The Lighthouse

Directed by: Robert Eggers
Starring:
Robert Pattinson
Willem Dafoe
Valeriia Karaman
Written by: Robert & Max Eggers
Composer: Mark Korven
Rated: R
Run time: 110 minutes
(2019)

9/10 Would Recommend

In a year that brought audiences a new cigarette smoking Joker, director Robert Eggers’ “The Lighthouse” brings a new kind of crazy to the game.

Having never met, Ephraim (Robert Pattinson) and Thomas (Willem Dafoe) arrive at a lighthouse, far from civilization, to maintain it. Ephraim is responsible for all of the hard labor, from cleaning the floors to painting the building, and Thomas is the experienced boss who makes certain Ephraim does what he’s expected to. Thomas treats Ephraim like a boy, belittling him and reminding him constantly of his role at the lighthouse. Ephraim is forced to eat with and sleep in the same room as Thomas, among listening to his tales about the sea. Ephraim refers to Thomas as a “parody” of a sailor at one point in the film; which is an accurate description. Thomas is old and hunchbacked, who drinks, and says words like “ye” and “laddy.”

Ephraim begins having visions, some with mermaids, some with seagulls and some of squid-like monsters; or is he? He becomes fascinated with what’s at the top of the lighthouse, where he’s not allowed to go. Audiences see Ephraim’s curiosity aggressively escalate, through intensive labor, self-pleasure, drinking and sleeping, not sure of which visions are simply surreal, a dream, or reality. Viewers are sure they are going to watch madness unfold, but don’t know how, who, when or why. Meanwhile, Thomas’s intentions are vague. He’s cruel to Ephraim but treats him like a friend.

There are plenty of films that center on watching a protagonist go insane. “The Lighthouse” isn’t necessarily about that though.  In a way, the film aims to drive you, the audience, crazy. Due to the loneliness and unpredictability that the film offers, viewers are constantly on edge; questioning new things and wondering where the film is going to end up, while unsure of what’s being witnessed in any present moment.

Eggers is a passionate filmmaker adamant about historic authenticity in both “The Witch” and “The Lighthouse.” Filmed with actual film, in black and white, on top of heavy accents, and set and costume design, audiences will feel like they are trapped in the late nineteenth century. Notice the word trapped. The film is able to make audiences feel uneasy through sound design and cinematography that creates an unsettling feeling of isolation. The picture format alone creates an environment that physically and attentively brings viewers in closer. Both protagonists are secluded and untrustworthy, and by blending both old and new styles of filmmaking together, that’s how Eggers makes audiences feel.

In a black and white film, it seems like there can’t be that much done with cinematography that hasn’t already been done before; but the director manages to impress viewers and critics. Eggers uses low camera angles on the films talent during scenes where both characters’ authority or dominance is challenged. He does the same when a character is suddenly to be feared. During long monologues, a candlelit shadow of the character looms over the actor; forcing viewers’ eyes to focus on the black figure rather than the character delivering the lines. Slow pans and long zooms are a suspenseful delight to see in black and white; making the film all the more innovative.

Sound is an overwhelming character in the film. The sounds that the lighthouse makes, along with ships passing and waves crashing, makes the movie grounded but also plays a role in the horror element of the film. When inside, a clock is continuously ticking. Imagine the only sound you here in your home is the sound of a clocks infinite clicking. That’s enough to make you go insane. Mix that feeling with not knowing what day of the week it is and if it’s day or night, then see what happens. The metaphor implied can be described as, the clock is counting down the moment when insanity is reached; for the characters and its audience. Outside, the characters can’t be heard over the waves crashing and the lighthouse’s booming. The characters need scream over the ambient sound outside.

Dominance was mentioned earlier. This film is very masculine; unlike Eggers’ previous film, “The Witch,” which had a very feminine undertone. Appropriately this film shows “men being men” in its most basic stereotype, and part of what drives the drunken brawls and inevitable violence, is power in masculinity that’s being challenged. Singing shanty’s, drinking booze, and a bit of fowl humor are as about as reliving as it gets in a story like “The Lighthouse.”

Pattinson and Dafoe both give performances that are instantly memorable and make viewers want to know more about them. He’s experimented more recently with his roles in film, but “The Lighthouse,” is unquestionably the beginning of renaissance for Pattinson in Hollywood, and yet another amazing character in Dafoe’s filmography.

