Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Movie Review – Witchboard (2024)

Published

on

Movie Review – Witchboard (2024)

Witchboard, 2024.

Directed by Chuck Russell.
Starring Madison Iseman, Aaron Dominguez, Melanie Jarnson, Jamie Campbell Bower, Antonia Desplat, and David La Haye.

SYNOPSIS:

A young woman becomes obsessed with an antique pendulum board, opening a gateway for an evil spirit to enter our world.

Advertisement

Kevin Tenney’s 1986 movie Witchboard was a flawed-but-fun slice of ‘80s cheese that wasn’t without its charms and became something of a VHS rental hit. It told the fairly simple story of a love triangle and a young woman becoming obsessed with a Ouija board as those around her died mysteriously, and for a 15-rated horror movie in the 1980s it was fairly grisly and starred Whitesnake music video siren Tawney Kitaen for extra teenage male fantasy points.

So now we have the remake and, to be fair, Witchboard was a movie that could have benefitted from another telling, updating the mullets and multi-coloured punk fashions for something less garish. Unfortunately, it has been remade in the 2020s, a decade that has its own tropes and characteristics that will likely age it as quickly and negatively as the knitted cardigans and big hair of the 1980s did with the first one. At least that original movie was entertaining.

What Witchboard 2024 has in its favour is a director with a bit of a pedigree. Chuck Russell can easily be credited with reinvigorating the A Nightmare on Elm Street franchise and setting the direction that series would go with Dream Warriors, and his 1988 version of ‘50s classic The Blob normally falls in just under The Fly and The Thing as a remake that improved on the original. In this case, however, Russell’s magic touch just isn’t there, the director setting up scenes of occult horror only to be let down by a lacklustre cast that cannot seem to emote and CGI that would have (possibly) been great if this movie had been made in 1997.

Instead of the Ouija board of the original we have a pendulum board, which is ostensibly the same thing, only you dangle an item such as a necklace over it and it moves the necklace in the direction of an answer to your questions. The board has been possessed by the spirit of Naga Soth (Antonia Desplat), a witch who was the target of fanatical witch hunter Bishop Grogan (David La Haye) in 17th century France, and is found in the woods by Emily (Madison Iseman) after it was stolen during a robbery in modern-day New Orleans.

Emily is a recovering drug addict, and with her boyfriend Christian (Aaron Dominguez) they are opening a restaurant in the city’s French Quarter. After Christian’s ex Brooke (Melanie Jarnson) – who happens to be an expert on the occult – confirms what the mysterious board is for, Emily starts to use it, at first for innocent things like finding a lost ring, but things get weird when accidents start happening to those around her and Christian. Seeking Brooke’s help, they are introduced to Alexander Babtiste (Jamie Campbell Bower), a New Age Pagan who seems to have extensive knowledge of the board and what it can do, although his motives for helping Christian and Emily may not be entirely honourable.

Advertisement

Taking just the bare bones plot of the original and adding to it, Witchboard is messy and needlessly long, collapsing under the weight of its own ambitions long before its 112-minute running time is up. To their credit, the filmmakers have made a solid backstory for how the pendulum board came to be, and the opening scenes set in 17th-century France are the best of the movie, with Chuck Russell capturing the chilling and exciting atmosphere of a witches’ sabbath being broken up by vengeful clergy. Reminiscent of the flashback scenes in Rob Zombie’s Lords of Salem (but without the naked witch body suits), whenever the movie reverts back to the 1690s it immediately becomes more interesting, making you wish the whole thing was like this.

Unfortunately, whenever we are in the modern-day Witchboard is crammed with far too many flawed characters played by bland actors – which is pushing it – with too many plot contrivances to make the story feel anything other than forced and bloated. Madison Iseman is the standout, taking what is essentially the Tawney Kitaen role from the original and making the dual-personality of Emily when she is under the board’s spell the focal point, and she injects a lot of personality into what she has to do, especially when Emily is being possessed by Naga Soth.

The trouble is Christian is a very dull ‘hero’, which is telegraphed when you first see him collecting mushrooms in his man bag, and whereas Brooke had the potential to be the character with something about her – after all, she is an expert on all things occult, which just doesn’t seem to sit well with her overall personality – Melanie Jarnson’s performance can only be described as one-note, the note being a similar vocal tone to that of a record being played at a slow speed. Which leaves Alexander Babtiste (which is too close to Clinton Baptiste to not make him even more hilarious) as our other main character, and if Witchboard was in desperate need for a bit of scenery-chewing then Jamie Campbell Bower provides it, although you sometimes have to wonder if he knows he is the same movie as the other cast members as none of them seem to gel together.

