Horror sure does come in all shapes and sizes. Let it be known that size always matters to some. But most importantly, the smaller they are the dastardlier and more vicious they become. Ah yes, we’re at that time of month again… what is with this starting off with sexual and body anatomy innuendos?! Goddamn it, ok, we’re back with another Horror Movie Rip-off which brings about two pint-sized demonoids covered in fur. These things possess not just some gnarly looking features to them but can be misconstrued and mistaken for the other. As I’m writing this, I’m starting to get some brain fog of who’s who, but in the end they’re both unique and seem like they’re both concocted out of HP Lovecraft’s twisted, and nightmarish tales. It’s a shame this wasn’t a three-way (Goddamn it I did it again!) I meant to say it’s unfortunate this segment wasn’t a triple threat bloodbath with Gremlins, but maybe another time. Today we’re discussing and seeing if there is a rip-off in tow between 1985’s Ghoulies (watch it HERE) directed by Luca Bercovici and 1986’s Critters (watch that one HERE) directed by Stephen Herek. Come on in and let’s discuss on this next segment of Horror Movie Rip-off!

LAWSUITS ABREWING

Before diving in between the creature war of Critters and Ghoulies, there lies a spider web of legalities which happened to involve Joe Dante’s Gremlins, which both the Ghoulies and Critters seemed to have ripped-off. Funny enough, Warner Bros, which is the producer of Gremlins, tried to sue Charles Band and the Ghoulies production as they were both in production at the same time. Due to lack of funding for Ghoulies, Joe Dante’s Gremlins was able to finish on schedule with zero budgeting concerns and was theatrically set to launch first. However, even crazier, Critters was written way before both films by director Stephen Herek. These three films are stuck in an entanglement of what idea was spawned first, and all of them possesses furry, ravenous, beasts. The real question is what is the ultimate small-creature feature that you prefer? Ok lets dive in to the real showdown, the Ghoulies and Critters.

THOSE PESKY LITTLE CREATURES

Ghoulies and Critters are both some gnarly little monsters, let’s get that off the chest first. But their origins are totally different. While the Ghoulies are brought into the world via satanic rituals unbeknownst to a party guest, the Critters aka Krites inhabit a spaceship and proceed to earth to cause some fun, filled mayhem in all its ridiculous splendor. Both the Critter and Ghoulie have some similar traits within their monstrous forms. Both have razor sharp teeth, filled with hair, and are quite squeamish to look at. Although, Ghoulies don’t roll around and have porcupine-esque needles popping out and shoot at their victims, and they don’t communicate in sync with one another since they don’t possess Krite-language to that of the Critter. However, they both do chomp and chomp and chomp! You get some Ghoulies that look like mutant sewer rats, or slimy green toad monsters that like to hang out in people’s soups which makes for some good scene chewing – no pun intended. Both the Ghoulies and Critters like to be around one another, and there’s nothing like a bond between packs of mutant, baby-sized psychos to deliver the chaos at the forefront.

DWARVES AND BOUNTY HUNTERS?

Both Critters and Ghoulies have more than just creatures that command the screen. In Ghoulies, there are two dwarves, Grizzel and Greedigut, who do dirty deeds for Jonathan when he’s possessed under his father Malcolm. Although they’re not considered actual ghoulies, they’re part of the satanic occult ritual that manifest the dwarves and ghoulies when eventually summoned. They help Jonathan seek the powers that be from his father’s occult and are under his beck and call throughout the film. In Critters, we don’t get evil dwarves but two formidable bounty hunters, Ug and Lee, looking to destroy the Krites that escaped from prison. When they get to earth, they have the power to shapeshift into other humans to go undetected. One changes into a well-known rockstar, while the other inhabits various townspeople, or a blank green face as they trk about the town driving cars, blowing up bowling alleys, or blasting pesky Krites away. They sure do know how to bowl a strike, that’s for damn sure.

SURPRISE ENDINGS

While both Critters and Ghoulies end on some good moments towards the end, you can’t help how both leave on similar cliffhangers. Whether it’s the climactic battle between Malcolm and Wolfgang in Ghoulies, or the destruction of the Critters via explosion thanks to son, Brad Brown, and family friend Charlie, you’d think that evil has been conquered, never to return again. Nope, you’re dead wrong. In Ghoulies the survivors get in the car and leave the Graves estate before it crumbles, only for the last shot to end with the Ghoulies surprising our heroes in the back seat. In Critters, the Brown family, with the help of the bounty helpers, and the local fuzz, destroy what we thought was the end of those furry little bastards. Nope, wrong again. The cop car drives away, and the camera leads us into the farm where guess what? Critter eggs are seen moving in the haystacks along with some Krites cackling inside of them for some future Hijinx and feastings.

TOILET HUMOR

Usually when a movie is marketed by the film’s poster, you get a taste for what’s to come. With that infamous poster of the Ghoulie popping out of the toilet, sneering with devilish glee at the camera, you think to yourself, damn my fear of being on the toilet has just been spawned. What’s even better is that infamous Ghoulies poster was an afterthought by Charles Band that he created the poster and then shot that clip after production was finished! Well in the Critters movie they wanted to drop a loving nod to Ghoulies by showing their own furry demon popping out from the toilet inside the Brown household. Nothing like imitation to get a few good laughs between the two IPs.

CARNAGE CANDY OR LACK THEREOF

For two movies in the 80s right when horror has hit a fever pitch in its carnage within films, Ghoulies doesn’t really have much of a bloody goodness to it. For a movie about ravenous and vicious little monsters, no one really dies which is truly an upset special. What seemed like Jonathan’s friends being dispatched towards the end from the Ghoulies, are then resurrected when Malcolm is destroyed and then back to their merry ways, as if nothing ever happened. Critters on the other hand has some great gags involved, like a cop being eaten under a car, a poor cow being ripped to shreds, or that awesome Billy Zane getting devoured before getting it in with April. These Krites do not hold back when it comes to wanting human flesh, because to get bigger they need to eat. There’s honestly just a ton more going for Critters, whereas Ghoulies doesn’t have much of a threat other than some possessions, dwarves, and rituals. Critters brings galactic spaceship chases, wannabe Terminator bounty hunters, some great horror tone and atmosphere, Critters eating and destroying everything in their sight, especially a poor ET stuffed toy, and lastly Billy Zane sporting an 80s ponytail. What’s not to love? It seemed like Critters wanted to emulate and enhance what Joe Dante’s Gremlins were doing, only supplying a bloodier affair this time around.

DAMSELS IN DESTRESS

Between Ghoulies and Critters, both have a female character needing saving near the climax of the film (haha climax). In Ghoulies, Jonathan’s love interest Rebecca is shoved down a flight of stairs and dies only to be resurrected once evil in the form of Malcolm Graves is defeated by Wolfgang. In Critters, April is abducted by what appears to be the Alpha Krite of the pack, the gigantic Critter that tries to escape via spaceship. The brother, Brad, gets into the spacecraft and rescues his sister from being a nice snack on the way home. Both movies use that damsel in distress trope to keep pushing the story narrative forward, and produce a happy ending involved for both until those pesky creatures show up for round two.

CLOSING

Critters and Ghoulies may have the same premise in that they both possess two types of horrific creatures looking to destroy humans. That’s apparent, but honestly both films seem to trot about their own beaten path, bringing in fantastical elements for both. Sure, they share similar tropes in their films, but here lies the bigger picture – A Gremlins vs Critters showdown. Imagine who would take the crown of being the king of the hill of these pesky, razor-sharp mutants when the dust settles. As it be, both films have spawned countless sequels and delivered some memorable moments from both. Truthfully, even if Critters was created due to the success of both Ghoulies and Gremlins, the film is much more enjoyable than Ghoulies, and stands toe-to-toe with Gremlins, but that can be a tale for another day.

Two previous episodes of Horror Movie Rip-Off can be seen below. To see more of our shows, head over to the JoBlo Horror Originals YouTube channel – and subscribe while you’re there!

The post Ghoulies (1985) vs. Critters (1986) – Horror Movie Rip-Off appeared first on JoBlo.

A Real Pain, the new film starring Jesse Eisenberg and Kieran Culkin, has unveiled a new first-look image as well as announced its release date. In the Sundance review from our own Chris Bumbray, he glows about the film, saying, “A Real Pain is Jesse Eisenberg’s second film as a director and marks a substantial leap in quality since his pleasant – but minor – first effort, When You Finish Saving the World. With a tight running time, evocative location shooting, and two terrific performances at its heart, it’s no wonder this scored one of Sundance’s biggest deals, with Searchlight shelling out a cool $10 million for it.”