Similar to “The Witch,” the film is interpretative. Eggers doesn’t give away answers to all the questions that audiences will want answered. In some instances, viewers may have to have more outside knowledge than expected to fully appreciate some of the mythical parallels drawn in the movie; however, it’s not required to enjoy the film, because despite terror from the unexpected, lunacy, or taunting dreams of fabled creatures, the film is a reminder, in the most old-fashion of ways, that nothing is scarier than human potential.

Watch trailer here

Judy

Directed by: Rupert Goold
Starring: Renée Zellweger
Rufus Sewell
Finn Wittrock
Michael Gambon
Jessie Buckley
Bella Ramsey
John Dagleish
Written by: Tom Edge
Based on: “End of the Rainbow”
Rated: PG-13
Run time: 118 minutes
(2019)

7.5/10 Would Recommend

Based on Peter Quilter’s stageplay, “The End of the Rainbow,” “Judy” follows actress and singer Judy Garland’s last few months before her untimely death. Set in the late 1960’s, “Judy” shows the famed singer’s series of performances in London, while audiences see Garland, quite literally, when the curtains close; struggling with prescription drugs, financial security and an ongoing custody battle for her two children.

The story is a tragedy of someone who is instinctively recognized in pop culture as a glamorous star-power who died too early. Years after “The Wizard of Oz,” the film focuses more so on Garland as mother and a wife before an actress and a singer. “Judy” emphasizes the cruelties that corporate Hollywood can place on young women pursuing entertainment. The film will jump back and forth between Garlands teenage years and her later career; showing how her adolescent impacted her, both for good, but mostly, in bad ways. Her past has haunted her, and with very few scenes and little information, there is a disturbing presence overarching each scene from Garland’s youth.

One of the compelling aspects to the film is that it reminds both older and younger generations who Garland was as a person. Her return to stardom at the end of her career wasn’t a publicity stunt or an attempt to remain relevant in Hollywood, she revisits entertainment, which is all she knows, and she does it for her kids; naturally she’s challenged along the way.

There’s a small sub-plot in the film that could be stripped away entirely, involving two newfound English friends of the title character, and it wouldn’t change the film one iota. At the least, it could be a small scene, however, the film runs a little too long for what it’s trying to capture.  

The musical numbers are loud and part of the fun. The songs performed are a breath of fresh air spliced into this dramatic biopic. It’s a challenge to not feel evoked while watching some of the directing behind Renée Zellweger’s stage performances. The way the camera lingers on silences and moves with and around the spotlight creates and energy in the room that could survive if there were no music at all. Fans of The Judy Garland Collection should get a kick out Zellweger’s uncanny reenactment of some of Garland’s big band performances.

Zellweger herself may not look exactly like Garland, but her mannerisms are spot on. At times her quirky behavior can be a distraction, but it adds a likeability to the character that is necessary, whether it’s accurate or not. In some musical biopics, the authenticity or it’s absences in songs sung by an actor can be hit or miss. Zellweger sang Garlands timeless songs in the film, and while it lacks the vibrato that Garland carried in her singing voice, they were sung very well. It may be upsetting to some that Zellweger doesn’t sound like the celebrity she’s portraying; however, it’s doesn’t hurt the movie.  

Instead of focusing on the innocent “young at heart” child star that most associate Judy Garland with, “Judy” presents the hard truths of a has-been struggling to make it ends meet, while giving snippets of context to what lead to a mysterious death of a beloved legend in Hollywood.  

Watch trailer here

Zombieland: Double Tap

Directed by: Ruben Fleischer
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg
Woody Harrelson
Emma Stone
Abigail Breslin
Zoey Deutch
Rosario Dawson
Avon Jogia
Rated: R
Run time: 93 minutes
(2019)

6/10 Would Recommend

The 2019 “Zombieland” sequel takes place ten years after the first film. When the gang finally finds a new place to live, Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) runs away with her new friend, Berkley (Avan Jogia). Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), and Wichita (Emma Stone) hit the road to look for the youngest member of their family.

“Zombieland: Double Tap” would’ve been a good sequel in 2011. Not to say that it isn’t a sequel that isn’t deserved. It is. It’s long over due, and that hurts it.

One of the things that make the sequel to the 2009 pop-culture hit, is that, the ten year difference in between the two films isn’t doing it any favors. The zombie novelty hasn’t worn off but it isn’t at the same height that was then. Then, it hadn’t happened yet. Before “Zombieland” the widespread popularity of the zombie genre hadn’t taken off yet; at least not the way that it would. Before 2009 there were only a few very serious representations of zombies and other flesh-eating monsters in Hollywood films, and other than Edgar Wright’s “Shaun of the Dead,” a satiric approach was never taken. In 2009, “Zombieland” expanded upon this idea and, in the process, revolutionized the R-rated horror/comedy drama, while increasing the demand for zombies on TV and film.

After “Zombieland” came AMC’s “The Walking Dead” (and the spin-off series, “Before the Walking Dead”), “World War Z,” “Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse,” and even a film that connects it to “Pride and the Prejudice.” But the important one mentioned is that first one. “The Walking Dead.” That’s what’s helped zombies on the big and silver screen survive. “Zombieland” is brilliant because it noticed a trend with films like “Dawn of the Dead” and “I am Legend,” and took a new and fresh approach to the genre. Over a ten-year gap, though, things have changed. Not as many people are tuning in to “The Walking Dead” anymore.

Was “Zombieland” forgotten? Personally, a “Zombieland” sequel couldn’t have been more anticipated. But, the sequel seems to have lost a certain essence that couldn’t be replaced.

The problem with the writing is that it tries harder with the comedy than it does anything else; and “Zombieland” is not a comedy. It’s funny, but the first film does not center on the jokes; it centers on the characters and the situation that they’re in. They just happen to be funny. The film has running jokes that aren’t really that funny. Many jokes fall flat, and even more become repetitive. There are so many conveniences in the writing that are written into the script for the sake of a joke and to steer the plot in a simple way. That said, you’re bound to laugh a few times throughout the movie.

The film has a budget twice as much as its predecessor; and other than adding even more characters to the franchise, a bulk of the budget was spent on special effects.

The biggest praise this film can receive, other than it’s nice to see the characters come together again, and these actors are good at portraying them, is that the action element is on par with, if not better than the first one.  If you’re going to see the movie for gruesome zombie killing, you’ll enjoy it. There’s no denying the zombie killing aspect is one of the most fun parts about the film. And the film overall is a lot of fun. One benefit to having done the film ten years later is that there’s a lot more that filmmakers can do with technology now. You can tell a huge portion of the films budget is spent on CGI extras being blown to bits, run down, and exploded, but, hey that’s what you get when you watch a  film called “Zombieland;” and it doesn’t fall short.  

You could compare this film to “The Hangover II.” It’s like an amplified version of the first film, and its most popular character becomes a caricature of himself in the sequel. Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) is back with the gang and it’s very clear in the film that he has become the character in the film that’s used for laughs. The film stays true to his character from the first one, but he’s even more loud and belligerent, in a way that’s intended to be funny.

The “Zombieland” sequel isn’t bad. Again, it’d be nearly as good as the first one way back when. Despite its flaws, “Zombieland: Double Tap” is fun experience for zombie fans.

Watch trailer here

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie

Directed by: Vince Gilligan
Starring: Aaron Paul
Charles Baker
Matt Jones
Jonathan Banks
Larry Hankin
Written by: Vince Gilligan
Rated: R
Run time: 122 minutes
(2019)

8/10 Would Recommend

Spoiler Warning for Seasons 1-5 of “Breaking Bad”

“Breaking Bad” was a cultural phenomenon. Taking a good man and turning him bad in a way that hasn’t been done on network television is what separated the series from any other in its genre. Incredible acting and cinematography, combined with a team of some of the best show-writers in the industry, earned the show a handful of Emmy’s and supporting actor Bob Odenkirk a spin-off show, “Better Call Saul.”

“El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie” picks up after the finale of “Breaking Bad.” Without giving too much away, the Netflix movie follows Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul) as he tries to make his way towards freedom. With help from his friends, Skinny Pete (Charles Baker) and Badger (Matt Jones), Jesse has a few more things to take care of in Albuquerque before he can head off to Alaska to start a new life, the way he planned before he was taken captive. After recently escaping the white supremacists who chain him and force him to cook he and the infamous Heisenberg’s blue meth, Jesse has to use his mind’s eye and relive some of the trauma he went through when he was being tormented by Todd (Jesse Plemons) and his uncle.

