Blog

  • Terrifier 3 (Damien Leone, 2024)

    Terrifier 3 (Damien Leone, 2024)

    Week 1: Find a movie that will actually scare me.

    Explaining the Film-of-the-Week Horror Adventure 2026: link

    Last year, I began my horror series with Dead Calm. Truth be told, movies rarely scare me anymore. Watching Hellraiser in my 40s makes it seem like the kids-coaster version of the movie I want it to be. Dead Calm was an insanely scary premise slightly let down by plot contrivances and mysterious character motivations. I feel slightly more optimistic about this next one.

    Terrifier 3 (Damien Leone, 2024)

    What I know about it: Art the Clown makes no sense, but that is a lot of what makes him scary to me.

    In October 2024, I watched 45 horror movies. Only two were perceived as even slightly scary: When Evil Lurks and Terrifier 2. Art the Clown is deranged, delusional, and only half real. Somehow, this added up to something unpredictable and scary in a way that tapped into a lot of my darkest fears. He is somebody’s schizophrenic delusion that somehow came to life, and Art has his own schizophrenic delusions, creating extraneous characters in his mind that may or may not be real. Is Art the Clown real? The deaths of his victims are certainly real…

    I hope Art’s imaginary girlfriend returns. She seemed incapable of hurting a fly. But that doesn’t mean she can’t take glee from watching said fly get ripped into pieces. The trailer for Terrifier 3 heavily implies the brutal deaths of little children. I don’t know how I feel about that.

    I rated Terrifier 2 a 7.5. It was legitimately unnerving—read: very scary—but the second half ran out of expendable characters, and it didn’t really have anywhere to go for the last half hour. I am happy I saw it, but I wasn’t really planning on watching another one of these.

    After the movie:

    That was certainly a Christmas-y movie. Not just a Christmas-themed horror movie. I think this movie is built for watching at the family’s house, late at night, after all of the little ones have gone to sleep. Compare this to The Rock’s trainwreck Red One, or even the vaguely stagnant Violent Night, and I would take this during the holidays in a heartbeat. Not only is this my favorite Christmas horror movie, but this is—no joke—perhaps one of my top five Christmas movies of all time.

    However, the question of the day was: did the movie scare me?

    The answer is no.

    Art the Clown seems hokier here than I wanted him to. His victims are also peculiar choices. One of the first major killing scenes involves a couple of mall Santas talking to a bartender. They look up and see a very scary, mute clown pantomiming excitement, and the mall Santas act as though he is a star-struck little kid. Never mind that he is obviously an adult and his makeup seems completely insane. One of the Santas takes initiative. “I am the one wearing the suit,” so as far as the weird, grotesque clown is concerned, “I’m Santa today.” We proceed to watch these three moronic men get butchered.

    In Terrifier 2, I thought the characters who were killed made smart choices and more or less did nothing wrong. They were mostly shopkeepers and high-school-aged teenagers who knew to be skeptical of strangers hiding their faces. The girl who meets the most grisly end in Terrifier 2: Art the Clown knocks on her door and asks for candy. She refuses because the man is an adult. “Children only.” He refuses to leave, and she finally relents. “If I give you candy, will you just leave?” Art says yes. Then he hallucinates that she threw something like rotting dead fish into his bag.

    Surely she has to die now.

    That gets at one of my problems with Art in this movie. He wants to torture and kill whoever is standing in front of him. How did he choose his victims? Is there someone that ge spares, and why? In No Country For Old Men, merciless Anton Chigurh occasionally doesn’t kill a person for one reason or another. It is generally only luck, or a flip of a coin. Art the Clown never shows mercy.

    The exact mechanics might be insane, but the destination is becoming strangely dependable. I would almost like to see him do something completely harmless once in a while. Return someone’s dropped wallet. Help a kid reach something on a high shelf. Walk past a vulnerable person and inexplicably leave them alone. Then brutally murder somebody else ten minutes later. That would scare me more.

    Terrifier 2 had a last half hour that was slow and kind of went nowhere, but I could still take everything that happened seriously. Terrifier 3 is interesting dramatically, but as a horror movie it doesn’t really work in the way most Freddy or Michael Myers movies do. Time and again, Art the Clown turns his murders into Grand Guignol—shocking pieces of grotesque theater staged for an audience of no one except the victim, who will be dead in a few seconds. Maybe Art is aware of the audience watching in the movie theater, making everyone watching complicit collaborators.

    “There is no reason to be concerned here.”

    I kept saying this phrase to myself as a joke whenever someone saw a clearly bloody Santa Claus with grotesque makeup and discolored teeth. In a world where a killer clown murdered so many people that he became the subject of a popular college podcast, you would think there would be some innate fear of clowns instilled in everyone where the killings actually happened. But no. “There is no reason to be concerned,” I say ironically, then laugh and roll my eyes.

    Other strange decisions: a lot of the most noteworthy victims are killed completely off camera. Characters get knocked out, moved somewhere else, and then wake up just in time for us to see the shock on their faces when they realize what has happened. Art the Clown also seems to have an encyclopedic knowledge of historical torture techniques, doing things that seem designed specifically for history nerds who have spent countless hours watching YouTube videos about humanity’s worst inventions. At one point, he impales someone with a plastic tube, drops a mouse into it, and then uses a lighter so the mouse has no choice but to burrow farther into the victim’s body. Yes, I saw the Simple History video about this one too.

    Does Art the Clown have YouTube?

    Just another question that strains my disbelief.

    However, I liked this movie overall, mostly because it seems to be a case of very smart people making a very dumb thing. The movie wisely follows victims from the last movie, partially because Terrifier 2 actually had victims of Art the Clown survive. Sienna, our brave heroine from the last movie who once cut off Art the Clown’s head with a magical sword, is struggling with PTSD and survivor’s guilt from the events of the last film. She has been in a mental hospital for five lonely years, during which time she apparently has barely been in contact with her family. We don’t really know why. She seems very stable. Do the police not believe her? A world that listens to podcasts certainly seems to believe her.

    The setup does not quite make sense, but there is a lot of truth here about living in the aftermath of trauma. All of the material involving mental health seems extremely well researched and thought out. Sienna’s relationship with her surviving family is picture-perfect and believable, almost too Norman Rockwell—too perfected, too idyllic. The contrast is so extreme that everything starts to feel black and white. I would have liked to see director Damien Leone color outside the lines a little. Make the good guys slightly less perfect. Let Art behave inexplicably decent once in a while. He is scarier when he is impossible to categorize, not when he is simply an efficient chaos machine programmed to kill.

    Art eventually gets his hands on a gun and even some high-class explosives. He doesn’t seem to like using these easy killing contraptions. But he is not completely opposed to them either. If he gets extremely angry, he will shoot you in the head, with a rare frown appearing on his face. That is actually funny.

    I am going to end this review before I spoil it anymore. The final verdict: a fun popcorn horror movie that veers even further into ridiculousness than the previous entry did. I haven’t even mentioned the assistant killer, who was not properly set up in either this movie or the previous one. For anyone who stopped watching Terrifier 2 when the credits started, like I did, you missed a scene where Victoria Heyes, Art’s victim in the first movie, somehow gives birth to Art’s decapitated head.

    What happened to the demon little girl from the second movie? She isn’t even mentioned here. Or if she was, it is never really explained why she isn’t onscreen. The demon little girl was my favorite part of Terrifier 2. The fact that she completely disappears with nary a mention is the main reason I would call this installment a notable step down in the series overall.

    I like it as a Christmas movie a lot.

    But as a horror installment in this series, it feels silly more than scary.

    7/10

  • Halloween 2026


    Coming this October: Halloween: The Film-of-the-Week Horror Adventure 2026

    Are you ready to be scared?

    Last year, this was called The Film-of-the-Week Horror Odyssey, but I feel like Mr. Nolan now de facto owns the word “Odyssey,” for all practical purposes.

    I can’t use it in any titles for the next, oh, nine years?

    I have a lineup—not of specific films, but of specific themes. These will be exactly the same as last year. The themes I’ll be embracing for the next four or so weeks are as follows:

    Week 1:
    Find a movie that will actually scare me.

    Week 2:
    Watch a classic monster movie.

    Week 3:
    Find a horror movie that everybody loves.

    Week 4:
    Find a horror movie I am embarrassed to have never seen.

    Week 5:
    Find a movie that everyone will watch for Halloween this year.

    Week 6:
    Find a horror movie I wish I’d seen as a kid.

    Week 7:
    Find the most notable current sleeper horror hit.

    Week 8:
    Find a horror classic I have no interest in, just to cross it off my list.

    Week 9:
    Watch the best-reviewed horror movie I can find that I haven’t seen.