There is some tasty gore here and there, although picking out the practical effects from the CGI is easily done as the computer generated visuals were clearly made using a processor that is close to being obsolete, and there is a very macabre tone throughout, even when the movie seems to be channelling The Devil’s Advocate (again with that late ‘90s vibe) with its depictions of glossy black magic and stylish occultism. It is just a shame that we didn’t get a witchfinding movie set in the 17th century as that is where this movie is strongest, but as a remake of Witchboard it is very disappointing, filled with awful characters, bad acting, pointless plot threads – such as Emily’s heroin addiction past, and the few scenes with her former supplier that could easily have been chopped out – and far too many ideas fighting for room in a script that cannot sustain them.

There is a solid occult horror in here somewhere that a bit of editing and streamlining could probably have brought out, but if Chuck Russell – the man who brought Freddy Krueger out of the shadows – couldn’t find it then what chance do we have of seeing it?

Advertisement

Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★

Chris Ward

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embed/playlist

 

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

‘Balaramana Dinagalu’ review: A restrained look at the gangster mind

Published

on

‘Balaramana Dinagalu’ review: A restrained look at the gangster mind

In K M Chaitanya’s Aa Dinagalu (2007), actor Atul Kulkarni, playing gangster Agni Sreedhar, says man is the biggest weapon in the underworld. “The rest are just properties,” he adds. The yesteryear Kannada crime drama, based on the real incidents from a big chapter of the Bengaluru underworld, stood out for its understated storytelling.

In Balaramana Dinagalu, which has the skeleton of a sequel to Aa Dinagalu, weapons are seen in the first scene. As the film progresses, we encounter an arsenal of knives, razors, machetes, and guns — each an extension of the gangsters’ identities and an indispensable tool in their quest to remain feared and lethal. Chaitanya attempts to make the movie a mix of reality and entertaining tropes.

Balaramana Dinagalu (Kannada)

Director: K M Chaitanya

Cast: Vinod Prabhakar, Priya Anand, Atul Kulkarni, Ashish Vidyarthi, Ramesh Indira

Runtime: 151 minutes

Advertisement

Storyline: Balarama, an ordinary young man from a remote village in Karnataka, becomes a dreaded gangster who rules Bengaluru

The director has roped in the same cast, who played the dreaded gangster trio of Kotwal Ramachandra (essayed by Sharath Lohitashwa), Jayaraj (Ashish Vidyarthi), and Agni Sreedhar (Atul) in Aa Dinagalu. That’s what makes one instantly curious about Balaramana Dinagalu. The only difference in the latest movie from the previous one is the fictionalised names of the real dons. Jayaraj becomes Jayaram, Sreedhar is Shashidhar, and Muthappa Rai is called Monnappa Rai (played by Ramesh Indira).

Even if these characters are the big draw in the movie, the plot revolves around the journey of Balarama, a character with a small yet significant presence in Aa Dinagalu. Vinod Prabhakar’s portrayal of the titular role is the film’s biggest takeaway. He makes us feel for the character, and is quite impressive in the final portions of the movie, where Balarama struggles to break free from the underworld’s trap.

Balaramana Dinagalu is impressive when it reflects the psychology of a gangster. Jayaram is shown helping the needy while Balarama urges young boys to focus on education. It’s as if these men who commit heinous acts, have a heart as well. Shashidhar is often called “intellectual gangster”, as the film reflects how the underworld fears well-read men in the field. Politicians and policemen, the supposedly the protectors of people being part of the crime nexus, strengthen the movie’s world-building.

The film falters in its inability to rise above the plot’s predictability. Balarama’s journey is no different from the often-seen life of an innocent man from a small town who becomes a gangster owing to uncontrollable circumstances. I wish the film had delved a bit more into Balaram’s personality. Why does he not resist becoming a gangster? What dreams did he have when he moved to Bengaluru from a small town?

Advertisement

“My hands speak louder than my words,” says Balarama. This signals that he is someone who settles conflicts with fists rather than conversations. Despite this detail, Balaram’s entry into the underworld feels too sudden. The predictability strips the sheen away from the well-shot action sequences, as the result of every fight is known beforehand.

Chaitanya is careful not to glorify the act of violence. He wants to portray the negative effects of violence on the children in a family, as the movie ends with a hard-hitting frame. It’s impressive that the actor-director duo has delivered a non-hero-worshipping gangster saga.

That said, the movie could have benefited from a couple of gripping episodes. While it’s important not to romanticise the life of a gangster, there is no harm in delivering moments of peak tension, the biggest plus of the genre. 

The assassination of Jayaram, the impact of Kotwal’s elimination on the underworld, or the Sakleshpura incident involving Monnappa Rai, had the potential to offer edge-of-the-seat, high-stakes portions, but they are rushed. The love story is simple, but it lacks emotional intensity between the lead couple. Santhosh Narayanan’s dance numbers are forgettable (despite it being his forte) while his montage melodies are beautiful.