The plot synopsis reads,
“Mismatched cousins David (Jesse Eisenberg) and Benji (Kieran Culkin) reunite for a tour through Poland to honor their beloved grandmother. The adventure takes a turn when the odd-couple’s old tensions resurface against the backdrop of their family history.”

The cast of the movie includes Jesse Eisenberg, Kieran Culkin, Will Sharpe, Jennifer Grey, Kurt Egyiawan, Liza Sadovy and Daniel Oreskes.

In addition to being one of the co-leads, Eisenberg also writes and directs A Real Pain. The film is produced by Dave McCary, Ali Herting, Emma Stone, Jennifer Semler and Ewa Puszczyńska. The movie also comes from Searchlight Pictures, which is formerly 20th Century Fox’s indie label, Fox Searchlight Pictures. However, under the Disney banner, Searchlight Pictures have predominantly been released as streaming originals on their Hulu platform.

Searchlight Pictures has also released a new behind-the-scenes photo featuring Eisenberg directing his actors, which you can check out below. A Real Pain will have the opportunity to screen in theaters, and you can catch it when it releases later this year on October 18.

The post A Real Pain: Jesse Eisenberg’s new film releases a new behind-the-scenes photo and announces a release date appeared first on JoBlo.

As much anticipation there was for Ridley Scott’s Napoleon, once it was revealed that there was a four-hour cut, hype rushed like a cavalry. The theatrical cut — which clocked in at just under two hours and 40 minutes — may not have been the full-blown epic that we hoped for but we still wanted that four-hour version. But we may need to rein it in because word now is that there is no immediate plan to release it after all.

According to World of Reel, Apple said that the director’s cut of Napoleon would  “not be made available any time soon.” If definitely true, this would be a huge disappointment, especially since Ridley Scott himself confirmed not only its existence but its release, saying last year, “I’m working on it. It was four [hours] 10 [minutes] this morning…And so what will happen is, we’ll screen [the theatrical cut] first with Sony, and then it has its run, and then the perfect thing is that [the director’s cut] goes to streaming, and we have four hours 10 minutes.”

Napoleon star Joaquin Phoenix also casually promoted the extended cut of the film, saying, “Napoleon is almost three hours long, although Scott has a “fantastic” near four-and-a-half-hour cut, which features more of Joséphine’s life before she meets Napoleon. He’d love Apple (who funded the film) to eventually screen it.”

Ridley Scott has been synonymous with director’s cuts, with versions of even some of his finest films — namely Alien and Blade Runner — coming years after the theatrical cuts. While we all expected that the four-hour Napoleon would be hitting streaming much sooner than these turnarounds, it’s worth pointing out that Apple hasn’t completely confirmed that we’ll never see it, just that it’s not on the immediate calendar. While the latter part is a bummer, we can still hope that Scott will use his force to bring it to viewers sooner than later.

Napoleon would be nominated for three Academy Awards: Best Costume Design, Best Production Design and Best Visual Effects. 

Do you hope to see the extended cut of Napoleon or do you not anticipate greatness with it? Give us your thoughts in the comments section below.

The post Ridley Scott’s 4-hour Napoleon cut shelved indefinitely appeared first on JoBlo.

A few weeks ago, Zack Snyder raised the ire of Batman fanatics when, in an interview with Joe Rogan, he explained his resistance to The Dark Knight’s “no kill rule”. As he told Rogan, “Batman can’t kill is canon. And I’m like, ‘Okay, the first thing I wanna do when you say that is I wanna see what happens.’ And they go, ‘well don’t put him in a situation where he has to kill someone’.” He continued, “you’re protecting your god in a weird way, right? You’re making your god irrelevant if he can’t be in that situation. He has to now deal with that. If he does do that what does that mean? What does it tell you, does he stand up to it? Does he survive that as a god? As your god, can Batman survive that?”