    Week 10:
    Find a horror movie EVERYONE has seen (except me).

    Week 11:
    Find a horror movie that is supposed to be great, but I’m afraid I won’t like.

    Week 12:
    Watch a horror movie I had never heard of until it showed up on streaming trends.

    Week 13:
    Find the midnight movie du jour.

    Week 14:
    Watch a foreign-language horror movie I would otherwise skip.

    Week 15:
    What is the one horror movie I would still like to watch before closing the book on this year’s project?

    I know what you’re thinking.

    “David, why is this listed as weeks and not days? Last I checked, there weren’t 15 weeks in the month of October.”

    That would be fair.

    But hear me out.

    I love the classic childhood trope of the “horror movie of the week”: a generic formula where the heroes encounter some vaguely identifiable creature that is different from the bad guy they fought last week, although sometimes you might have to squint to tell the difference. An obstacle comes out of nowhere for no real reason, strikes true chaos into the citizens of a small town for a few days—or perhaps an extended weekend—then the creature is killed and everyone is relieved.

    What happens next to the main characters?

    It never matters.

    Horror movies always matter, even if the plots never seem to.

    I am also a fan of the philosophy of under-promising and over-delivering. Calling this the Film-of-the-Day Horror Adventure would make readers realize how lazy I actually was, and it would become painfully obvious that I was behind schedule when October 31 arrived and I had only gotten through 11 movies.

    This way, no matter how long it takes me to complete the project, it will still subconsciously seem like I am ahead of schedule.

    Last year’s biggest revelation: there is a sister movie to Psycho that I would now call my second-favorite horror movie of all time, behind the director’s cut of Little Shop of Horrors (1986).

    Meanwhile, the most-watched horror movie I had somehow never seen turned out to be one of the worst movies of all time.

    According to me, anyway.

    This year, I started to worry.

    I’ve already seen Obsession and 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, and Backrooms might still not be easily streamable by the end of October. I started wondering: Is this year’s project likely to be underwhelming? Have I already seen mostly everything worth seeing?

    I went through my resources, dug around a little, and now I have a glimmer of hope.

    Should this year’s offerings be better than last year’s?

    Probably not.

    Does the lineup have the potential to be unpredictable, exciting, occasionally terrible, and possibly deeply regrettable?

    Absolutely.

    So let me allow the AI Gremlin Assistants to say a little piece about the movies I have procured for this year’s offering.

    AGA says:

    This year’s lineup begins with an experiment that has already worked once before: if a sad clown knows how to rub salt in old wounds, perhaps things are looking up.

    But will it actually be scary?

    From there, things get considerably stranger.

    There are Universal monsters lurking in black-and-white shadows. There is a Spanish ghost story that nearly everyone seems to adore.

    [I don’t know what this is, David.]

    There is an embarrassingly large hole in David’s horror education involving a certain masked figure beneath an opera house.

    [Les Misérables?, David.]

    There are murderous children, a legendary old-Hollywood feud, a movie involving teenagers and monsters that David probably should have seen decades ago, and at least one acclaimed film he strongly suspects he may hate.

    Also—because apparently we’re doing this to ourselves—Titane.

    AGA predicts that one of the movies David is approaching with the most suspicion will wind up being his favorite, somewhere around a 9 or 9.5.

    For the bottom of the pile, AGA is betting on one of the movies he is watching largely out of obligation—the cinematic equivalent of eating your vegetables because they’re historically important.

    Prediction: somewhere around a 4.5 or 5.

    David returns to the typewriter to say:

    The gremlins might have a lot more faith in my appreciation for the charms of Will Smith than is likely warranted.

    Mostly, though, I am still able to find movies that I am genuinely surprised I have not seen.

    Has my avoidance been for good, measurable reason?

    If I hate these movies or find them mediocre, it will be gratifying. I will have vindicated years of perfectly sensible procrastination.

    If I discover that I love them and will return to them time and again, well … color me surprised.

    An aging werewolf can still play with new bones every once in a while.

    I call that a win-win.


  • Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma (Jane Schoenbrun, 2026)

    You’ll never listen to the Counting Crows in the same way ever again.

    Jane Schoenbrun movies are like olives. You have to keep tasting them before you really understand the flavor.

    I liked I Saw the TV Glow, but I was confused by its trajectory. Why was the narrative extended over multiple decades? Was there no way to tell the story in a slightly more compressed time frame? The perspective of that movie seemed designed to create the moment when a person suddenly realizes, “Oh no! I have utterly wasted my entire life!” I am not sure this is a theme that a filmmaker in their 30s can easily approach without some distance showing. For this and other reasons, I found the movie slightly confusing and inauthentic, even though there was obviously something there that stayed with me.

    Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma takes many of the same instincts and puts them somewhere that seems to make more sense to audiences overall. Hannah Einbinder (Hacks) plays Kris, a young filmmaker hired to resurrect the long-dormant Camp Miasma slasher franchise, something she has been obsessed with since childhood. She has a quick monologue where she explains why the series is a “zombie IP” to studios in modern times because of its transphobic qualities in the “post-MeToo era,” and she keeps talking long after her description alienates the only other person in the room. At this point, I whispered to my movie-watching companion, “I like her.”

    The first movie starred Billy Presley (Gillian Anderson) as Squeak, its “final” girl, who was still alive when the original Camp Miasma concluded. Nonetheless, Billy refused to return for the sequels and disappeared from acting afterward. She now lives at the abandoned camp where the movie was filmed. Kris travels there hoping to convince her to participate in the reboot. Her partner refers to Billy as Norma Desmond from Sunset Boulevard, though, hilariously, Kris pretends to be a little fuzzy on the details: “I know who you are talking about, but I can’t remember her name,” she lies.

    Kris tries to leave, but Billy, starved for company, literally orders her to stay. She likes Kris, even though her first movie was “a remake of Psycho from the perspective of the shower curtain.” Kris seems a little lost and is trying to find herself, but the fact that she loves Camp Miasma is fascinating to Billy. Billy is an awkward sort of fangirl herself, and she wants to share her unique passion with the only person who can understand it. Subsequently, the two spend several days getting high, watching old Camp Miasma movies, talking about the original production and becoming increasingly fascinated with one another.

    The best choice in Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma is reducing the time frame from decades to less than a single week. Schoenbrun transfers over almost everything that made I Saw the TV Glow so strange: extremely specific lore for a cultural hodgepodge that has no exact equivalent in reality, period details that don’t actually represent the era being presented, people who sometimes seem to be functioning under different rules of human behavior, and an absurdly over-stylized visual style. Here, though, there is marked restraint somewhere else. This is a big story in a very small setting, mostly one camp over a few days. Instead of watching somebody’s life dissolve across decades, the movie can go completely insane while remaining anchored to a fairly simple thing: two odd people falling in love.

    There is also a social dynamic here that felt strangely recognizable to me. In a pivotal scene, a team of professionals begins to suspect that somebody in their midst is no longer operating on an understandable mental plane. Everyone remains polite. They listen, respond and try to continue doing their jobs while gradually becoming less certain that Kris is describing a reality they share. Having experienced serious borderline schizophrenia myself, there is something very familiar about that particular kind of interaction. Kris and Billy eventually develop a romance through a shared hysteria, a folie à deux, if you will. Those usually don’t end very well, but it turns out these two may simply be a little fanatical. Not fully identifiably off-their-meds crazy.

    The relationship between Kris and Billy is nothing but sweet, even though no one around them can begin to understand it. The movie is also deeply queer. Even if you are not in any way gay, knowing that there might be one person out there who is the same type of weird as you is something we all want for ourselves. It is about finding the ideal person who complements your particular oddities, then seeing what happens when the two of you keep exploring and celebrating those differences together. The nostalgia is obsessive enough that almost anyone looking in from the outside would probably consider it unhealthy. But what other joy makes life worth living?

    The strangest example of the movie’s relationship with nostalgia comes during an extended sequence set to Counting Crows’ “A Long December.” The song was released in 1996, but the Camp Miasma movie containing the sequence is supposed to have been made in 1983. More strangely, the entire thing looks like 1996. The campers wear clothes much closer to the mid-’90s than the early ’80s. One is wearing the sort of Mexican poncho that seemed to be everywhere for about fifteen minutes in 1995 or 1996. The camera uses the body-mounted “drunk cam” vocabulary that became familiar through ’90s music videos and later movies. Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris used a similar effect in the Smashing Pumpkins’ “1979” video in 1995. Darren Aronofsky would later use it extensively in Requiem for a Dream. Schoenbrun has apparently cited Michael Bay as an influence on the sequence. Nothing about it has much interest in resembling an actual slasher movie made in 1983.

    Logic isn’t really relevant here. Schoenbrun is not recreating 1983 so much as recreating the memory of watching an old horror movie while growing up in the 1990s. The sequence looks as if Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, the ’90s Buzz Bin music-video directors, teamed up with Monty Python’s Terry Jones to direct a grotesquely hyperviolent music video for MTV, who would never in a million years play it. Little Death brutally slaughters campers while fountains of blood erupt in every direction and Adam Duritz sincerely sings “A Long December.” Then the film treats this sequence as if it were footage that absolutely existed in 1983, in this reality or any other reality. Portraying it with complete confidence may be one of its funniest jokes.

    In that sense, Camp Miasma feels almost like Schoenbrun doubling down on the things detractors found irritating about I Saw the TV Glow. The chronology doesn’t make sense? Fine. The period details don’t match? Fine. The world seems to have been assembled from several generations of pop culture that have somehow collapsed into one another? Yes, that was apparently the idea. It reminds me a little of Wes Anderson’s progression from Bottle Rocket and Rushmore to The Royal Tenenbaums. Rather than sanding off everything people considered mannered or artificial about his earlier work, Anderson exaggerated it until there was no longer any possibility of mistaking it for an accident. The Royal Tenenbaums essentially announced, “No, my movies are actually supposed to feel like this.” Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma feels like a similar moment for Schoenbrun.

    The difference is that this time Schoenbrun has also made something very funny and surprisingly accessible. I would not previously have called Jane Schoenbrun a crowd pleaser, but this seems designed to get audiences on their side rather than challenge them to understand why they aren’t. It is intentionally confusing without being unenjoyable, the spoonful of sugar after I Saw the TV Glow‘s dose of somewhat nauseating medicine. Calling it a “slasher parody” doesn’t really get at what it is doing, because parody implies some distance from the thing being mocked. Schoenbrun clearly understands that these movies are ridiculous, but also that ridiculous things can become enormously important to the people who love them. The joke is never simply that Camp Miasma is stupid. The joke is that something this stupid can become the organizing mythology of a person’s entire emotional life.

    I am very impressed by this movie, even though I am still not sure I quite understand it. I don’t know if I love the flavor yet, but I definitely want to ingest a few more Jane Schoenbrun movies soon. For now, mark me down as a likely future fan.

    9/10

  • Bull Durham (Ron Shelton, 1988)

    A Sexy Baseball Classic That Leaves Its Most Interesting Conversations Offscreen

    Bull Durham is a romantic comedy about an aging minor-league catcher brought in to guide a talented but wildly undisciplined young pitcher, although both men have their hearts set on the same woman. It is widely regarded as one of the best baseball movies ever made, celebrated for treating the sport, sex, and adult disappointment with humor and sophistication. Is it also one of the sexiest movies of the 1980s? Some fans certainly seem to remember it that way, although I suspect many of them have not seen it in a while.

    Kevin Costner may be the featured player on the poster, but this is Susan Sarandon’s movie through and through. She plays Annie, a mystical baseball groupie who chooses one player each season to become both her lover and her personal project. The screenplay initially positions Annie as an older, sexually authoritative variation on the manic pixie dream girl, a woman whose eccentric worldview gives direction to earnest men who are completely lost and unfocused. If you are thinking Annie may be getting a little old for this ritual, she seems to think so too. Annie believes in her powers as a muse in the art of baseball. Before she gives up the ritual, can she work her magic one last time?

    After 20 minutes, I thought this was quite promising as the male version of A League of Their Own, a movie that could make me laugh, cry, and watch it on repeat. Instead, it was amiable, sexy, and only intermittently convincing. It expects the audience to accept its romantic and baseball mythology without supplying many of the details that would make its characters, relationships, and emotional stakes feel fully realized.

    The reason I do not quite love this movie is that much of its appeal depends on one’s appreciation for the mystical qualities of Major League Baseball. My least favorite scene is the one in which Crash describes his 21 days in the majors to the other Durham Bulls on the bus. Everyone becomes entranced by his story. Crash names the obvious differences between the majors and the minors: grander ballparks, better hotels, handled luggage, sophisticated women, and much more dangerous pitchers. What he never provides is a specific memory that explains why those 21 days became the emotional summit of his life. I cannot tell whether he is intentionally romanticizing the experience, teasing the other players, or revealing that his brief period in the majors was the best his life was ever going to get.

    Nuke is such an erratic pitcher that he sometimes seems incapable of throwing the ball anywhere near the plate, but I do not really have a problem with that. The idea that everyone can still recognize a “million-dollar arm” beneath all that chaos is goofy, but convincingly so. The movie gains much of its sex appeal from the fantasy that someone can possess so much raw talent that he barely needs to care about the sport, asks for another quickie three minutes before a game, and is still treated as an irresistible investment. Who would not want this guy’s life?

    Maybe what bothered me was not the movie’s appreciation for baseball, but its appreciation for monogamy. For all intents and purposes, Annie is monogamous during the baseball season, guiding one minor-league player through a combination of seduction, withholding, and instruction. She calls this ritual her religion, but the movie makes her sexual freedom surprisingly safe for a mainstream audience by insisting that she remain monogamous within each baseball season. Nuke seems suddenly monogamous as well. Crash is the adult alternative she also desires, but he refuses to fit himself into her seasonal ritual. For a moment, she seems outraged and sexually frustrated beyond belief, and the audience is invited to enjoy a satisfying flash of schadenfreude.

    I do not disbelieve Annie because of her age or sexuality. I disbelieve the oddly specific ritual the screenplay has constructed for her because it never shows us how she persuades these players to accept its rules. Did Annie demand monogamy from Nuke? Was she simply so desirable that monogamy was implied? The movie appears to know what their arrangement is, but it never quite tells the audience.

    I also found Nuke’s journey strange. At the beginning of the movie, he treats sex as so urgent and casual that he asks for another quickie three minutes before taking the mound. Yet after Annie ties him up, reads poetry to him, and withholds the sex he expects, he goes to work the next day with barely more frustration than someone who is mildly hungover. The movie reneges on one of Nuke’s defining traits: the sense that sex is his one non-negotiable.

    If this movie were made in 2026, Annie might read Walt Whitman all night to a tied-up Nuke and then imply that she allowed him to pleasure himself to orgasm before going to sleep. Or the movie might include a scene in which Annie explicitly sets expectations for Nuke in a way that is sexy, persuasive, and consistent with her unconventional personality. Either scene would be difficult to write, but the movie avoids that difficulty by leaving the necessary conversation out.

    Bull Durham as a whole feels incomplete to me. It presents itself as sexually adventurous, but it feels sanitized for a mainstream audience and only goes halfway. Tim Robbins is the only actor who seems completely committed to the movie’s strange combination of baseball comedy and sexual fantasy. He makes Nuke seem believable and sexy in a way that might actually be possible, even when he resembles a seven-year-old who has just discovered that he was bitten by a radioactive spider.

    Susan Sarandon is magnetic but underwritten, while Kevin Costner often seems to simply exist. Crash is an experienced, self-righteous know-it-all who enjoys arguing and proving that he was correct all along. I do not know why the world once thought Costner was so sexy that he would not be expected to prove it onscreen. Tim Robbins at least bares his backside. No jockstrap for Costner.

    I keep encountering a particular kind of late-1980s studio-comedy stiffness. I recently rewatched Roxanne (1987) and found it to be an awkward bummer compared with movies released just a few years earlier or later. Bull Durham is a great idea for a movie that plays as though someone became nervous about how far its sexual and emotional complications might go. Its reputation promises a funny, adult, sexually frank examination of baseball, aging, and desire. The movie simply needed to think through its characters’ motivations a little more, or at least let the audience hear more of the conversations that apparently took place offscreen.

    6.5/10

  • Day 7: Firestarter (Mark L. Lester, 1984)

    F is for federal agents failing a frightened little girl

    My theme for this A–Z film-a-thon is “Hidden Gems,” or movies I might love more than their reputations would suggest. I chose Firestarter as my letter F movie for a single reason: I saw E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial again recently and thought Drew Barrymore was so good that she might have been robbed of an Oscar nomination. I thought afterward, “Whatever happened to her, anyway?”

    The world knows of a grown woman who goes by the name Drew Barrymore, known mostly for romantic comedies for women, mostly, like Never Been Kissed, Ever After, and several Adam Sandler movies, for some reason. She also has a daytime talk show now, known for up-close, tear-ridden conversations with guests she seems to know extremely well. Everybody knows the show exists, although I don’t know a single person who admits to watching it. This is Drew Barrymore the celebrity. I wanted to know what happened to Drew Barrymore, the radiant child actress.

    So I started up Firestarter.