The film offers new insight into what was going on with Jesse over the several months that Walter White (Bryan Cranston) was living in snowy New Hampshire as a wanted man. Before returning to New Mexico to free Jesse and go out in a Scarface-like fashion, “El Camino” shows viewers just how hard it was for Jessie to live in that hole in the ground.

Director and “Breaking Bad” showrunner, Vince Gilligan, wrote “El Camino” as an extension of the show; and in this regard the film doesn’t fail. If you want to know what happens after the finale that aired over five years ago, you won’t be disappointed. The issue with this, is that “El Camino” does feel like two or three episodes of the show focusing on Jesse Pinkman, rather than its own separate movie. The connections aren’t loose. The film is a very good and long “Breaking Bad” episode. Much of the film makes you feel like you’ve been sucked right back into that universe. It’d be nice to have a “Breaking Bad” film that feels like it can stand on its own, but let’s hope that this is just the start of it.

As usual Aaron Paul nails the character of Jesse. No one else can play Heisenberg’s partner the way he does. All of the characters performances are great for what they are.

The show is very cinematic; so, the jump from television series to feature film feels smooth. “Better Call Saul” feels like it belongs in that same universe as it preceding show; and in that same way, “El Camino” and “Breaking Bad” compliment each other.

If it isn’t already, one of the biggest questions that will be asked after seeing the film is “Do we need a ‘Breaking Bad’ movie?”. It depends. As mentioned, the film is very good; it feels like “Breaking Bad” and it has that same flavor that viewers love from the show. But the show ends so beautifully for Jesse that it can feel like the film is unnecessary. It’s a good ride and it’s nice to see some of these characters return, but the film seems like an extra finale to an already great ending to the show and it’s only there to reveal a little more information. Again, hopefully, this film is a steppingstone to Vince Gilligan moving forward with more “Breaking Bad” inspired films. Despite it’s being so heavily intertwined with “Breaking Bad,” the film is a good experience for fans of both film and Gilligan’s franchise.

Watch trailer here

The Peanut Butter Falcon

Directed by: Tyler Nilson & Mike Schwartz
Starring: Shia LaBeouf
Zack Gottsagen
Dakota Johnson
Bruce Dern
Thomas Haden Church
John Hawkes
Jon Bernthal
Written by: Tyler Nilson & Mike Schwartz
Rated: PG-13
Run time: 93 minutes
(2019)

8/10 Would Recommend

After running away from his nursing home, Zak (Zack Gottsagen), a young man with Down Syndrome who aspires to one day be a professional wrestler, makes friends with Tyler (Shia LaBeouf), a crab fisherman on the run from a few dangerous rivals. Zak’s caretaker and friend, Eleanore (Dakota Johnson), chases her patient down the east coast as his new friend leads him to Florida, where he can train at his idol, Salt Water Redneck’s, wrestling school.

“The Peanut Butter Falcon” is a cute adventure about down to earth characters that feels like a grown-up “Stand by Me.”

The films cinematography is outstanding. Detail and construction of setting, or, allowing setting to be a driving character, has been common with many arthouse films over the past few years. It’s shot beautifully for a film with so few locations. In scenes out on open water the camera shows mostly wide shots, to make the scene feel much more open. When the raft that the characters ride travels through smaller bodies of water, the camera uses tighter shots, so that the scene looks narrower. As the story progresses the setting takes viewers further into the deep south, and it’s enlightening to see the filmmakers interpretation. Most films don’t take place in dirty backwoods, isolate beaches, and open trails. The film carries over archetype characters and stereotypes of southern states. Similar to “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” the film had moments of religious undertones, with characters on the run and covered in sweat.  

Without spoiling the film, there are a couple of scenes that could take you out of the story. For the most part, the movie is pretty well-grounded in reality and does its best job at establishing a connection with viewers that’ll make most people feel like they’re in the same shoes as its characters. But, some scenes, while exciting, could make you scratch your head.