Predictably, fans were in an uproar over Snyder’s perceived ignorance as to why Batman not killing is such an important part of the character. Yet, one thing fans seem to have forgotten is that on the big screen, Batman has often violated that rule, or it simply didn’t apply at all. In the Christopher Nolan Batman movies, the “no-kill rule” was mostly respected, although having Batman tell Liam Neeson’s Ra’s al Ghul that “I don’t have to save you” is borderline. But people seem to have forgotten how cavalier Batman was with human life in the Tim Burton movies, with him raking up a pretty major body count in Batman and Batman Returns.

So, with that in mind, we here at JoBlo have decided to take a bit of a deep dive into the “No Kill” rule and how it’s played out on the big screen. Our ace editor/ host, Paul Bookstaber, is perhaps our biggest Batman fan on staff, and he’s worked hard at making a balanced video examining the rule and how, perhaps, fan indignation at Snyder’s comments was perhaps a little overwrought, as he’s far from the first director to have Batman kill. Check out the video embedded above, and let us know in the comments what you think of the “no-kill” rule. 

The post Batman’s No Kill Rule Never Applied to Michael Keaton’s Batman appeared first on JoBlo.

When Sam Raimi mentioned just last month that a Spider-Man 4 would have to come at “the right time”, fans immediately set a date for him: now. But we’ll have to holster those web-slingers because the director of the original trilogy is well aware that the studios might have other priorities other than reteaming him with Tobey Maguire.

With rumors swirling about over Spider-Man 4 (we’re looking at you, Sandman!), Sam Raimi addressed it all head on, saying he has yet to get word that any such project has been greenlit. “I did read that [rumor], but I’m not actually working on it yet.” One key reason is the current studios involved and all the success they’ve had, adding, “Marvel and Columbia are so successful with current Spider-Man [movies], and the track there, and I don’t know that they’re going to go back to me, and say, ‘Well, folks, we can also tell that story!’”

Whether or not we get Sam Raimi behind the lens for Spider-Man 4 – or if the movie happens at all – will take some time to find out. But in the meantime, Raimi expressed his love for at least some of the movies that came after his last entry in 2007. “I love all the new Spider-Man movies. I loved Spider-Man: No Way Home. It was really, super powerful seeing Tobey [Maguire] again in it.”

2021’s No Way Home did introduce a compelling, meme-conscious factor when it had all three core Spider-Men – Maguire, Andrew Garfield and our current Peter Parker, Tom Holland – team up. But that could very well just be a one-off, especially if Marvel is going to move forward with a focus on Holland, who himself says he will continue so long as the character development is strong.

With the multiverse ripped open, it is feasible that Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 4 and the continuation of Spidey in the MCU (no directors have been announced for that film) could co-exist…although I’m not sure there’s a point to that. After all, surely enough there will be Spider-Man movies without Holland, so wouldn’t the studio want to move forward and not bank on retreading with a new Maguire flick?

Should Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire be invited back for Spider-Man 4? Do you think the project could work or is it just time to move on from the idea? Share your thoughts with us below.

The post Sam Raimi not too confident on Spider-Man 4 appeared first on JoBlo.

Marvel may be going through a rough patch lately, but the big film brand still had a few successes in the last year. One of those was the completion of James Gunn‘s trilogy of Space A-holes, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. The Guardians were a big part of the MCU’s second phase. It was considered a big risk for the company since they were not a popular name and deemed too unconventional when compared to the other superhero films. Nevertheless, the first movie raised $773.3 million at the box office and made stars of Chris Pratt, Dave Bautista and James Gunn. Fast forward to phase five, Gunn has the Guardians go their separate ways, then proceeds to take his new position as the co-chief of the DCU.

As sad as it was to see the group end their run in Vol. 3 (albeit with no casualties but still sad), Zoe Saldaña, who plays Gamora, doesn’t think the MCU is finished with the Guardians. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Saldaña said while on an episode of The Playlist, “I would think it would be a huge loss for Marvel if they didn’t find a way to bring back the Guardians of the Galaxy. It’s just such a fan-favorite group of misfits, you know? And then at the helm, they had a voice like James Gunn’s writing — which is just so marvelous for and very specific for this genre.”