    The most interesting thing about Firestarter is that its villain is not merely a rogue laboratory, a corrupt official, or a handful of overzealous agents. The federal government itself is the monster.

    I believe the government is almost as much the villain here as it is in One Battle After Another. In that movie, the government has effectively been taken over by devout white supremacists. That was a hyperbolic fantasy, so I don’t believe it would be reasonable to say that the movie is meant to be considered a valid depiction of the world right now.



    I can think of only a few other stories in which the state is treated as this completely corrupted: both versions of The Manchurian Candidate and George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. This paranoia about government power seems to come directly from Stephen King’s original book. For some reason, at the very end of the 1970s, King apparently thought, “Perhaps people will definitely buy that every level of the United States government is rotten to the core right now.”

    Firestarter begins with Charlie, played by Drew Barrymore, on the run with her father, Andy. Andy appears to be a remarkably capable grifter when circumstances require it. He gives a taxi driver a one-dollar bill but convinces him it is a $500 bill. The driver is elated, although presumably only temporarily.

    Andy can control people’s minds because he once took a hallucinogen in college. This is not an exaggeration. A secret government agency known as “The Shop” gave LOT-6, an LSD-like experimental drug, to a group of college students and studied its effects. Andy and Vicky, Charlie’s mother, were placed on beds beside each other and discovered that they could communicate telepathically. Almost immediately, they announced that they loved one another, had always loved one another, and had known each other for a thousand years.

    This is a movie that believes in love at first sight, although I would have preferred some dialogue conveying an actual personal connection. What we get is closer to: “Wow, this drug allows us to communicate using only our minds. Therefore, I have apparently been spiritually married to this total stranger for several reincarnations.”

    Andy and Vicky subsequently married and produced Charlie, who inherited a much more powerful mutation: she can start fires with her mind. The Shop believes Charlie can be studied, controlled, and eventually weaponized.

    The Shop’s cruelty is not impulsive. It is methodical, patient, and likely very expensive. After deceiving a group of college students into taking an experimental hallucinogen that killed most of its subjects, the government spends the next decade monitoring the  survivors to determine whether their children have developed any unusual abilities. I have to wonder: Was this really the sort of work our government was doing in the 1970s? Paying agents to spend a decade stalking people who they watched take a drug once? No wonder the country was in a recession.

    Vicky is tortured and killed by The Shop, which abducts Charlie from the family home. Andy tracks down the agents almost immediately and rescues his daughter by psychically convincing the men that they are blind. Father and daughter then spend the next year running from a government agency with apparently unlimited manpower, eventually taking refuge with an elderly farming couple and later hiding in a remote cabin.



    The Shop finally captures them and takes them to its facility, where Andy and Charlie are imprisoned separately. Charlie refuses to demonstrate her powers until she is befriended by a kindly orderly named John, who presents himself as the only adult in the facility who sees her as a frightened child rather than a laboratory specimen. He assures her that cooperating with the scientists will help her reunite with her father.

    Unknown to Charlie, “John” is John Rainbird, the Shop assassin who captured her and her father. What is he doing exactly? Is he really planning to murder this impressionable child after deliberately becoming the only person she trusts? Charlie believes that using her pyrokinetic abilities is morally wrong, and she is trying desperately not to hurt anyone.

    The government’s response is to manipulate her into doing the very thing she considers terrible, survey the results, and then hand her over to an assassin who believes that killing her at the moment of her greatest trust will somehow transfer her power to him. What are these people doing? They convince a girl to violate her own conscience just so an assassin can feel spiritually satisfied while murdering her. By this point, Firestarter has transformed a vague government paranoia into something much more intimate: the calculated psychological abuse of an eight-year-old girl.

    I suppose I should mention the fire. There is a lot of it, particularly toward the end, and much of it appears to have been produced by placing stunt performers alarmingly close to actual flames. The destruction is impressive in the way expensive practical chaos often is, although I found myself much less interested in what Charlie could burn than in the series of adults calmly explaining why she ought to burn it.

    I call movies like Firestarter schizophrenia fuel, or at least inspiration for delusions of grandeur. It resembles something written by a person who took LSD once, felt as though they had acquired special superhuman abilities, and immediately thought, “What is the government hiding from us?”

    I kid. I do not really think taking drugs inspired the entire premise of Firestarter. The basic question was likely, “An eight-year-old girl has pyrokinetic powers. Why? Who is the villain here?” The answers King came up with were, “Her parents took drugs, and the United States government. Obviously.”


    In 2026, is this a good movie? It is certainly interesting for its audacity, and for having the nerve to portray the federal establishment as thoroughly diseased as many Americans must have suspected it was after two decades of mysterious assassinations, a pointless war, and the Watergate scandal. It is also interesting for anyone who wants to see an obvious influence on “Stranger Things”. The character Eleven is basically Charlie grown a little older, with a firmed-up backstory and a collection of peers to settle in with, for better or worse.

    Charlie is just put in a room with cartoons. This leads to several questions: Has Charlie never had a friend? Has she never gone to school? Perhaps that is the most telling thing about Firestarter. Charlie lives in a world in which the social development of little kids is taken entirely for granted by the adults around them.

    This was mostly my world at the time, and perhaps Stephen King’s childhood as well. In a world like this, kids just live in a vacuum. Why introduce your child to peers when she might set them on fire on a particularly bad day? I wonder how King’s parents felt about sharing their creative-minded offspring with the world. Was King kept inside a lot, with only his TV and books to keep him company?

    The movie this reminded me of most was The Dead Zone, another Stephen King adaptation that came out one year earlier and was directed by my favorite living director, David Cronenberg. If you want more of that experience, you could do much worse than this particular adaptation of Firestarter. It is weak around the edges, and it is easy to pull apart and point out elements that make little to no sense. It takes its absurd premise completely seriously, however, and that seriousness is part of what makes it satisfying.

    Drew Barrymore is largely left to herself. She does not have a true genius coaxing a completely natural, nuanced performance out of her, as Spielberg managed to do in E.T. Mark L. Lester is more like the David Yates of the Stephen King-verse than a true visionary. Yates is the largely anonymous director who took over the Harry Potter movies and reliably gave J.K. Rowling and the studio the safe, respectable, slightly bland product they wanted. Lester can follow a template well enough, but he does not give us much that expands upon the formula or makes the material feel distinctly his own.

    Lester frequently asks Barrymore to look frightened, stare intensely, and scream while objects explode around her. Still, she is the rare child star with enough magnetism to lead an entire science-fiction action movie. Even when the material does not help her, and the direction gives her little more to play than fear and concentration, you understand why the camera keeps watching her.

    So what happened to Drew Barrymore, the radiant child actress? She was still there. Firestarter just was not quite the movie capable of revealing everything she could do.

    Good enough, and it fulfilled my nostalgic curiosity.

    Rating: 6.5/10

  • Songs Everyone Should Know: Grace Ives — “Stupid Bitches”

    Song 1: Grace Ives turns repetition, resentment, and minimalism into wounded pop catharsis.

    When I started thinking about the first entry in my new blog series, Songs Everyone Should Know, I had the very tempting idea to press shuffle on YouTube Music and let fate decide. That sounded fun (for about three seconds), until I realized that “fate” would actually mean “whatever the YouTube Music algorithm decided to put in front of me.” That gave me a scuzzy feeling.

    I also didn’t want to begin with my current favorite song of all time, David Bowie’s “Heroes,” because that felt too on-the-nose and predictable. And I didn’t want to pick some obscure song from deep inside my personal top 100, because then the whole thing would risk becoming one of those exercises in taste-policing where I explain why my record collection is better than yours. So I decided on a different metric: what current song would I most want to put on a mix CD for a friend?

    The answer was immediate: Grace Ives’s “Stupid Bitches.”

    When I first heard Grace Ives a couple of years ago through “Lullaby,” I thought it sounded intuitively great, but I also wondered if it might have been great almost by accident. The beat was clever but simple. The main melodic idea was tiny and repetitive, and it did not seem especially interested in going anywhere. But around the edges, little moving parts glimmered: especially a light synth counter-melody that speckled the track like mist, giving the plainness of the song a soft-focus glow.

    After hearing Ives’s 2026 album Girlfriend, I finally had a phrase for what she does: elegant simplicity.

    Ives does not repeat small melodic ideas because she has no larger ones. She repeats them because she seems certain that if you hear the phrase a few more times, you will love it as much as she does. That is a different kind of confidence than showing off. It is closer to curation. She does not throw the entire melodic junk drawer at you. She finds the one shiny object at the bottom and holds it up until it starts to look holy.

