|
I'm in. Of course. And I'm overdoing it. Of course. Goal #1: To watch the films from my fallen Bracketology teams. There is fatefully about 13 of them. Goal #2: To finish up those Letterboxd Collections that now taunt me since someone gifted me Pro. Again, there's about 13 horror ones. Fate. Goal #3: The challenges in here. Goal #4: Just general clean up of films I've been meaning to watch the last few years that I never get around to or cleaning off my DVR. And probably something like a Scream marathon to watch the new film. And whatever takes me. Last couple of years i did 13 Stephen King films but I'm skipping that this year because I'm just running short on them and I would have to watch some real scraps and a bunch of mini series. And I'm not against that but it was just too much. But who knows? Maybe I'll do that too. I'll get crazy and overdo it as always. And I want to no gifts. And I'm not gonna start until May because I'm silly that way and there's a few movies I wanna clear off these last few days. But I'll be anticipating the start as I read all of your reviews and add more movies to my list. 🌼💀Spook-a-Doodle Half-Way-to-Halloween ’23: Spring Cleaning💀🌼   
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2023 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:05 |
|
|
Ok, its May… and I got impatient before it was. So lets get started.  - (1). Scream (1996)[ Directed by Wes Craven; Written by Kevin Williamson Watched on Paramount+ I could spell out the tortured step by step of what leads me from "Wanna watch the new Scream" to "I'm gonna rewatch all the Screams" but really I can just simplify it as any good excuse to rewatch one of my favorites. I couldn't tell you how many times I've seen Scream. Its one of those films that you're so familiar with that you can sometimes find yourself too comfortable with so you're maybe not paying 100% attention. Its like an old comfy sweater. You're so relaxed you might doze off. And that's a wonderful feeling. But then sometimes you also notice something you forgot because no matter how many times you've seen it you're still an old person who forgets stuff and can be surprised by stuff you remember but forgot were there. Scream is such a well made film for all those reasons. I actually watched it with someone who had no idea who the killer was and they spent the entire time guessing and following red herrings and it was a lot of fun to watch. Scream is filled with those clues and red herrings so as rewarding as it is for me to watch to see the killer's true sinister meaning early in the film someone else can sit there following all the the threads and being genuinely surprised by the reveal. But even without that stuff its just a very clever, great film. And honestly there's so much to say about it and I told myself I wasn't going to write my usual rambly review and instead just do some bullet points. But here I am. From the iconic Drew Barrymore opening with Wes taking the trick he pulled in Nightmare on Elm Street to a new level. To Matthew Lillard's iconically whacked out performance and all the other memorable young actors managing to bring real character and personality into slasher victims. To the meta stuff from the known by everyone now "rules" stuff to the more subtle little gags and nods to what Wes thought might have been tired about the genre by then, even when he himself had done it. To of course the great finale of twists and bluffs and misdirections and snark and lots and lots of blood. Scream is great. It was great 27 years ago. Its great today. No regrets at all turning my "spring cleaning/movies I've been meaning to get to" marathon into a Scream rewatch marathon to start. Totally worth it.  1 (2). The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944) Directed by Ford Beebe; Screenplay by Bertram Millhauser[1] Watched on Internet Archive "Almost Complete" Letterboxd Collections: 1/13 This is not just the last Invisible Man film I haven't seen but I think its the last of the classic Universal Monsters I haven't seen. This is a bit of an odd bird by Invisible Man standards but fairly common for Universal standards. The IM franchise is pretty unique in that each film really does something very different and stands out in some way. From an early starring role from Vincent Price to a wacky feminist rom com to a spy film they generally avoid the problem some Universal sequels have of just repeating the same idea in competent but unspectacular fashion. At least until this one. Its actually a bit of an odd bird. The main character is Robert Griffin the same guy as from the original film and they supposedly had tried to get Claude Rains to come back. Instead they cast John Hall who played Griffin's grandson in the Invisible Agent but now playing his grandpa. And he even throws a meta gag early on losing his poo poo at the implication that he might be a spy saying he's tired of that. In the end this is basically just a reboot or remake I guess with just a new story with the original character where he was never an Invisible Man before this. But it feels like maybe that was a choice they made late since this thing makes more sense if Griffin is just coming back for some blackmail revenge and psychotic crime antics. And that's kind of how it shapes out it just feels a little odd and clumsily set up instead. Still the end result is a pretty basic story of the Invisible Man ramping up petty crime and wacky antics to violence psycho behavior to full on madness. And considering how drat good the original film is this one pales pretty hard in comparison and without the unique takes the other sequels have. Its fine. Perfectly fine acting and production, some more very good invisible camera work tricks, and a steadily enough paced story that wraps up under the 80 minute mark like most Universals. Its entirely fine. But its nothing special at all and really just a slightly odd mish mash of the better or more interesting Invisible Man films that came before it.  2 (3). Viral (2016) Directed by Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman; Written by Christopher Landon and Barbara Marshall Watched on Tubi Return of the Fallen III: 1/13 Ok I won't make some cute Covid joke. You;ve heard them all before. But its definitely interesting wondering what it must have been like for people who made pandemic movies in the years before 2020 and how they felt about them after. This is another one on the pile and it doesn't really do anything especially interesting. Its fine. Its a bit different as it never actually turns into the big zombie film you expect it to. Its a much smaller, more focused story about some kids who get isolated as the terrible zombie pandemic starts and have to survive it alone. That's not necessarily an entirely original twist on the sub genre either but it does feel a bit different. Probably just the look and approach to it. Sofia Black-D'Elia and Lio Tipton are both talented young actresses and the movie relies very heavily on them in a very closed up performance and they do a very good job. And there's definitely something very unnerving and different about the abandoned, half built up suburb setting for this. It looks like one of those "towns" that is built by a realitor making a hundred identical houses next to a factory or something. There's an uncomfortable distance and isolation at the best of times. Things get quiet. But then in a situation like this it becomes a ghost town easily. And that's interesting. The film doesn't necessarily do a lot with these ideas. There's a bit of an angle with the "parasite" bug infection angle they go and what that means for their options. But none of it feels THAT meaty. And the movie just sort of ends. I didn't dislike this at all. Its basically a character study with some good actors and some solid icky effects. But it never really goes the action/zombie route to get exciting and as much as the core story is sad I didn't feel it ever really shifted into the last gear. Its not a bad film and its definitely a little different form the common zombie stuff. But its not different or good enough to be really worth recommending you check out unless you're a fan of the leads or creative behind it. Which is why I checked it out and I don't regret that or anything. But it didn't change my world either. 🌼💀Spook-a-Doodle Half-Way-to-Halloween ’23: Spring Cleaning💀🌼 Return of the Fallen III: 1/13 💀 "Almost Complete" Letterboxd Collections: 1/13 Watched - New (Total) - (1). Scream (1996); 1 (2). The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944); 2 (3). Viral (2016);
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2023 07:31
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:I will never understand why it's so hard to make a good Bigfoot movie. They did it once with Legend of Boggy Creek, so we know it's possible. The problem isn’t how hard it is to make a good one, it’s how easy it is to make a bad one. There’s no copyright or anything so any no talent hack can put a dude in a cheap suit, go into the woods or swamp, and make a cheap piece of crap. And the more crap gets made and associated with the idea the less anyone is gonna want to put any real time and effort into making a good one that will just get lost in the sea of poo poo. It’s like that trash Winnie the Pooh horror. It’s not a bad idea but some no talent hack rushed out the first one and it sucked. So now there’s less chance anyone actually makes a good one because the idea has already been soiled.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2023 00:20
|
|
|
Brain Damage is one of this weeks Bracketology films and I was planning on skipping it since I didn’t like it the first time. But I guess that makes it the easy choice for a second chance.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2023 02:47
|
|
|
dorium posted:Gunna need a master list for the "of the dead" "living dead" challenge because knowing me I did that a personal challenge already, but I'll recognize by name! This might help. https://boxd.it/ccesw
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2023 04:04
|
|
|
