Cast: Kartik Aaryan, Triptii Dimri, Vidya Balan, Madhuri Dixit, Vijay Raaz, Rajpal Yadav, Ashwini Kalsekar, and Sanjay Mishra

Director: Anees Bazmee

Language: Hindi

The idea of moving from a psychological thriller to a horror comedy feels both curious and correct. Bhool Bhulaiyaa came out at a time when Hindi cinema wasn’t piling up films of the same genre to please the box-office. The sequel came out when Bollywood was at a shocking and surprising cusp. We were fresh off the trial of the pandemic, and the sequel to an immensely popular film released after 15 years. There was no Akshay Kumar, but still there was Bhool Bhulaiyaa. It became a raging success. And with Stree 2, Munjya writing history, there was no reason for part three not to be made.

This time, there are two cherries on the cake. One is Vidya Balan, who sent a shiver down our spine with her bone-chilling performance in part one as the possessed wife. We call her Manjulika. She’s back. The second cherry is Madhuri Dixit, who plays Manjulika too. The rest of the cake has cream, chocolate, candles in the form of Kartik Aaryan, Triptii Dimri (headlining films quicker than Akshay Kumar), and the inimitable trio of Rajpal Yadav, Ashwini Kalsekar, and Sanjay Mishra. They say timing is everything. The second part of the franchise hit the bullseye as it was almost like heavy rainfall after a long dry spell.

But does Bhool Bhulaiyaa 3 hold that well when we have just seen Stree 2, Bhediya, and Munjya? Kind of! If Akshay Kumar played a psychiatrist who arrived in full swag in the haunted haveli, Aaryan’s a farcical character who sells his facade with nonchalance and glee. He never wants to solve the problem until he has too. He did that with two Tabus in part two, he does that with the two Manjulikas in part three. Which brings us to the two leading ladies. Balan reprises the character after 17 years, and goes little overboard in reenacting that possessed performance. But props to an actor of her talent that she sportingly submits to the unassuming and unabashed vision of director Anees Bazmee and writer Aaksh Kaushik.

Madhuri Dixit’s flair for comedy hasn’t been tested with much aplomb except for those Indra Kumar films like Raja, Dil, and Total Dhamaal. This is her first collaboration with Bazmee and she gives what we say her best shot. Sorry, there were not two but three cherries on the cake mentioned above. It was the dance of Balan and Dixit that gives both the ladies the juiciest opportunity they have got in recent times. Bhool Bhulaiyaa 3 isn’t based on any folklore, it’s a work of pure fiction where the brains and the cells have to be left behind. It’s not inspired by any true story. After all, this is an offering by a man who has carved a pretty successful career making those larger-than-life comedies like No Entry, Singh Is Kinng, and Welcome.

And while two of those comedies were made with Akshay, this is also Bazmee’s second and definitely not the last collaboration with Aaryan. Unlike Balan, who returns to this world after 17 years, Aaryan is back only after two. He looks fresh, and sticks to the shenanigans he pulled off unapologetically back in 2022. His romance with Dimri feels labored and inconsequential but who would say no to arguably the most popular name in Hindi film landscape currently. Bhool Bhulaiyaa 3 could be savored taste; for those wanting to see romance have Aaryan and Dimri, for those waiting to see the OG Manjulika have Balan at their service, for anyone enamored by Dixit, she brings back the memories of Devdas with her thunderous aura and nimble moves. And for those stepping in with zero expectations, may not be exactly doing a Bhool!

Rating: 3 (out of 5 stars)

Bhool Bhulaiyaa 3 is now playing in cinemas

Film

Heretic
Director: Scott Beck, Bryan Woods
Beck/Woods, Shiny Penny
In Theaters: 11.01

As a native Utahn who group up in the LDS Church, and a cinephile, I’ve often lamented the fact that while the church gets a certain amount of representation in film, we haven’t had anything close to a horror film since Trapped by The Mormons in 1922. It’s not like the genre doesn’t have plenty of potential. Family Home Evil and Baptism for The Walking Dead—these concepts practically write themselves. Count your blessings, brothers and sisters, because with the release of Heretic, the second coming of the genre is here at last.