    I once owned a bright pink FM3 Buddha Machine, a tiny ambient loop player smaller than a mini cassette recorder. It played a handful of prerecorded samples through a tinny little speaker, each one looping endlessly until you changed the setting or turned the machine off. You could leave it on while you slept, studied, wrote, or surfed the internet. Most people would probably find that irritating. To me, it felt like peak consideration.

    What fascinated me was the restraint. The people who made it must have thought through hundreds of possible sounds, and then settled on only these few. Why those exact loops? Why that amount of shimmer? Why that much repetition before the ear stopped resisting and started accepting? The Buddha Machine seemed to say: here, live with this for a while. It may become beautiful if you stop demanding that it entertain you.

    There is something in Girlfriend that captures that same sonic spirit. The album was written and produced by Ives with Ariel Rechtshaid and John DeBold, and mixed by Dave Fridmann, a man who knows how to make beauty sound like it is surviving an electrical fire. (If you want to make a pretty song sound like it was coming out of a busted, kicked over tube amp turned sideways, Fridmann is your guy.) Fridmann worked on records like The Flaming Lips’ The Soft Bulletin and Sleater-Kinney’s The Woods, records where prettiness is not polished smooth so much as blasted through weather.

    “Stupid Bitches” lives in that world. The bass is blown out. The drums sound compressed until they have no personal space left. The keyboard arpeggios wobble and flicker with a nervous, discombobulated joy. Nothing in the song feels casual, but nothing feels over-explained either. It is a sparse song with a maximalist sense of precision.

    That is especially true of the chorus, where Ives repeats “doesn’t hurt me anymore” as if the point is not to declare emotional victory but to test whether saying the sentence enough times might make it true. The arpeggios underneath are shaky but joyfully so, and this is where the song starts to feel less like ordinary synth-pop and more like minimalism as catharsis music. Philip Glass and Steve Reich are not the first names you expect to come up in a breakup song called “Stupid Bitches,” but the comparison makes sense in the way the chorus lets repeated figures press against each other until they create their own emotional weather. The clashing arpeggios are the song’s most inventive touch: sometimes they seem to sink, sometimes they seem to wobble out of alignment, and sometimes they sound like they might break apart before snapping back into place.

    The music video adds another layer to the song’s anti-glamour glamour. Ives stands outside in the snow with Kool-Aid-colored hair, a bright blue top, and slouchy black fatigue pants, somewhere between military surplus and skate workwear. She looks a little Billie Eilish-esque in the sense that she seems actively uninterested in performing anyone’s idea of what a pop star is supposed to look like. My first thought while watching it was not especially profound: Girl, it’s freezing. Put on a coat before you catch influenza.

    But that is also part of the appeal. The video understands the song’s emotional climate. “Stupid Bitches” is not polished triumph. It is the sound of someone standing in the cold and refusing to pretend the cold is not cold.

    The lyrics are the real star here. I have a bad habit of wanting to analyze every line in a song, which is both bad blog writing and, thanks to copyright law, a terrible legal strategy. So instead of doing that, I will say this: the emotional center of “Stupid Bitches” is the way Ives refuses to let another person recast themselves as an innocent bystander in the loneliness they helped create.

    My favorite couplet in this song is when Grace sings:

    “Well, baby, you’re a part of this
    You’re not a victim of my loneliness”

    That is what makes the song sharper than a standard kiss-off. It is not just “you hurt me.” It is closer to: you participated in this, and now you want to act like my pain is some mysterious weather pattern that appeared over your head. The song has anger in it, but it is not only angry. It is also embarrassed, wounded, and oddly generous. It lets humiliation remain humiliation instead of sanding it down into something inspirational.

    Musically, “Stupid Bitches” keeps finding ways to make small details feel like major events. Little keyboard flourishes become transitions between sparse sections. The skeletal structure of the song is deceptive because it gives Ives so much room to focus on her vocal melodies. She knows exactly which syllables need weight and which ones should fall away. The phrasing flows toward the obvious downbeats, then bends slightly off-center by the end of a line, landing with those tiny descending “mhm” fall-offs that sound like both a sigh and a private admission.

    “I won’t shatter in the aftermath
    I’m a bullet on an arrow’s path, mhm”

    That “mhm” feels like something that might have drifted in from a Sky Ferreira galaxy: glossy, wounded, and a little contemptuous, yet somehow more emotional because it is trying so hard to stay cool. Ferreira’s music often carries the feeling of thwarted pop grandeur, the sound of someone with a stadium-sized hook trapped inside a very complicated room. Ives takes some of that cult-pop drama and makes it smaller, stranger, and more self-contained. “Stupid Bitches” sounds like it wants to survive the room it is already in, as opposed to striving to make anyone in it a believer.

    “Stupid Bitches” is a celebration of the small thing you noticed before anyone else agreed it was worth noticing. The almost-hidden synth line. The little smirk of satisfaction as the vocal trails off at the end of each verse. Grace Ives makes music for the moment when background detail stops seeming like background, when the part everyone else wrote off as too slight or too irritating reveals itself as the emotional center of the room.

    There is a secret beauty in “Stupid Bitches.” It reminds me of Carly Simon’s “You’re So Vain,” a song that seems designed to torment the exact kind of person who would never understand why having a song written about him is not automatically a compliment. “Stupid Bitches” has a similar little trap built into it. Whoever inspired it might instantly recognize themselves and feel flattered to have helped produce great art. But that is exactly why Grace Ives has the upper hand. The song understands that stupid bitches are often the last people capable of understanding what makes them stupid bitches.

  • 16. Smash Mouth, “All Star” (1999)

    Alternative rock spent the decade teaching outsiders they belonged. Smash Mouth told them they might win.

    David, why Smash Mouth?

    Why not Wheatus’s “Teenage Dirtbag”? Or The Cardigans’ “Lovefool”? Or New Radicals’ “You Get What You Give”?

    That New Radicals one always bothered me. Gregg Alexander clearly wanted to write an inspirational anthem about rejecting phoniness and choosing your own life, which is a fine idea. Then, at the end, he starts calling out Beck, Hanson, Courtney Love, and Marilyn Manson for doing fashion shoots and running to their mansions. Their biggest crime was fashion shoots? What fashion shoots was Hanson doing? And Beck? Hanson? Beck Hansen? It is a clunky idea, ending a song meant to inspire people to be better with a specific kiss-off to four beloved pop underdogs of the moment.

    He only listed those four because they were famous at the time and completely different from each other. The rhythm worked. The names scanned. It did not matter who they were. That is the problem. If you write a song about sincerity and end it by naming random celebrities because they fit the rhyme scheme, you have not committed to your own theme.

    “Lovefool” is awesome, and The Cardigans are awesome, but it exists largely as an alternative-rock anomaly. It sounds like nothing else from the era, and it does not sound like anything in the many years since either. It got airplay, and it has only grown more beloved over time, but no one ever wrote a song and said, “This is what I’m going for.” It is a perfect little object floating in space.

    “Teenage Dirtbag,” meanwhile, seemed to luck into a million-dollar song without much else to follow it up with. The song is now loved because it is unabashedly cheesy: a strange little anthem about Iron Maiden fandom sung by a guy who sounds like Alanis Morissette. The music video helps. No one saw Loser, but Jason Biggs and Mena Suvari are people everyone still likes, and they actually showed up for the video shoot.

    So just being a song that became famous later does not mean it was important. Cultural afterlife alone is not enough. That is how you get every half-ironic karaoke song being retroactively promoted to masterpiece status.

    So why “All Star”? What does it have that those other songs do not?

    For starters, Smash Mouth understood the assignment better than almost anyone else in this corner of late-’90s rock. The song is not merely catchy. It is not merely a nostalgic meme. It is a fully committed underdog anthem from a band that somehow made optimism sound sarcastic enough to be tolerated by alternative radio.

    Alternative rock spent most of the 1990s teaching outsiders that they were allowed to exist. “All Star” went further and suggested they might actually become the hero of the story.

    That was a bigger shift than people give it credit for.

    Let’s start with the sound. When looking for a playlist of songs by ’90s one-hit wonders—though Smash Mouth are technically not one-hit wonders, but try explaining that to anyone at a party—Smash Mouth might be the most enjoyable band to revisit. They did not seem revolutionary at the time, but their sun-soaked sound felt legitimate. There was brightness, but also detachment. They were positive without sounding like they had fallen for positivity. That is a difficult balance. Katrina and the Waves made “Walking on Sunshine” sound like someone winning a free vacation on a game show. Smash Mouth sounded like someone who knew the vacation package had hidden fees but went anyway.

    That is why “Walkin’ on the Sun” is important to understanding “All Star.” Songwriter Greg Camp seemed fascinated by sunshine as both image and trap. “Walkin’ on the Sun” feels like a rebuttal to sun-drenched naivete. If you like walking on sunshine so much, you might as well try walking on the actual sun. Enjoy the optimism. Try not to die.