Much like his performances in “American Honey” and “Fury,” LaBeouf once again delivers a great physical performance. Many talented actors are able to tell viewers more about the character they’re playing through silence and body language, rather than the words on the script. Throughout his recent filmography LaBeouf has become better and better at doing this. Without any spoken exposition in the film, you can tell that, in some way, Tyler is a troubled character. LaBeouf does a good job at letting us know this through the way he carries himself. He doesn’t have to come out and say it.

Dakota Johnson gives one of the better performances in her career, though her role doesn’t shine through in any way. Her relationship with Zak his heartwarming, but when the film cuts back to her at the nursing home, the pace begins to slow down. It isn’t until she meets up with the other two characters that film explores her character more; but even then, Eleanore is primarily used as a force to strengthen the bond between Zak and Tyler and give a different conflict to the story.

The real star of the film is Zack Gottsagen. His character will leave a smile on the faces
of viewers. Zak is a thrill-seeker at heart and just needs some extra help to make his passions a reality. His positive outlook on life under terrible circumstances is what makes his character so much fun to watch.

The film assumes that people view others with Down Syndrome differently. It does a great job of spreading a positive message; but it could’ve taken a more subtle approach. Everyone that interacts with Zak, other than Eleanore, Tyler, and Carl (Bruce Dern), treat him poorly and/or use offensive slurs.

It’s a criticism that might not bother everyone. Other than that, the film is a charming story that uses a very traditional template (with a few tweaks), about weary travelers who simply want more in life.

Watch trailer here

Joker

Directed by: Tod Phillips
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix
Robert De Niro
Brett Cullen
Frances Conway
Zazie Beetz
Written by: Scott Silver
Rated: R
Run time: 118 minutes
(2019)

9.5/10 Would Recommend

As he begins a career as a stand-up comedian in a 1981 Gotham City, sign-spinning street clown Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), aka Joker, struggles with violent impulses and “negative thoughts.” 2019’s “Joker” origin focuses on Fleck as he is mocked, beaten, and made a fool of, all while trying to discover his true identity in a cruel and unjust world.  

The film tells the story of how a questionable man can easily be pushed over the edge and turned bad. “Joker” is just as much of a character study on the Joker as it is on society. Viewers get to look at the Jokers inevitable explosion into the criminal world from a victim’s perspective and witness how the world around him created the maniacal alter-ego of the Joker.

This raises the controversial question of: empathy or sympathy? If there’s one thing made clear about “Joker”, it’s that mental health was the first thing taken into consideration when going into preproduction. Tod Phillips’ Joker takes on the Clown Prince of Gotham in a new and unique way. Rather than simply slap the “over the top gangster” label on him, or leave the questions of his past unanswered, Phillips and writer Scott Silver tackle the Jokers behaviors head-on. In Arkham he’s clinically insane; and that’s a layer of the Joker that hasn’t been shown on the big screen before. The Joker is crazy, and he’s been crazy in other films, but this is the first time that filmmakers explore the crazy side of the Joker on a human level. And it’s the humane part of Fleck that can, at times, make it hard to watch. There are scenes where audiences will feel sorry for him, knowing that, ultimately, he is the bad guy. Phillips pulls at the heart strings of audience’s by making viewers watch someone with uncontrollable behaviors and disabilities go through challenges that fully capable people couldn’t imagine facing.

Some may say the film glorifies violence. Some could argue it turns mental illness into a laughing matter. An important thing to take into consideration when going to see the film is that that’s what the Joker is. He is the representation insanity with careless power, and he makes it a laughing matter. No one can perform this interpretation of the Jokers ticks and his menacing attributes the way Joaquin Phoenix did. His star power is like none other, and could, perhaps, win him an Oscar this award season. The rumor goes that, these days, actors who take on the role of the Joker put themselves through a lot in order to identify with the green-haired maniac more easily. Physically and behaviorally, Phoenix transformed himself and gave one of the best performances of his generation and in his career.

Something that should be addressed is the emphasis the film places on guns. Maybe it’s a political statement, or maybe not. In the film, the power of something as small as a 38-caliber is shown. It looks heavy in hands and when shot, the sound silences the room. In every scene a gun is shot, you feel the power as a viewer. The film highlights how deadly a handgun is in such a subtle way.