The story takes place in a rural Colorado town, where a pair of missionaries, Sister Paxton (Chloe East, The Fabelmans) and Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher, The Book of Boba Fett) are having a discouraging day, having no luck making new contacts and even getting harassed by a group of teens who pull down Sister Paxton’s skirt to see if she is really wearing “magic underwear.”  Despite a rainstorm, they decide to stop by the home of a potential golden contact, Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Paddington 2), a charming man who has done his studying and expressed a great deal of interest in the church.  While they are wary of entering his home without another woman—rules require them not to be alone with a man—Reed assures them that his wife is in the kitchen baking a blueberry pie.  Once inside, the sisters relax as Mr. Reed starts discussing religion, pulling out a heavily notated copy of the Book of Mormon. Sister Paxton is quickly put at ease by his friendly demeanor, while Sister Barnes remains uneasy. As the conversation progresses, and Reed begins to pointedly question their beliefs, they realize that Reed hasn’t invited them to his house to convert him. Is he trying to convert them? Or does he have something even darker in mind? As he tricks them into going into the basement, he reveals two doors, one marked “belief” and one “disbelief,” and they must choose which will lead them to safety.

There’s already a rather vocal crowd labeling Heretic as an attack against the LDS faith, but while it raises many interesting questions about religion and touches briefly on church history, the film doesn’t push any one point of view, and it’s certainly not designed to malign the faith. , Writer-director team Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, who co-wrote A Quiet Place with John Krasinski, have created a horror film with a highly intriguing premise, and Mormonism is simply the religion that best fits it’s  terrifying premise. The Sister missionaries are great characters who easily come across as young and naïve, yet they also show great moments of strength, drawing on their faith to bolster themselves. If you believe that any mention of the polygamy or the simple fact that Temple garments seem rather strange to most nonmembers, then yes, you will be every bit as offended as you want to be. If you can keep an open mind, you’re unlikely to find anything to be directly offended by here.  The fact is that the Mormons are the protagonists, not the villains, and just as they did in a Quiet Place, Beck and Woods demonstrate that horror is at its scariest when it follows good people whom you can genuinely care about. That’s not to say that it’s a pro-Mormonism movie, either, it’s just a movie. The philosophical and theological deep dive that the clever script take wisely leaves the audience with plenty of room to get what they choose out of it. I even took my actively religious mission companion to the screening as my plus one, and we both thoroughly enjoyed the film.

Grant is a diabolically delicious and wonderfully complex villain, and it’s a performance and a character who deserves to join the ranks of Hannibal Lecter and Misery’s Annie Bates. It’s still Thatcher and East who drives the film,, and both are likable and engaging.  The fact that Thatcher grew up LDS and her family is still active was undoubtedly an asset in capturing the culture and the details with such impressive accuracy. Topher Grace (That ‘70s Show) is effective as Elder Kennedy, a local stake or ward mission leader (it’s never quite specified) who goes searching for the Sisters when they don’t show up at the Church for an appointment, and he gets one the film’s best comic relief moments.

I’m not telling anyone that they have to see Heretic if they don’t want to, but I’d be ungrateful if I didn’t take this opportunity to bear my testimony that whatever your religious affiliation or lack thereof may be, this movie isn’t out to get you. It’s simply an extremely smart and atmospheric thriller that explores themes of the nature of belief and how it shapes our lives and our actions in a way that will give you a lot to talk about, and it’s one of the best suspense films I’ve seen in decades. I say these things in the name of Alfred Hitchcock. Amen. –Patrick Gibbs

Read more film reviews here:
Film Review: Here
Film Review: Utah Queer Film Festival 2024 

Lately, filmmaker Robert Zemeckis has been a somewhat confounding figure. The director of such beloved movies as the “Back to the Future” series, “Forrest Gump,” “Cast Away,” “Death Becomes Her” and “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” has delivered almost as many duds as hits, if you also take in “The Polar Express,” “Beowulf,” “Welcome to Marwen” and “Pinocchio.” An experimenter obsessed with special effects and the dramatic power they can exert in cinema, Zemeckis is always trying something new, especially with motion-capture technology. It doesn’t always work: Many of these projects drift into an unappealing uncanny valley. Despite his several attempts, he hasn’t quite nailed it yet.