    “All Star” takes that same brightness and removes just enough of the sneer to make it sincere. It is still slightly amused with itself. It still has that late-’90s layer of sunglasses-at-night irony. But underneath all of that, the song believes what it is saying.

    That is the key.

    The lyrics are much smarter than their reputation suggests. Greg Camp writes in compact little bursts, like he is trying to smuggle actual thoughts into a children’s cereal commercial. The second verse moves from weather talk into environmental anxiety using the bizarre phrase “meteor men,” which probably means meteorologists, or at least how a normal person might refer to scientists talking about the weather on TV. I always liked the phrase because it sounds like a mock-superhero team from Mystery Men, which is probably not why the song ended up on that soundtrack, but it could not have hurt. “Meteor men” sounds like the name of a group of failed crime fighters who show up in matching bowling shirts and immediately get knocked unconscious.

    My favorite moment is the gas money verse. A stranger asks for help getting away from his current situation, and Steve Harwell responds as if he has been handed philosophical advice rather than a request for cash. That is what makes the lyric so funny. The narrator adopts a sort of Mr. Magoo-like obliviousness, mistaking a panhandler’s plea for gas money as a profound life lesson about personal growth. Harwell sells the line with perfect purposeful ignorance. There is no way this guy actually gave the bum any money, but he was inspired enough to write an anthemic ode to self-improvement. In Smash Mouth’s world, every inconvenience is a teachable moment.

    That is the joke of “All Star,” and a reason it works. The song is about uplift delivered by a narrator who sounds like he barely understands uplift. He is not a motivational speaker. He is not a Disney prince. He is a guy in wraparound sunglasses who has accidentally discovered the central idea of modern pop culture: being weird is not a liability if you can sell it with confidence.

    The arrangement is just as important. Greg Camp uses a standard pop foundation, but he keeps adding little wrinkles so the song never becomes as simple as it seems. The verse progression has a familiar, almost nursery-rhyme clarity. Then the hook starts pulling in stranger colors, including a diminished movement that gives the chorus a crooked smile. The syncopated phrasing of the “so much to do” run gives the song its forward shove. From there, the arrangement keeps tossing new ideas at the listener: faux-record scratches, percussive accents, handclaps, organ textures, bright keyboard stabs, and that whistling synth-and-glockenspiel lead that sounds like it escaped from a toy store. This is one of the few rock songs of the era where something interesting happens almost every second. A strange rhythm, a new texture, a clever lyric, an unexpected chord change—there is very little dead air in “All Star.”

    This could only have been produced in 1999. I do not mean that as an insult. There are songs that sound dated because the production choices aged badly, and there are songs that sound dated because they perfectly captured the moment right before the future arrived. “All Star” is the second kind. It sounds like the late ’90s discovering the early 2000s in real time: part ska-pop, part power pop, part novelty single, part sports-arena chant, part children’s-movie anthem, part internet meme before internet memes fully knew what they were.

    The funny thing is that it was not originally the Shrek song. It was first tied to Mystery Men, which makes much more sense. Mystery Men is a movie about losers with ridiculous powers trying to become real heroes. That is basically the song’s thesis with costumes. Shrek made it immortal, but Mystery Men understood it first.

    The association with kids’ media damaged the song’s critical reputation for years. Once a song becomes beloved by children, adults often start treating it like it cannot possibly be serious. This is vaguely stupid. Children are often better than critics at identifying melody, energy, and emotional clarity. They do not need a song to be cool. They need it to work. “All Star” worked so well that it eventually became almost impossible to hear clearly.

    But before it became shorthand for Shrek, memes, and ironic karaoke, it was a late-’90s alternative single doing something surprisingly rare: telling the outsider that triumph was possible.

    There have always been more movies about outcasts getting the girl than songs about it. John Hughes practically lived in that genre. Teen comedies had been telling nerds for years that the right haircut, the right party, the right accidental public performance, or the right romantic misunderstanding could turn them into winners. Rock music was much more reluctant to touch that fantasy. “You are cool because you are a nerd” was a little too on the nose for most nerdy bands to attempt. The idea of the awkward kid becoming an all star would have been considered very L for Lame.

    Then Nirvana happened, and the rules changed. Being an outcast became one of the coolest things a person could be. Alternative music moved from college radio and hip record stores to nationwide radio formats. Bands that once sounded like secret handshakes became arena acts. Suddenly, part of the promise of alternative music was that anyone could break through.

    But much of that music still treated outsider status as a wound. You were alienated. You were misunderstood. You were damaged. You were authentic because you suffered. “All Star” kept the outsider and removed the misery.

    That is why the song matters.

    It is not that there had never been inspirational songs before. Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believin’” had already become the default American anthem for people who want encouragement without having to define exactly what they are being encouraged to do. Madonna’s “Express Yourself” became an anthem of empowerment too, even though the lyrics are basically about making a man communicate better. A useful message, sure, but it would probably fail the Bechdel test.

    Those earlier songs may have influenced “All Star” in the same way Pong influenced Diablo III. Technically, yes. Spiritually, not really.

    The difference is that “All Star” is not just about endurance, self-expression, or vague belief. It is about the weird kid winning. Not surviving. Not being understood someday. Winning. Getting the fireworks at the end. That was easy for movies, sports stories, and teen comedies to understand, but rock songwriting rarely embraced it directly. Rock preferred rebellion, alienation, lust, despair, swagger, or revenge. It was much less comfortable with “the weird kid wins.”

    “All Star” is the weird kid wins.

    That is also why it makes sense that “Teenage Dirtbag” arrived right afterward. I would not claim direct influence unless Brendan B. Brown said so, but the emotional territory is similar. A heavy-metal-loving nerd should not get the girl, but does. A loser becomes the romantic lead. It is the same turn-of-the-millennium wish fulfillment. The difference is that “Teenage Dirtbag” still sounds like an awkward confession. “All Star” sounds like the victory parade.

    The song’s influence on later pop is probably more thematic than musical, but that still counts. You can hear its emotional descendants in the big, bright, kid-friendly optimism of songs like Pharrell’s “Happy” and Justin Timberlake’s “Can’t Stop the Feeling!” You can see its fingerprints on the way internet culture learned to treat sincerity and irony as the same thing wearing different sunglasses. You can trace similar melodic density and bright synthetic textures through later Weezer, fun., Owl City, Passion Pit, and many other artists who understood that modern pop listeners like songs that keep throwing new objects at their heads.

    That helps explain why it has aged better than many songs people took more seriously. Modern pop is built for hyperactive listening. Gen X listeners often complain that contemporary music is too erratic, but younger audiences seem comfortable with songs that shift texture constantly. Charli XCX, Olivia Rodrigo, Post Malone, and modern Beyoncé all work in a landscape where surprise is not a garnish. It is part of the arrangement. “All Star” is not hyperpop, obviously. Let’s not get anyone arrested. But it does share a belief that pop songs should keep producing little jolts of novelty.

    Steve Harwell was not the songwriter, but he was essential to why the song worked. Greg Camp wrote the thing, but Harwell sold it. His voice had a deep, cutting, almost cartoonishly confident quality. He sounded like the cool uncle at a barbecue who might give terrible advice but somehow knows everyone’s name. A more polished singer might have ruined the song by making it too earnest. Harwell made it feel like sincerity wearing a bowling shirt.

    His performance is also why the song survived its own overexposure. “All Star” became a children’s movie anthem, a meme, a sports-stadium chant, a commercial cue, a punchline, and an all-purpose nostalgia button. Most songs would collapse under that much usage. This one somehow absorbed all of it. The more ridiculous the context, the more the song seemed to belong there.

    That is not usually how important songs work. “Jeremy” became too heavy to casually use. “Closer” became too charged. “Break Stuff” became shorthand for tantrum rage. “Enter Sandman” became sports intimidation. “Sabotage” became chase-scene adrenaline. “All Star” became something stranger: a reusable cultural battery. Drop it into almost any setting, and it instantly produces energy, irony, and recognition.

    The band paid a price for that. Smash Mouth became easy to dismiss because their biggest song became too available. Anything that children love, advertisers use, and the internet jokes about will eventually be treated as if it has no real value. Steve Harwell’s later years made the story sadder. He left the band in 2021 after health struggles and an erratic performance in Bethel, New York, and he died in 2023 at only 56. For a singer often reduced to a meme, he gave one of the most recognizable vocal performances of the decade.

    The song itself remains weirdly undefeated.