There are currently no announced plans for any Guardians of the Galaxy follow-up. However, fans may note that at the end of Vol. 3, a variation of a Marvel traditional end title read, “The legendary Star-Lord will return.” While Saldaña thinks that the Guardians aren’t finished at the MCU, she also doesn’t see herself returning as Gamora anytime soon. The Avatar star stated, “I mean, so far, I think that [Gamora is done] for me, but I don’t think Gamora has gone for good.” Vol. 3 ended with a new team of Guardians that was led by Rocket Raccoon, played by the Academy Award-nominated Bradley Cooper. That team also featured his longtime companion, Groot, as well as Kraglin (Sean Gunn), Cosmo (Maria Bakalova) and Adam Warlock (Will Poulter). Saldaña concluded by saying, “I would be the first one in the first row to sort of celebrate when the Guardians of the Galaxy come back.”

The post Zoe Saldaña doesn’t think Marvel is done with the Guardians of the Galaxy appeared first on JoBlo.

Back when there was a legitimate attempt to resurrect the 3D format, Ang Lee was at the forefront, beginning with 2012’s Life of Pi. But after failures in 2016’s Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk and 2019’s Gemini Man — neither of which needed to be in 3D or shot in 120 fps — Lee will go back to more basic ways of storytelling with his Bruce Lee biopic.

As Ang Lee told IndieWire, “It’s too hard, especially after the two movies. The 3D is just too hard. I’ll go back to the regular way, the old way of making movies. There’s a great story to be told, a lot to explore. I’m still working on it. But it won’t be in 3D.”

Ang Lee’s problems with 3D and reasons for stepping away from it are multi, saying, “In general, not only my two movies, 3D in general …[is] so bad. The filmmakers are bad. The theaters are bad. The whole ecosystem is bad. It’s not made for [3D]. I refuse to complain, to blame it on the medium…it’s the audience, and the industry, [who] were not prepared.” Lee’s approach to both Billy Lynn and Gemini Man were ambitious to be sure but presenting those stories in such a way made it feel like he was pushing an envelope that didn’t need to be pushed; neither had a story that could properly show off the technology. Because of how they were done, their exhibitions were limited; not only did the theaters need the proper equipment but they also needed to be able to use it efficiently, which Lee noted they often don’t, resulting in a dim image that benefits neither the film nor the viewer.

As much pressure as Ang Lee put on himself regarding 3D, there is a new kind altogether with his upcoming Bruce Lee biopic. Can he present the legendary martial artist properly? Certainly he’ll have a different approach than Quentin Tarantino but will his film satisfy fans? With Bruce Lee’s daughter Shannon on as producer, one can be sure that it should at least be a fitting tribute for at least the casuals.

Are you disappointed that Ang Lee is taking a break from 3D? Do you hope he makes another film in the format? Give us your take below.

The post Ang Lee won’t use 3D for Bruce Lee biopic, cites past failures appeared first on JoBlo.

Tulsa King season 2 has now started shooting, and Deadline reports that Craig Zisk (Weeds) has signed on to direct and executive produce the Paramount+ series.

It was reported last year that showrunner Terence Winter would be stepping down from the series following some creative differences with creator Taylor Sheridan. However, he decided to come back as a writer for the second season, which would keep his interactions with Sheridan at a minimum.

While Winter is still involved as an executive producer, he will primarily focus on writing for the show as well as working closely with Sylvester Stallone. “He loves these characters and loved working with Sly and was glad his post-strike schedule allowed him to return to write but not run the show,” a source said. Instead of bringing in another showrunner, the production decided to follow in the footsteps of the other shows produced by Sheridan’s 101 Studios and bring in a director/executive producer to steer Tulsa King, which, in this case, is Craig Zisk.

Zisk is a seasoned TV director, having helmed episodes of Monk, Wonderfalls, Alias, Scrubs, Weeds, Nurse Jackie, Nip/Tuck, New Girl, American Horror Story, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Parks and Recreation, Agent Carter, Veep, Halo, and much more.

Additionally, Annabella Scirra and Tatiana Zappardino have been upped to series regulars for the second season of Tulsa King. Scirra plays Joanne Manfredi, the younger sister of Dwight (Sylvester Stallone), while Zappardino plays Tina Manfredi-Grieger, Dwight’s estranged daughter.

Tulsa King “follows New York mafia capo Dwight ‘The General’ Manfredi (Stallone), just after he is released from prison after 25 years and unceremoniously exiled by his boss to set up shop in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Realizing that his mob family may not have his best interests in mind, Dwight slowly builds a crew from a group of unlikely characters to help him establish a new criminal empire in a place that to him might as well be another planet.” The second season is expected to debut on Paramount+ this fall.