In his new intergenerational family drama “Here,” based on a 2014 graphic novel by Richard McGuire (expanded from a six-page comic strip published in the comics anthology “Raw” in 1989), the experiment is the narrative itself, a family history spanning generations — and centuries — all told from one fixed point of view. In his formally inventive graphic novel, McGuire used frames within frames to visually represent different time periods within one panel.

Zemeckis maintains the frames-within-frames conceit as a transitional flourish in the film version of “Here,” but the plot itself is more about jumping around in time while maintaining the stationary camera. There are many inhabitants of this space, from a Native American couple (Joel Oulette and Dannie McCallum) in pre-Columbian times, to a young family in the Victorian era (Michelle Dockery and Gwilym Lee) who move into their modest Colonial home, and then later, the inventor of the La-Z-Boy recliner (David Fynn) and his ebullient wife (Ophelia Lovibond), who take the home. There’s also a present-day Black family (Nicholas Pinnock, Nikki Amuka-Bird and Cache Vanderpuye) navigating the COVID-19 pandemic and the Black Lives Matter movement.

But the story focuses predominantly on a family that occupies the house for most of the 20th century: a World War II veteran, Al (Paul Bettany), his wife, Rose (Kelly Reilly) and then their son Richard (Tom Hanks) and his wife, Margaret (Robin Wright). And yes, Hanks and Wright have been digitally de-aged — we see them for the first time as teens — and no, it does not work at all (there’s something very strange happening around Hanks’ de-aged mouth). Sure, the Hanks, Wright and Zemeckis trio supplies the gimmick of a “Forrest Gump” reunion, but why do we have to de-age Hanks when there are his real-life sons Colin and Truman at home? Even Wright has a look-alike actor daughter, Dylan Penn.

“Here” also has that Gumpian quality of major historical events lining up with personal stories: Benjamin Franklin (Keith Bartlett) and his son William (Daniel Betts) occupy the Colonial manor across the street; a pregnancy is announced as the Beatles take the stage on “The Ed Sullivan Show”; and seemingly everything relevant happens in this godforsaken living room, including weddings, births and breakups.

The story of “Here” surrounding Richard and Margaret is relatable, entirely predictable and utterly dull. They get pregnant as teens, move in with his family, he gives up art to get a real job, she wants her own space, etc.. Ostensibly, their story is about navigating the ups and downs of life, but ultimately it turns into a rather dispiriting tale about two people taking too long to pursue the things that make them happy, and for her, it’s getting out of that damn house, though if she ever left, there would be no “Here” here.

Changing hands over the years means real estate agents coming in and out throughout the film, and by the time the credits roll, you half expect the logo for a home insurance company to come up, because that’s what this whisper of a film feels like: a commercial for homeowners insurance. To be frank, there are 30-second spots that have inspired more tears and emotion than the flat, pointless “Here.”

Richard and Margaret’s daughter Vanessa (Zsa Zsa Zemeckis) disappears around age 16 and never reappears again, which is a shame, because the more interesting story isn’t the parents’ baby boomer tale, but perhaps how their Gen-X daughter or zoomer grandchildren might benefit from their generational wealth. “Here” doesn’t want to dig into any of the nuances surrounding that. But perhaps property values are just where the mind wanders when the story playing out is so treacly and stale.

This year has seen other daring projects from aging filmmakers who have experimented with cinematic form and function on their own terms — including Francis Ford Coppola’s “Megalopolis,” and Kevin Costner’s “Horizon.” While the efforts have been laudable, unfortunately, the results have all been flops and “Here” is no exception.

Katie Walsh is a Tribune News Service film critic.