 - (4). Scream 2 (1997) Directed by Wes Craven; Written by Kevin Williamson Watched on Paramount+ I'll try and keep it simple because I've already reviewed Scream 2 and spelled out my thoughts there, and they really haven't changed in 25 years. There's a really good movie in here with the OG characters that's filled with a lot of invested pathos and good slasher stuff. I don't often go for slasher stuff because it often is just victims that exist to die instead of full ones who feel like they're living but the Scream crew does. And then there's that other film that is a standard sequel filled with young Hollywood stars with paper thin characters and cheesy writing all lining up to be killed. And that one's probably partially deliberate as an extension on the metaness of the original... but its also probably just bad sequel stuff and Kevin Williamson becoming himself a leader of the tired tropes in Hollywood at that time. Its a weird combination of elements that doesn't always flow well. There's moments where I feel direct disappointment going from the Gale, Dewey, and Randy show to Sidney's side of the movie. And that's sad. Sidney deserves better. But this film is really trying to do a lot at once. And at the heart of most of it I do see Craven's clever take on the genre and elevating the slasher. And in other ways I see what I didn't like about Williamson's writing and that era of horror in general. Like Buffy barely even exists in this film except to be killed off. And that would be fine if it was a well done play like with Drew in the first film but its not. There's like half a dozen cameo kills in this and Buffy is really just a standard dead coed. And do we really need that in our film? Isn't there some fat that could be cut here? And of course there's the basic reality that this was a rushed production for Craven and that Williamson's script got leaked so he ended up rewriting the thing and changing up the characters and killers. And all that adds to its over stuffed, sometimes clumsy story and character stuff. That said while I do think this is kind of bloated and starting to fall into the genre traps it was so expertly critiquing and updating in the first film I still think it does a LOT right. And ultimately I guess I think it does more right than wrong. And I just like Scream. I like the characters. The OG ones. And while there may be too many cameos its a pretty solid list of actors and a fun list of "I remember you!" so its not without its charm. And its still a Scream film and its still Wes Craven and he's a good director above all else. And I'm not sure there's any director I've seen who has dealt with more troubled productions and still managed to crank out a decent film. So while it does sometimes struggle to hold its parts together it largely walks the line and is a solid watch. I'm mostly over analyzing it as a sequel to an all time classic and a film I've watched countless times over the last 25 years. And I can still watch it and enjoy myself so that says more than all my nit picks do. And hey, there is the sheer silliness of Luke Wilson in Stab.  3 (5). Mostly Ghostly 3: One Night in Doom House (2016) Written and directed by Ron Oliver; Based on a story by R.L. Stine Two years ago for some reason I went on a little binge of RL Stine adaptions - most of which were Disney Channel things - but I apparently burnt out before I finished this series. And boy... I don't remember it. I mean I do slightly. I recall them being generic Disney Channel things that weren't unwatcheable but weren't good but also were clearly for tweens. I remember the weirdness of recasting the whole film except for the one main ghost girl who had clearly gone through puberty in the time between movies despite being ghosts. And that's it. I don't remember anything else. But even i'm not obsessive enough to rewatch them. So it looks like we recast everyone again. Sorry, Bella Thorne. Even the ghost girl got recast and now she's in a short skirted schoolgirl outfit which is real weird considering she wasn't in the other films but I guess our tweens have all hit puberty now? Hey, Peter Deluise is back. I sorta remember him. And its weird that the ghost brother is white now when he was black in the second film but he was white in the first film I think so... I don't know. I think I may be devoting too much thought to Disney Channel productions. Ok, about the movie? I dunno its a dumb Disney Channel thing. I suspect not watching it in a marathon of other Disney Channel movies makes it all a little easier for me to enjoy but I'm not gonna test that theory. It was mostly fine and had some promising elements. Jamie Kennedy possessed by a demon is a nice start. And my common sentiment in reviews for the other films were they never really felt like scary stories but this does seem to be one complete with some horror references. But you know what? They never spent a drat night in the Doom House!!! I mean they went into it late and it was filled with lots of bad cgi but it was barely a night. That's just false advertising. That being said the demon that possesses Jamie Kennedy is played by Gary from Legends of Tomorrow and he has some pretty good Nosferatu makeup and really chews some scenery great. He's only around a little bit but he's fun when he is. I guess that sums up this film really. There's some decent little bits but they're few and far between. But everything in between isn't exactly bad. Its just not very good either. Its hard for me to compare this against the previous ones because I don't really remember them. And I definitely still got tired of the Disney Channel of it all well before the ending. But its an actual horror story with horror stuff. Family friendly of course but still. And some nice casting cameos. Still... I'm glad there's not another one.  4 (6). Man-Thing (2005) Directed by Brett Leonard; Written by Hans Rodionoff Come for the rough theater-turned-tv CGI budget, stay for the shaky cajun-via-Australia accents. Man Thing was part of a big deal between Marvel and a short lived film studio called Artisan to produce a bunch of Marvel movies before Disney bought them and the MCU happened. And Man Thing was supposed to be a big theatrical release after the huge hits of X-Men, Spider-Man, and Blade. But Artisan shut down and Marvel wasn't involved at all in the production of this and when they saw it they thought it was so bad that it just ended up released as as SyFy Channel Original. Which hey, boobs on tv. That's something. If nothing else it sounds like this might have been one of the steps along the way of Marvel deciding it was best to handle things in house and keep a tight eye on how these movies get made. I guess that might be a bad thing if you hate the MCU and want more movies like this. But well this isn't good. It isn't the worst super hero or horror film you've ever seen or anything but its just not good either. The effects aren't actually terrible. I guess they used a lot of practical effects to make Man Thing happen and he doesn't look half bad. We don't see him for awhile but when we do they're not too shy about showing him and he looks and moves decently. There's definitely some rough effects that feel like they could have been fixed with a better post production budget. Or at least helped. And really the whole movie has a weird, cheap look to it or forgettable track. The sort of stuff that feels like it could be worked on. But then again you can only polish something so much. And ultimately its just not a very good or interesting story. Its a very standard monster and man vs nature story and setup that doesn't really go any extra yards to give it depth or do anything deeper. And its just not super well done with what's there which leads to some curious choices like two folks who haven’t shown that much romantic chemistry to this point deciding to get it on and start stripping in a lot of burning cars. Its just not very well done really. Better than I expected for a "SyFy Original" but certainly much worse than you'd expect from a theatrical release definitely making it clear why this one got demoted. Not the worst thing I've seen in awhile, definitely not the worst thing I'll see this month, maybe not the worst thing I've seen tonight? Not even something I feel the need to be harsh on. But its not good. Its cheap and ugly. Its not well done. Its not good.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2023 08:29
|
|
|
I have an eligibility question actually. How important is it that the “of the Dead” challenge movie actually ENDS with that phrase? Because I have Day of the Dead: Bloodline already planned but technically that doesn’t end with the phrase. But like clearly it’s in the spirit of the challenge? I can watch some other poo poo movie. I literally have dozens of them on my plex. But I was curious. Normally I just go by “if I have to question it I have my answer” rules but in this case it does feel like maybe I’m being too pedantic about the exact wording? Or not?
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2023 01:54
|
|
|
gey muckle mowser posted:That’s totally fine, as you said it’s in the spirit of the challenge. Thanks! As is usual when I do spring cleaning I get distracted with other dumb projects.  - (7). Vampires (1998) Directed by John Carpenter; Screenplay by Don Jakoby; Based on Vampires by John Steakley I meant to rewatch this a couple of months ago when it was drawn for Bracketology but my mother had a health crisis and I spent all my time in a hospital and sick so... I didn't. But I was pretty sure I was gonna still clean it up here in May when I saw it had a sequel I hadn't seen. Of course that means I'm also gonna rewatch the Jon Bon Jovi sequel... which feels even less fun as I recover from losing to the Jersey Devils. But ah well. We make choices. I always liked this. Its polarizing I guess and to some extent I get why. Its fairly bare bones as a story and grimy and sleazy as hell. Certainly James Woods' character and some of the homophobic or misogynistic stuff he and Daniel Baldwin says don't age well. Neither do Woods and Baldwin. Still a lot of this is true of the stuff from the decade or two before this but I guess 1998 was just a little too late to get that grandfathered in? Oddly I do think that's kind of what makes this work for me. Carpenter is a good dude who isn't like that but his filming style is very much rooted in the 80s. So I think Vampires feels dated in that sense but in a way that works for me. Its an ugly, mean, nasty approach to a simple idea that I've always loved. The whole "slayers/hunters" thing as we've seen in something like one of my favorite shows Supernatural. But unlike there where its a couple of pretty boys wooing the girls here its a bunch of grimey dudes. And that always made sense to me because if you had a bunch of people who dedicated their lives to riding the roads and killing monsters they're probably not gonna be the best of the best. Not very well socially adjusted or clean or hirable. Not the type you bring home to mama. Supernatural played with that idea but ultimately was still clean because it was on CW. Carpenter just makes his dirty in that 80s way. I also always loved the take on vampires as this kind of beast thing like in 30 Days of Night or the western idea like in Near Dark. I think the pattern with all of these is kind of a grounded Americana take on these classic monsters. Cars and highways, guns and beer, jeans and leather. And no like magical or sci fi weapons or tricks. Just DIY grit and muscle and ingenuity. I dunno. I just always liked the vibe of that and it feels different from what we get a lot of the time. And most of the American based horror we do get of that variety is over serial killer and Texas Chainsaw type stuff. But I like the monsters so I enjoy seeing that thing applied here and I haven't seen it too much. And Vampires is definitely where I first saw it. I'm rambling a lot and justifying why I like it but ultimately I do just like it. Despite its flaws, despite its problematic lead, despite its grimy, simple, thinness. Because of that last one really. Just a simple story with basic grimy dudes you wouldn't want to spend time with doing a job you wouldn't want to even know needs to be done. And I love Carpenter so what can you expect? Certainly not one of his best and on the downturn of his career when either he was aging away from Hollywood or Hollywood was aging away from him. But I think one of the last ones that really kind of clicked and held onto what worked so well with Carpenter's style.  - (8). Vampires: Los Muertos (2002) Written and directed by Tommy Lee Wallace Everything and everyone in this is just way too clean and pretty. Its rare you say that about a DTV sequel to a theatrical film but its definitely the case here. Carpenter's Vampires works (as much as it does) because its grimy and ugly and raw. James Woods and Daniel Baldwin are ugly scumbags you'd move away from if you saw them in a bar. Jon Bon Jovi and Cristián de la Fuente look like they just left their soap opera set or something. And from the second that Jon pulls out a special stake gun I just kind of rolled my eyes. Again, it kind of betrays the basic idea of the first film that they weren't working with any kind of special tricks or anything. They were just dudes with guns and trucks. Now its stake guns and special drugs. And that could work... but it doesn't. And it loses what made the first one work. That and you know... these just aren't very good actors. James Woods is a terrible human being but a good actor. Jon Bon Jovi is not. He'd pass for a TV cameo or something as would his telenovela and Family Matters co-stars. But not for this. Natasha Gregson Wagner is decent I think and I always thought Arly Jover was an underrated physical actor strength of Blade and she's good here too. But largely this cast just doesn't sell what they need to sell. And well... its also just not that good. Tommy Wallace worked on a ton of great Carpenter films and has two cult classics in It and Halloween III under his belt but this just isn't very good. Dialogue is clumsy. Plotting is clumsy. Exposition and plot points are just spelled out awkwardly. The team comes together so matter of factly. Some of the basic plot turns are just outright silly. Memphis is like the dumbest dude alive and its a wonder he lived long enough to find Jon's band. Its all just so... clumsy. I saw this a long time ago and remember mostly being fine with it so I didn't really expect to hate it or anything. And I didn't hate it. Its not THAT bad. But it just kind of manages to do everything the first film does well the opposite way. Its odd. And maybe deliberate? Maybe Wallace was purposely trying to tell a completely different story with completely different characters in this same world Caprenter established? I don't mind that. And I don't mind them being cleaner and prettier. I'm a massive Supernatural fan so I'm ok with pretty boy hunters. But this just isn't a very well done film when it comes down to it. Maybe that's just money and resources and Wallace working with what he had. But I dunno. I do think Wallace is a good director and this is actually shot really well. But I dunno. Its just not a particularly good movie.  5 (9). Vampires: The Turning (2005) Directed by Marty Weiss; Written by D.B. Farmer and Andy Hurst A dull movie. It borrows the loose outline of the Carpenter’s film. Slayers, the same basic vampire rules, and one seeking a ritual to day walk or something. That’s where the similarities end. Its set in Thailand although I have no idea if it was filmed there. I suspect not. Its doing away with any of the grimy road stuff and is back to pretty people and sex vampires. All the usual tropes and cliches you’re familiar with. Some bad effects for no great reason. Terrible acting from the lead. A dull as hell plot. There’s like slayers and bad vampires and good vampires and an eclipse and a ritual that either turns the bad guys into day walkers or turns the good guys into humans? I dunno. Whatever. So dull. There’s like motorcycles and samurai swords and martial arts and wire fighting so that might be your thing and draw you in. But there’s not a lot of it. Patrick Bauchau is kind of slumming as the main slayer. A kind of slick veteran guy who comes off like a mercenary leader or something. I might have enjoyed a film about him more but he too isn't around much. Nope, ist a lot of that boring lead. You know the type. Pretty white guy saving his girl (after being a dick to her) and going all white savior on the locals. For a film set in Thailand and filled with asian actors there's like two who have more than a few lines and they're mostly exposition. The best part is when the douche lead saves the woman he loves by banging the sexy lady he just met. Which by the way is basically her committing suicide because she wants to gently caress him so bad or something. Or help him save that one random girl he loves. So lets gently caress. So yeah. Like maybe you'll enjoy the 10 minutes or so of martial arts style action. Or maybe if you don't like the aesthetic and style of the original you'll like this going the total opposite way. Or maybe you'll just enjoy how bad it is. But it isn't camp or comedy or anything. Its just a bad movie. 🌼💀Spook-a-Doodle Half-Way-to-Halloween ’23: Spring Cleaning💀🌼 Watched - New (Total) - (1). Scream (1996); 1 (2). The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944); 2 (3). Viral (2016); - (4). Scream 2 (1997); 3 (5). Mostly Ghostly 3: One Night in Doom House (2016); 4 (6). Man-Thing (2005); - (7). Vampires (1998); - (8). Vampires: Los Muertos (2002); 5 (9). Vampires: The Turning (2005); Completed Collections: 3/13 The Invisible Man; Mostly Ghostly; John Carpenter’s Vampires; Return of the Fallen: 1/13 Viral; Spook-A-Doodle Challenges: 0/13
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2023 06:23
|
|
|
 6 (10). Evil Ed (1995) Directed by Anders Jacobsson; Screenplay by Anders Jacobsson, Göran Lundström, and Christer Ohlsson “New films for Edward?" "Yeah. Yeah." "Are they any fun?" "No, not really.” This got compared to too many good films and got my hopes up. I'm not generally a believer in the "this film is bad because it reminded me of better films" criticism but this one really started to make me a believer. The issue is there isn't a lot here besides the clear homages and references to better movies. And it doesn't feel like it really does anything with that. Like the basic setup feels like its gonna be some kind of play on censorship but its not really. Its just a dude losing his poo poo. I don't know if you're trying to say something by having horror movies do it to him but there's just nothing there. Its all so over the top and dumb there's no there there. And like you can enjoy the dumb gore and violence and weirdness. And I think there's moments. If more of the movie had been about that fridge demon I probably would have been more into it. But I dunno. It just feels like it goes nowhere slowly. More than anything I think there was just some kind of pacing issue where it felt SO slow. Apparently they had to do a second filming to add the intro and finale and like... I get it because it just doesn't feel like there's much here so they just had to add more stuff. And to me it never felt continuous or like there's any kind of narrative or flow. Just poo poo happening. Slowly. Dully. But hey. It did bore me enough to put me to sleep. So thanks!  - (11). Scream 3 (2000) Directed by Wes Craven; Written by Ehren Kruger Watched on Paramount+ The Scream franchise can be a weird one to evaluate because it does its meta stuff about the genre or sequels and then also falls victim to some of the problems its acknowledging and its not always clear how much is intentional and how much is just flaws. Scream 3 is definitely most flawed of the bunch in my book. Its also probably the most troubled of the productions? Williamson is gone and his original script is being rewritten while he’s taking his idea to a TV show. Now Willaimson was rewriting Scream 2 on the fly so that’s not new but now we’re also stuck with the baggage of Columbine happening and studio execs getting shy about the violence. So now we’ve become this weird film set in Hollywood instead of Hillsboro and playing like a really over the top camp at times and in other parts not even really clear what its going for. And while I'm not a big fan of Williamson we got the guy who would go on to write Transformer films now so that's a downgrade. And what we get is really weird. There's clearly a lot of stuff here kind of mocking Hollywood itself, albeit softly. Casting Roger Corman as the movie exec worried about the exploitative nature of the film produced by the Lance Henriksen clearly Corman inspired producer is probably the most clever while still coherent it gets. Carrie Fisher showing up as some other actress who's entire role is to say she's not Carrie Fisher is a more confusing and weird aspect that seems too inside to make sense of or something. The Corman stuff is kind of fun and appropriate but doesn't feel fully realized. Then there's the theme of Hollywood's treatment of young actresses and the "casting couch" which many now feel was intentional. I have no idea really. Wes was always a progressive dude so its certainly possible he