The post Tulsa King: Craig Zisk signs on as director for season 2 of the Sylvester Stallone series appeared first on JoBlo.

I don’t think it’s a controversial opinion to state that, of all the RoboCop movies, only Paul Verhoeven’s original 1987 film deserves to be called a classic. However, a lot of us have always thought that the ultra-violent sequel, RoboCop 2, was better than its reputation suggests. I know from our Original Video on the movie that it has more than a few fans, so it’s exciting to reveal that RoboCop 2 is finally getting a 4K Blu-ray release via Scream Factory.

The news was broken by our friends at Blu-ray.com. The company has also licensed José Padilha’s 2014 remake for release. No RoboCop 3 yet. I suppose the company just decided to let that one go, and you can’t really blame them, as it just might be one of the worst sequels of all time.

No news yet on whether RoboCop 2 will contain any special features. I’d kill for a commentary track by writer Frank Miller, who infamously worked on both sequels, only to have his work largely discarded. RoboCop 2’s journeyman director, Irvin Kershner, director of a little movie called Empire Strikes Back, made a darkly comedic follow-up to Verhoeven’s classic. While it lacked the pathos and style of that film, there were some ballsy, ultra-violent moments included, including a sociopathic child henchman for the movie’s big bad, Tom Noonan’s Cain. It also has an amazing final battle between RoboCop and Cain, plus a grim moment of body horror when OCP reviews tapes of their failed RoboCop 2 experiments. Plus, it had Peter Weller reprise his role as Murphy aka RoboCop, with him getting to show off some comic chops when he’s reprogrammed to be ultra-family friendly. It’s a nifty movie.

RoboCop 2 and RoboCop 2014 are both set to hit 4K Blu-ray on June 18th. I’ll definitely be buying RoboCop 2, that’s for sure. 

The post RoboCop 2 is coming to 4K Blu-ray appeared first on JoBlo.

Despite not getting a theatrical release, Doug Liman’s Road House reboot is throwing hands on the streaming charts. According to Deadline‘s report, the hard-hitting action film starring Jake Gyllenhaal is landing decisive blows to audiences with a record-breaking 50 million global viewers in its first two weeks of release.

“The groundbreaking, successful debut of Road House is a testament to the hard work and commitment from the entire Road House filmmaking team and the film’s cast led by the phenomenal Jake Gyllenhaal,” said Jennifer Salke, head of Amazon MGM Studios. “The world is absolutely loving this entertaining, action-packed ride anchored by the performances of Jake, Conor McGregor, Daniela Melchior, Darren Barnet, Billy Magnussen, Jessica Williams, Lukas Gage, Arturo Castro, JD Pardo and the rest of our stellar cast. It’s great to see the film taking off with both fans of the iconic original as well as a huge turnout from new audiences. This incredible film is really giving everyone something to talk about, and we couldn’t be more proud!”

While Doug Liman continues to disagree with Road House not going theatrical, Prime Video appears more than pleased by the reboot’s streaming results. In addition to appealing to fans of the original, Road House taps into the UFC fandom by reimagining Gyllenhaal’s Dalton as a former gladiator of the Octagon. Thanks to savvy advertisement strategies, Road House landed prime real estate on ESPN’s SportsCenter, giving the film a great platform in front of its core demographic.

Per the official logline: “In this adrenaline-fueled reimagining of the ’80s cult classic, ex-UFC fighter Dalton (Gyllenhaal) takes a job as a bouncer at a Florida Keys roadhouse, only to discover that this paradise is not all it seems.” In addition to Gyllenhaal, Road House stars Daniela Melchior, Billy Magnussen, Jessica Williams, Joaquim De Almeida, and Conor McGregor. The film aims to pay homage to the original while providing its own unique and exhilarating spin to introduce Dalton, the roadhouse, and all its chaos to a new generation.

Have you watched Road House on Prime Video yet? Do you wish the film got a theatrical release? Will there be a sequel? Let us know in the comments section below.

The post Doug Liman’s Road House sings sweet chin music on Prime Video with a record-breaking 50 million global viewers appeared first on JoBlo.