    That is the thing about “All Star.” It should have worn out its welcome. It should have disappeared into late-’90s novelty bins with swing revival singles and songs from soundtracks no one watches anymore. It should have become a trivia answer. Instead, it keeps coming back. Not always with dignity, but dignity was never the point.

    The point was possibility.

    Alternative rock spent the 1990s telling outsiders they were not alone. That mattered. But “All Star” did something that was almost embarrassing in its directness: it told them the world might actually make room for them. Not just as loners, not just as victims, not just as misunderstood geniuses, but as stars.

    Critics laughed. Kids understood. The internet understood even better.

    A joke can last a summer. A novelty can last a year. “All Star” has lasted because underneath the bright production, the goofy delivery, the whistling synth, the Shrek jokes, and the layers of irony, there is a real idea: being different is not merely survivable. It might be the thing that gets you through the door.

    Perhaps no song is more emblematic of the early 2000s, but that is only part of the story. “All Star” belongs on a list of essential ’90s rock songs because it caught alternative music at the exact moment outsider culture stopped asking for sympathy and started asking for applause.

    Smash Mouth did not invent the underdog anthem. They just made it safe for the weird kid to win.

  • Big Swings, Big Misses #1: Bill Murray and Passion Play (2010)

    The first film in my new series about the lowest rated movie by actors I love.

    Great actors make bad movies. Sometimes they make choices that result in merely disappointing films. Sometimes they make movies that hurt their careers for no real reason at all. And sometimes they make movies so strange, so fundamentally misguided, that you almost have to admire whatever thought process led them to say, “Yes, this is a good idea. Let’s make this.”

    That is the idea behind Big Swings, Big Misses, a series where I pick an actor I love and watch the lowest-rated movie on Metacritic that they were involved with. A Metacritic score below 30 is, in my mind, always unreleasable. Yet these movies get released anyway. It is the cinematic equivalent of accidentally replying-all to the entire company. You do not want one of these on your résumé.

    For Bill Murray, that movie is Passion Play (2010), a film that currently sits at the bottom of his Metacritic page with a score of 21 out of 100. It is also the lowest-rated movie on Metacritic for Megan Fox. Mickey Rourke has somehow managed to make two movies rated even lower than this. We may get to those movies at some point.

    Mickey Rourke plays Nate Poole, a washed-up trumpet player whose life is going to get worse very soon. He has to steal money from his boss’s poker game just to get paid for work he has already done. Shortly after that, he is kidnapped by criminals and taken into the desert to be executed. Just before he is killed, his would-be executioner is killed by a group of Native Americans dressed like baseball players. Or perhaps they are baseball players dressed like Native Americans. The movie never really clarifies. I am not entirely certain who they are or why they are there. The movie is not especially interested in answering those questions. Nate survives, walks through the desert, and eventually stumbles into the nearest town.

    This town contains a carnival. More specifically, it contains Megan Fox, who plays Lily, a carnival attraction with actual angel wings. Not fake wings. Not a costume. Real, feathered, fully functional angel wings growing out of her back. Nate pays admission to see her, becomes fascinated by her almost immediately, follows her back to her trailer, and somehow convinces her to let him in for a drink. The movie treats this as the beginning of a tragic romance. I spent much of the first act trying to determine whether the movie wanted me to take the angel wings literally, metaphorically, or both. The answer appears to be yes.

    Lily’s life is controlled by Sam, the carnival owner, who reacts to Nate’s presence by threatening him. This is the second time in the movie that Nate finds himself fearing for his life, and we can only roll our eyes at how quickly and conveniently these plot developments arrive. Lily eventually crashes a truck into Sam’s trailer, rescues Nate, and drives away with him. The two spend time together and develop a relationship, although “develop” may be too strong a word. It is a love affair of plot convenience rather than emotional conviction. The movie is constantly reaching for a dreamy, melancholy atmosphere, but it often feels as if entire scenes are missing between the scenes that actually made it into the final cut.

    Is Passion Play a parable about angels? You can tell the screenwriter watched Wim Wenders’ Wings of Desire, although I am less certain that he understood it. What exactly is Lily, and why does everyone become so entranced by her almost immediately? Nate sees her and falls in love. Happy sees her and becomes obsessed. Wealthy patrons will eventually pay money just to stand around looking at her. Megan Fox spends much of the movie speaking softly and staring into the distance, yet she somehow becomes the gravitational center of the story. The screenplay treats her appeal as self-evident.

    Meanwhile, Bill Murray enters the movie as Happy Shannon, a gangster with a personal grudge against Nate. It turns out Nate once slept with Happy’s wife. Happy responded by having his wife killed, which is a comically disproportionate reaction. Nate attempts to save himself by telling Happy about Lily and her wings. This is where the movie takes a turn from strange to fascinatingly strange. Our hero falls deeply in love with a stranger and then almost immediately betrays her. Happy sees Lily, becomes captivated by her, and decides that her wings can make him rich. The exact mechanics of this business plan remain unclear throughout the movie, but everyone involved treats it as a completely reasonable proposition.

    This brings me to one of my favorite scenes in the film. Happy eventually sets Lily up in a theater and begins charging wealthy customers for the privilege of seeing her. The movie builds this up as if we are about to witness some extraordinary spectacle. What is the act? Does she fly? Does she sing? Does she perform miracles? The answer is no. Lily stands on a stage in a small plexiglass box. That is the act. She stands there displaying her wings while wealthy patrons watch. Bill Murray sits in the balcony observing the proceedings like a man who has finally discovered the perfect business model.

    I spent the entire scene trying to understand the economics of this operation. Are people buying repeat tickets? Is there a second act? Does anyone ask questions? How many times can a person pay to see Megan Fox stand motionless in a box before they begin demanding additional value for their entertainment dollar? These are the sorts of questions that occupied my mind while the movie was trying very hard to be profound.

    The movie is filled with moments like this. It wants desperately to be a tragic fantasy romance, but it keeps getting distracted by ideas it never fully develops. My favorite example comes when Nate attempts to find work. A character who I believe is connected to his former employer tells him:

    “You can’t bus tables. You can’t clean toilets. You can’t even buy a drink in here. Not here, or anyplace else.”

    How omniscient.

    This line is intended to be devastating. Instead, it raises a number of practical questions. Who is this man? What authority does he possess? Is he merely a bar manager, or does he somehow control employment opportunities throughout North America? The screenplay needs Nate to hit rock bottom, so it simply has a minor character announce that rock bottom has arrived. The effect is unintentionally hilarious. It is the kind of line that sounds dramatic while you are writing it at two in the morning and considerably less dramatic once another human being says it out loud.

    If Bill Murray had said this line, I might have taken it seriously. If the movie had established some kind of criminal blacklist, I might have accepted it. Instead, it comes from a character we barely know, and he delivers it with the confidence of a man who has personally surveyed every restaurant, bar, and janitorial department in the Western Hemisphere.

    The frustrating thing about Passion Play is that there is a better movie hiding somewhere inside it. The premise alone is bizarre enough to justify its existence. A washed-up jazz musician falls in love with an angel while a gangster attempts to turn her into a profitable attraction. That is not the plot of a movie assembled by market research. Someone genuinely believed in this idea. Someone thought this could be a great film.

    I cannot justify actually hating this movie.

    The screenplay is underwritten. Entire character motivations seem to disappear between scenes. Characters fall in love because the screenplay says they should be in love. Characters betray one another because the next scene requires a betrayal. The score often sounds like it was recorded in a spare bedroom after a weekend spent listening to Pearl Jam albums. Yet the movie never feels generic.

    I was rarely surprised by individual plot developments, but I never found the movie predictable. There is a difference. Most bad movies fail in familiar ways. They are bland, corporate, cynical, or lazy. Passion Play fails in its own unique way. It is reaching for something melancholy and mythic and romantic. It wants to be a noir fairy tale. It wants to be tragic. It wants to be profound. It simply has no idea how to get there.

    Should Bill Murray be embarrassed that this is the lowest-rated movie on his Metacritic page? Probably not. Actors who spend their careers taking chances inevitably end up with a few disasters. The same instincts that lead someone to appear in Lost in Translation or Rushmore can occasionally lead them somewhere much stranger.


    I suspect Murray did Passion Play for the same reason many odd movies get made in the first place: somebody he liked pitched him an idea he couldn’t quite say no to. Mitch Glazer wrote Scrooged, but this feels like his Gigli—a passion project that never figured out how to become a movie. Still, I can imagine Glazer at a Denny’s at one in the morning, talking excitedly about a washed-up trumpet player, an angel with real wings, and a gangster who wants to put her on display. Eventually, keeping the conversation going feels easier than ending it. “You know what?” Bill Murray says. “I’d act in this. Want another shot of whiskey in your coffee?”