was calling something out, but this is also a Weinstein film. So is Wes just calling out his boss on his paycheck? Is Harvey having a laugh at what he gets away with? I have no idea. Broad stuff like Jenny McCarthy being annoyed she's 31 playing a 25 naked in a horror movie is easy enough and pretty clumsy. But this other stuff is clumsy in its own right and kind of tough to nail down in this script. A big part of the reason is because much like Scream 2 seemed to fighting against its nature as a Hollywood sequel, its meta commentary of Hollywood sequels, and it just being a natural sequel of the heart of the film and characters... Scream 3 also seems stuck between different identities. That campy comedy about Hollywood sequels came from wanting to get away from the Columbine image. The meta film stuff that feels a bit too forced here when its not just Randy doing it but rather other characters treating Randy's ideas like they have real world validity. I love Randy and missed him too and I think there's a very sweet moment in the way Sidney reacts to seeing one of the friends she's lost in all this tragedy and in a way getting to say goodbye. But its all kind of silly that Dewey is actually taking notes or that Randy's sister felt like she had to deliver this now instead of years ago. its just goofy. But there is that core heart still here and its heartbreaking when we see Randy. The stuff with Sidney's mom kinda sucks and is again goofy. And Dr. McCutie or whatever his nickname is as a very weird Hollywood detective seemingly nodding at film noir tropes or something just feels all kinds of off here, especially in the heart of the Woodsboro trio. Dewey and Gale are still very likable together but their adventure is much more tied up in the goofiness and doesn't have the same heart as in Scream 2. And Sid's stuck in that weird mom stuff. But still. There's moments like the Randy thing. Or that really good chase through the fake Woodsboro home. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Wes was a great director who was better at making a good film out of a production mess than anyone else I've seen. This isn't a bad film exactly. Its got its problems for sure and McDreamy just doesn't belong in the movie. But its a better 3rd film of a franchise than most horror sequels get and its a better horror parody than Scary Movie. Its probably best appreciated if you know who a guy like Corman is and can definitely see some of the inside jokes its making. But its definitely a little too inside and too wrapped up in rewrites and reshoots and stuff. But Wes does manage to spin it into a watcheable, decent movie in the end. A mixed bag and an unceremonious end to the franchise for awhile. But hardly a bad watch, I don't think.  7 (12). Do You Like Hitchcock? (2005) Directed by Dario Argento; Written by Dario Argento and Franco Ferrini The idea here really isn't bad. The idea of this cinephile convincing himself he's in a Hitchcock film and witnessing a trademark Hitchcock conniving plot when its not clear he's not just an obsessed lunatic is interesting. And its actually pretty cleverly written with the multiple Hitchcock plots/homages worked together. We've got the obvious Strangers on a Train core plot that our main guy believes is playing out, but there's also the clear Rear Window story he's living out from the peeping to the obsession with a murder he's not sure of to the love interest and of course the eventual crutches. And then there's the theme of unhealthy relationships with mothers that seems like a tongue in cheek Psycho thing? Its one of those times I wish I'd seen more Hitchcock films because I wonder if maybe digging around you'd find more references in here. I see a little Vertigo in there too? Its a TV movie and it feels held back in that regard. In budget, look, acting. The film definitely lacks Argento's visual flare although definitely has his perviness. And I don't think it helps that the main guy is a peeping tom and stalker. And also just kind of a pretentious jerk. And mean to his girlfriend. Come on, man. Be better to your drat Grace Kelly! I guess that does fit with the way James Stewart's character's obsession played with Kelly but this guy ain't James Stewart so he can't really sell everything quite as well. I actually liked Cristina Brondo which could just be my bias towards Spanish films and ladies, how much she reminded me of the great Grace Kelly performance, or just how much fun that particular role is in Rear Window and makes for the best part of this film. And that does make for a pretty good finale. So yeah its flawed and imperfect and definitely not great. BUt I do actually think its pretty clever and really ambitious for a TV movie. And I think Argento does the best job I've seen of doing Hitchcock this side of that Psych episode. It plays way better for me here than it does when other guys like Brain De Palma or M. Night Shyamalan try it. So good on Argento there. I think he largely does a good job here with what he's got and while some of that Argento/giallo gender problems hold it back for me in addition to the lackluster acting, distracting dubbing, and tv budget and production limitations... I still kind of enjoyed it? Once I really hooked into the multi lane Hitchcock stuff and the Rear Window thing I really did start to feel it more. Not all the way to loving it or anything, but really a not half bad film. Weird as hell ending though. I guess I can't expect much else from giallo. 