Balaramana Dinagalu adopts a restrained, almost clinical approach to the gangster genre. While that keeps it from glorifying violence, it also leaves the narrative feeling a touch too neat and emotionally muted.

Advertisement

Balaramana Dinagalu is currently running in theatres

Published – June 28, 2026 07:58 pm IST

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

A New Dawn Anime Film Review

Published

on

A New Dawn Anime Film Review

Perhaps there’s a certain irony in a story about a fireworks factory mostly keeping away from explosive drama. Yoshitoshi Shinomiya‘s lowkey feature directorial debut A New Dawn is at the very least visually captivating, comprised of lush and rather hypnotic production design. The story is small scale focusing on a trio of friends who try to save a fireworks factory in their hometown, but the imagery feels expansive and lush. A New Dawn begins with a beautiful and vaguely familiar display of this beauty: the flowing, painterly imagery of its opening sequence recalls Shinomiya’s work on the flashback sequence in Makoto Shinkai‘s your name., immediately showing that the film’s visuals might transcend its small town drama.

A background artist himself on films by Makoto Shinkai as well as the similarly resplendent Pompo: The Cinéphile, it makes sense that this history would be felt in the background works of A New Dawn. They’re dense with detail, rich with almost luminous color and illustrative texture. Shinomiya, who also wrote and storyboarded the film, veers away from the photorealism associated with someone like Shinkai through some impressionist touches – like the splotches of green paint which represent treelines – which sometimes turns into outright abstraction like when a character begins to run through the space. Sometimes there are swaying, morphing textures in the background as splotches of paint subtly shift around. On a more intimate level, the cluttered and characterful interior spaces tell a story too. This is a long-winded way of saying A New Dawn looks really, really good.

It’s not just in the tableaux of its countryside habitats and ramshackle living spaces carved out of abandoned warehouses, but there’s a sense of invention permeating through A New Dawn‘s various experiments with visual languages of animation. The most prominent is an incredibly charming stop motion animated sequence using a cardboard diorama and real human hands invading the shot in a creative reflection of a drunken character’s perspective. Even though it broadly still looks “anime” through its character design, there are also smaller details which work to set A New Dawn apart from its contemporaries, touches like its occasional lineless artwork or the way rain is defined through smudged black brushstrokes.

It’s in the screenwriting where A New Dawn begins to feel more run of the mill. Its story about the constant chasing of the majesty of a fabled firework “Shuhari” feels both familiar in its premise but also a little bit alienating in its structure. The importance of the firework itself never feels clear – the moment its mystery is unravelled hardly feels like a revelation as a result, something amplified by how the writing often obfuscates what anyone is talking about. The whole story feels a little distancing, and despite the allure of the background art and design of the spaces the characters inhabit, the people themselves feel constantly at arms length.

It almost pulls things back with its climax – the detonation of the “Shuhari” goes a long way in justifying the circular conversations about its nature and origins – a painted streak of light launches into the sky before turning into something otherworldly, suddenly tripling down on the film’s captivating exaggerations.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Hollywood Pariah Kevin Spacey Opens in a Straight to Video Movie with 25 Producers, 1 Review, No Theaters, No Press – Showbiz411

Published

on

Hollywood Pariah Kevin Spacey Opens in a Straight to Video Movie with 25 Producers, 1 Review, No Theaters, No Press – Showbiz411
★ Make Showbiz411 your Preferred Source on Google

As we know, Kevin Spacey is a pariah in Hollywood.

He’s in a rare club with Mel Gibson, Armie Hammer, Nate Parker, Jonathan Majors, and James Franco.

Spacey has managed to avoid jail time by reaching settlements with various accusers of sexual malfeasance, all men.

His film career — which included two Oscars and a Tony Award — has been destroyed.

Advertisement

Spacey has been reduced to appearing in straight to video films, made for whatever reason the various producers involved know only to themselves.

On Friday, a new Spacey movie surfaced against its will, but not in theaters. It also went straight to video. “1780” is a period piece set during the Revolutionary War. Spacey plays a toothless Pennsylvania country trapper.

There is no rating on Rotten Tomatoes, largely because there is only one review. The review by Alan Ng of Film Threat is positive. Ng recently reviewed “World War Bigfoot,” which he also liked. He seems to specialize in reviewing films no one has heard of.

“1780” does boast 25 producers who will probably not see a return on their investment. But they can say they made a movie with Kevin Spacey.

Advertisement

Donate to Showbiz411.com

Showbiz411 is now in its 13th year of providing breaking and exclusive entertainment news. This is an independent site, unlike the many Hollywood trades that are owned by one company. To continue providing news that takes a fresh look at what’s going on in movies, music, theater, etc, advertising is our basis. Reader donations would be greatly appreciated, too. They are just another facet of keeping fact based journalism alive.
Thank you

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending