reeducated. It’s the type of world that, in reality, a lot of people want, even if they hide it behind a bunch of class struggle rhetoric.

Former FBI agent Adam Riley (David A.R. White) is on Death Row but he gets a chance for freedom when the prison transport is attacked by a rebel group. When the other prisoners ask Adam to come with them, Adam takes one look at all the bodies of the people killed during the attack and refuses. He’s not a follower of Global but he doesn’t want any part of the rebel militia’s demand of “an eye for an eye.” Instead, Adam wanders through the desert until he finds a community of Christians. He’s reunited with the Rev. Jacob Krause (Brad Heller), from the first film. He also meets Carissa (Andrea Logan White), a woman with whom he is in love. However, she’s married to Richard (Mark Atteberry) and we all know what the Bible says about adultery. Of course, the world is now a dangerous place and, with Fredericks executing every Christian he finds, maybe Adam will still get his chance. Adultery may be a sin but moving in on a new widow is not.

Meanwhile, Adam’s former partner and friend, Charles Baker (Kevin Downes), is recruited to track Adam down. If Charles captures Adam, maybe Charles’s wife Rebecca (Deanne Morre) will be releases from prison. Or maybe not. You really can’t trust the Global Alliance.

One thing that I appreciated about this film is that Adam, despite plenty of opportunities to give into temptation, stayed true to the commandment that “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” A lot of faith-based, apocalypse films tend to use the end times setting as an excuse to turn its characters into quip-ready action heroes, gunning down the forces of the world government and blowing up buildings without a second thought. This film, though, is smart enough to say, “Hold on, the whole anti-killing thing still applies, regardless of how bad things get.”

As for the rest of the film, it’s well-made and the cast is decent. That may sound like faint praise but, after you’ve watched enough low-budget faith-based productions, you come to appreciate the ones that at least feature a steady camera, a clean soundtrack, and actors who can at least show a modicum of emotion. As tempting as it may be to laugh at the heavy-handedness of the Global Alliance, those of us who remember the COVID lockdowns will never forget some of the suggestions that were made for dealing with people who were judged to be noncompliant because they didn’t want to observe curfew or close their businesses. Much like the first film, The Moment After 2 is a decent thriller, one that works nicely for our paranoid times.

On-Stage On The Lens: Hamlet From The Lunt-Fontaine Theater (dir by Bill Colleran and John Gielgud)

Posted on October 16, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

That Richard Burton is today best-remembered for his tumultuous marriages to Elizabeth Taylor and for his performances in several less-than-worthy films is unfortunate as Burton was also one of the most highly regarded staged actors of his generation. In fact, late in his life, Burton often expressed regret that he had ever left the stage for films to begin with.

In 1964, Burton played Hamlet on Broadway, in a production that was directed by John Gielgud. (Gielgud also provided the voice of the Ghost.) This is a video-recording of both that production and Burton’s acclaimed performance. Burton brings an intense and almost divine madness to the role. Watching, one can see why Burton would have preferred to have been remembered for this instead of for playing Mark Antony.

Killdozer (1974, directed by Jerry London)

Posted on October 16, 2025 by Jedadiah Leland

Six construction workers (played by Clint Walker, Carl Betz, Neville Brand, James Wainwright, James A. Watson, and Robert Urich) are boated to an isolated island off the coast of Africa. An oil company has assigned them to build an airstrip on the island. On the first day of work, they come across a meteorite buried in the ground. When one of the men tries to pick up the meteorite with the bulldozer, a blue light envelops the bulldozer and, at the same time, fatally injures Robert Urich. Possessed by the meteorite, the bulldozer starts to track the remaining workers down, killing them one-at-a-time. It’s a killdozer!

Based on a short story by Theodore Surgeon and made-for-television, Killdozer asks the question, “Have you ever seen a big, bulky bulldozer attempt to sneak up on someone?” Given that Killdozer is not fast and it’s not very agile, it should be easy to escape it but the construction keep doing dumb things, like getting drunk or trying to hide inside a copper tube instead of just running away. The surviving men wonder how they are going to make it until help eventually arrives. Maybe if you hear Killdozer coming, you should could just step to the side or maybe you could even run behind Killdozer. Instead, the construction workers keep trying to fight it head-on. Every time Killdozer pauses from noisily rolling across the island and sits still because it senses one of the workers might be nearby, I’m reminded that Killdozer is an absolutely ludicrous film but that it’s also wonderfully strange and that it’s also impossible to enjoy it on some level.

The cast is good and, for the most part, so is the straight-forward, waste-no-time direction. The Killdozer deserved an Emmy and maybe its own series but instead, it just had to settle for cult stardom.