The film draws from late 60s and early 70s crime drama film, with many comparisons to Martin Scorsese’s “The King of Comedy” and “Taxi Driver.” It’s not a cut and paste retelling of either film, but fans of the latter and fans DC’s Batman will know where the film is going. Traditionally Phillips has directed comedies, most notably the “Hangover” trilogy; but the crime drama element has almost always shined through in his work. His characters typically find themselves breaking the rules in one way or another; “Joker” was a good source material for Phillips to take on and toss the jokes to the side for a while.

“Joker” doesn’t stay true to the traditional comic book movie formula. It’s not the first film in the genre to do it. Instead of focusing solely on the hero/villain aspect, it focuses on the character and the mythos that’s surrounded. Under a certain light, the Joker makes observations about western society. From mistreating outcasts to dreaming of sitting beside late-night talk show hosts, “Joker” looks at American culture and mental instability under a microscope unlike any film has before.  

Watch trailer here

IT Chapter Two

Directed by: Andy Muschietti
Starring: James McAvoy
Jessica Chastain
Bill Hader
Jay Ryan
Isaiah Mustafa
James Ransone
Andy Bean
and Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise
Novel: Stephen King
Rated: R
Run time: 169 minutes
(2019)

8/10 Would Recommend

The second chapter to 2017’s “IT” sees the Loser’s Club reunite in their hometown 27 years later to, once again, go toe to toe with Pennywise.  

Who’s better, the kids or the adults? Without question, this is a star-power cast. Jessica Chastain’s Beverly and Bill Hader’s Mike are spitting images of their younger selves and all seven members of the main cast bring a lot to the table. Everyone in the Losers Club feel genuine; still, it’s not comparable. Both casts of the Losers Club seem like groups of people anybody would want to hang around: funny, curious, and good at heart. It’s simple: younger audiences are going to be able to identify better with the younger cast and vice versa.

There are a few twists and turns that make both chapters worth it and something to look forward to for fans of the horror genre, and adventure. Pennywise is the same Pennywise as IT was in the first film; only IT’s presence seemed a little more absent this time around. The famous clown that snatched up Georgie on that rainy day in Derry is still just as scary as IT once was; and sometimes, the things IT does and changes in to are so ridiculous that you can’t help but laugh. While Pennywise will certainly grab audience’s attention, some of his frightening appearance will feel a bit repetitive. Some things were changed from the original film and some things were changed from the book, but one of the things that doesn’t change is that the clown scares the protagonists. We get it. He did it seven times in the first film and he did seven times again. It’s not a problem; it’s what we want to see. Only, in order for the gimmick not to ware off, it needs to be something so different about each character’s encounter with the clown that it makes us feel like we didn’t watch the same thing seven times.   

Sorry kids, you weren’t needed. “IT Chapter Two” is the second half to an unfinished story. It’s based on one book with two, clear, sections; but it’s one complete story. Like the made-for-T.V. 90s movie, viewers are supposed to marathon both halves. Because of this, all cut and paste scenes of the Losers Club from the first film weren’t needed. With the couple of years that’ve past since the first films release, it’s nice to have those refreshers; but they feel unnecessary if you jump straight from the first one into the sequel. About 30 minutes of the film could’ve been scrapped altogether, but if you want as much detail about these characters’ lives as you can get, the film comes through.

There’s a lot going on in this second chapter, and, like the first film, our favorite characters each take a different detour; some that put you on edge, some that make you laugh, and some that’ll make you yawn. For a film that pushes the three-hour mark, some stories could’ve been shortened. Where the film strives, however, is its character development. Jay Ryan and James Ransone’s portrayal of Ben and Eddie, added more depth and gave new layers to the characters from the first film. The beauty of the Losers Club is that no one character is in the spotlight; everyone get’s their moment to shine, and “IT Chapter Two” expands upon their arcs in new, fun, strange and terrifying ways.

The best part about the film is that it knew what it wants to be. It’s an over-the-top, in your face kind of scare; that’s meant to make crowds roar with an uncomfortable laughter after the fact. Some actors shined over others and with a blockbuster budget, the direction was some of the best there is in the genre. Both films compliment each other, but your still able to enjoy the second chapter having not seen the original. Eyes may dart from the T.V. to the clock from time to time, but back to back, both films are bound to entertain families at home during the Halloween season.  

Watch trailer here