    Rating: 2.5/10

  • Day 6: Evil Dead Rise (Lee Cronin, 2023)

    E is for extremely poor apartment safety.



    If someone asked me what Evil Dead II was, I would say it is one of my favorite movies, and I could even tell you why, but I could not, for the life of me, give you a clean account of what it is actually about. I remember Bruce Campbell in a cabin, with a shotgun in one hand and, eventually, a chainsaw where the other hand used to be. The villain is an evil first-person camera shot that leaps into people and corrupts them: an unstoppable force that nevertheless seems capable of getting confused. It is unleashed by reading a passage from a book out loud, I think. And years later, Sam Raimi would shoot Doc Ock’s tentacles in Spider-Man 2 as if they had learned how to move from the woods around that cabin.

    Evil Dead Rise is similarly polished, a tour de force of splatter-gore effects shots and set pieces, but I cannot say the story is as inspired. Of all the ways to tell this story, the movie chooses one of the strangest: it opens with an apparently disconnected scene that takes place after the main events. The synopsis promises a movie about two estranged sisters trying to survive an unleashed evil. The opening gives us two sisters who are obviously annoyed with each other, so the viewer naturally assumes they must be the sisters in question. They are not. They are two different sisters, almost entirely unrelated to the main storyline.

    Beth, played by Lily Sullivan, is the movie’s most promising human anchor: a guitar technician who makes her living on tour, tuning guitars and moving from show to show before anyone else takes the stage. She may not be famous, but she exists adjacent to fame, juggling technical proficiency and backstage fraternization in a way that prioritizes proximity over boundaries. The movie introduces her just after she learns she is pregnant, most likely by one of the musicians whose guitars she maintains. That detail immediately sharpens her character. Beth has spent her adult life trying to look self-possessed and indispensable, only to be confronted with a fact that makes her seem, at least to herself, like the cliché everyone has always been waiting to call her. The horror, before the demons even arrive, is that her life has suddenly become readable in the cruelest possible way: she can bury the secret and preserve her credibility, or admit the truth and risk being reduced to the oldest backstage stereotype in the book.

    Beth’s family is filled, at least structurally, with expendable characters, but Cronin gives them just enough intelligence to make their deaths feel cruel rather than mechanical. Her sister, Ellie, played by Alyssa Sutherland, is guilty of the greatest sin a person can commit in a horror movie: believing she has made all the better choices in life. She has built a home, raised three children, and settled into the kind of adult responsibility Beth has spent her life avoiding. Ellie’s children are smart too, but in the dangerous, unfinished way children are smart. Danny is technically curious enough to play the cursed record at full speed, turning his DJ instincts into an accidental summoning ritual. Bridget has the moral seriousness of a teenager who already thinks she understands the brokenness of the world, while Kassie has the imaginative resourcefulness of a child who can turn a doll’s head on a stick into both a toy and a weapon. None of them are idiots. That is what makes the family’s destruction more frustrating: they are not punished for stupidity so much as for curiosity, confidence, and proximity to the wrong object at the wrong time.

    The grotesqueness of the splatter gore that Cronin unleashes is the star of the show. Evil Dead Rise turns biting at the eyes, fire, broken glass, and kitchen utensils into instruments of punishment, including one moment of domestic-object body horror nasty enough to put Cabin Fever to shame. What makes the violence work is not just its extremity, but its horrible intimacy: Cronin turns the ordinary objects of a home into evidence that no domestic space in this movie can remain safe. Watching Evil Dead Rise may make you look around your own living room and wonder how, exactly, one child-proofs a home against evil.

    For the most part, Lee Cronin’s Evil Dead entry functions randomly. Whether one lives or dies here depends on smart decisions and good instincts, yes, but some of the most likely to survive are overtaken unceremoniously, as though they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and rolled a 1 on a Will Save. In other words, the movie often treats survival less like a matter of character or consequence than a cruel accident of timing.

    And, for the most part, this works. It increases the dread and makes the evil seem like an unstoppable force that can bypass anything. Going back to the RPG analogy, there is something called a “funnel” in the Dungeons & Dragons-inspired game Dungeon Crawl Classics, where each player controls four level-zero characters through a short adventure likely to kill most of them. Run away from a dragon and choose a house to hide in. The house might be a monster-house, waiting for its next meal. If all four characters go into the monster-house together, you just lost all four characters.

    The reason Evil Dead Rise feels so unsatisfying is that this is a funnel, not a story. That can make for a great origin story, but an origin story implies a promise: eventually, it will lead to something more complete, with characters who have grown, adapted, and actually seem to know what they are doing. I wanted another movie to pick up where this one left off.

    Watching a bunch of level-zero characters get killed off can be fun, but it is too easy to admire from a distance. There is a character or two who manages to seem like the “new Ash,” but not in a way that makes Evil Dead Rise feel like the singular achievement Evil Dead II was. This movie is gory and frightening, but often at the expense of character. I am invested enough in these people to want to see what happens in chapter two. Instead, Cronin has said he has no interest in making another Evil Dead movie, at least not a direct sequel. It seems like these characters will never continue on, and that the next Evil Dead movie will be a different origin story with entirely new characters.

    I am suspicious of Lee Cronin. The industry seems eager to turn him into a name before interest has built organically. There is a sense that studios are trying to “make fetch happen” with him, asking us to recognize his authorship before the general public has had much reason to know who he is. In that way, he reminds me a little of Gore Verbinski: a visually fluent studio craftsman whose early work suggested that, with the right material, he might one day deliver something enormous. Cronin’s greatest gift is that he can make a dime look like a buck. Evil Dead Rise is as glossy and well-produced as horror movies made for several times its budget; the fact that it reportedly cost less than $20 million is almost incomprehensible from the evidence onscreen. That explains why he is suddenly in demand, even if his work has not yet given us anything truly indispensable. Lee Cronin’s The Mummy proved the strange limit of that strategy: profitable enough to justify itself, but culturally invisible enough to make the title feel faintly ridiculous. The movie asked audiences to treat “Lee Cronin” as a brand, and audiences mostly responded as though they had never been consulted. He is excellent with texture, pacing, intelligent characters, and finishing touches. What he has not yet proven is that he can make the story itself feel as inevitable as his imagery. Before he is handed yet another franchise to revive, he may need to figure out how to finish one.

    6.5/10

  • Is This Thing On? (Bradley Cooper, 2025)

    Or: Did We Finish the Script?

    I thought this movie was great when I logged it last night. Now I’m conflicted. I liked it while I was watching it, but the more I tried to write about it, the less I could justify its existence. It kind of fizzled away after the credits.

    Four men, all credited on the script, came together to write a female character meant to feel authentic and relatable. I might have loved the movie if Laura Dern had been given a chance to rewrite some of her dialogue, because as it stands, the perspective feels weirdly aloof. Too much of it lands in “women be crazy, am I right?” territory. Dern and Will Arnett both do strong work, but she is working against material that keeps treating her as an idea instead of a person.

    The poster/photo choice bothered me too. Having Arnett put up a picture of Dern that does not show her face may work narratively on one level, but it feels like a cheap solution for a mainstream Hollywood movie. It would have been more interesting, and more confounding for him, if the photo looked like another actress and Dern could simply say, “That doesn’t even look like me.”

    The bigger issue is that the main plot feels like a beat-for-beat remake of Ghostlight. That movie was hammy and overloaded with coincidences, but it had a stronger reason to exist. It said something true about losing a child, even when the movie itself did not always feel true. Is This Thing On? has truthful pieces, but not enough connective tissue.

    Every movie gets one coincidence, but Dern showing up at the exact comedy club where Arnett is performing is painfully contrived. Had it been the fifth date night between her and Peyton Manning’s character — a badly miscast role, by the way — I could have accepted it. As written, I had to invoke the “one coincidence” rule and move on, even though it made no sense.

    There are other shortcuts that feel like low-budget writing decisions. Arnett’s sexual conquest is written with almost no texture: foreplay as “I think we should have sex. We are going to have sex,” followed by her leaving for work and telling him not to let the cat out. That is not a character; that is a function. Likewise, we are told another woman will do a magic show for his kids, which sounds like a fun chance to give a supporting character a memorable moment, and then we never see it. It is setup with no payoff — not even a five-second shot.

    The frustrating thing is that there is a great idea for a script here, and the central storyline has truth in it. In some ways, the direction could not be better. I love the long takes, the stand-up routines are strong, and Arnett and Dern are surprisingly good with the material they have. But the movie also feels strangely amateur from a production and writing standpoint. This may be one of the rare cases where the dreaded Hollywood producer note would have helped: “Is there enough here to put in a trailer?” I usually hate movies built around that question, but maybe this one needed it. It needed a clearer reason to exist.