🌼💀Spook-a-Doodle Half-Way-to-Halloween ’23: Spring Cleaning💀🌼 Watched - New (Total) - (1). Scream (1996); 1 (2). The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944); 2 (3). Viral (2016); - (4). Scream 2 (1997); 3 (5). Mostly Ghostly 3: One Night in Doom House (2016); 4 (6). Man-Thing (2005); - (7). Vampires (1998); - (8). Vampires: Los Muertos (2002); 5 (9). Vampires: The Turning (2005); 6 (10). Evil Ed (1995); - (11). Scream 3 (2000); 7 (12). Do You Like Hitchcock? (2005); Completed Collections: 3/13 - The Invisible Man; Mostly Ghostly; John Carpenter’s Vampires; Return of the Fallen: 1/13 - Viral; Spook-A-Doodle Challenges: 0/13 Meta Challenges: History Lesson - The Invisible Man's Revenge (1940s); Evil Ed (1990s); Man Thing (2000s); Viral (2010s); Meta Challenges: Geography Lesson - The Invisible Man's Revenge (North America); Evil Ed (Europe); Man Thing (Australia/Oceania); STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 05:50 on May 4, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 4, 2023 05:46
|
|
|
gey muckle mowser posted:
 8 (13). Day of the Dead: Bloodline (2017) Directed by Hèctor Hernández Vicens; Written by Marc Tonderai and Lars Jacobson Watched on Netflix Best part was realizing that the creep in the beginning was played by the dude who played the jerk band member in That Thing You Do. I should have rewatched that movie instead. A dull and badly done and uninspired nothing remake of Romero's cult classic. The second of the kind. The other one was bad but I remember it as being at least kinda better than this. This is just bad. And for some reason its also dubbed. Badly dubbed, but is there another kind? There's just nothing worthwhile going on here. I'm not even sure i have anything to say. I'm just padding this out I think. The one thing of note is the weird idea they have to replace Bud with a stalker rapist creep with handwave antibodies to make him... whatever. I don't care. I'm done pretending. Its bad. Don't watch it.  - (14). Scream 4 (2011) Directed by Wes Craven; Written by Kevin Williamson Watched on Paramount+ This is a polarizing one it seems and I admit that I've probably got a lot of sentiment wrapped up in it. I am a huge Wes Craven fan, this is his last film, and I first watched it soon after his death. So yeah. Its got sentimental points with me. But I do think its a return to form for the series after a rough couple of sequels. Is it as good as the original? No, of course not. But I think the problems with 2 and 3 can best be summed up as simply ones of the need for a sequel. Williamson sold Scream as a franchise with 3 scripts. Wes was contracted for 3 films. Wiliamson rewrote 2 after it got leaked. 3 got completely reworked after Columbine. Some seeming conflict between what the films should be as sequels or parodies of sequels. I enjoy them well enough but they're clearly very messy and unsettled. Scream 4 feels more sure of itself. Williamson's script got rewritten a bit and he got pissy about it but Wes said it was still the heart of his script. I dunno. Scream 4 just seems more sure of itself than 2 or 3. There's stuff I find too clever by half or flawed. The multiple fakeout opening is just goofy and out of tone with the rest of the film. I've seen people who seem disappointed it didn't follow up in that direction of camp but I am not one of them. And Dewey and Gale kind of just disappear from the film for the last act. That feels off and kind of wrong even with the idea of trying to establish the new characters... which kind of doesn't work if you kill them all off. You know? That part's weird and maybe a partial consequence of the rewrites. Still. I actually do think the movie does a good job establishing its new characters, better than the last two. I never quite got why people went crazy for Hayden Panettiere's character but that's probably a generational thing and where she was at the time. But ultimately the characters we know and care about in Dewey and Gale get sidelined and we focus on characters we kind of know are doomed. And that feels a bit eh. On the other hand that's clearly in service of the whodunit. And that's honestly an aspect of the Scream series I never really fully appreciated. Its just not a thing I go for in films. I don't try and guess who the killer is. I just go along for the ride. But I really did get it this time as I watched the films with someone who very clearly was delighting in openly predicting who the killer would be. So yeah, I get it. Dewey and Gale ain't the killer. So they don't matter to the ultimate whodunit. And the mortality of these characters is secondary to that reveal and twist. It makes sense. Still for whatever elements of this film don't click with me what puts it over the top is Emma Roberts. I just think she's kind of amazing in this. Not all the way. She's definitely just kind of there for the first bit of the film. But man when she comes out of her shell I really do think its a great performance. I've kind of sworn off Ryan Murphy but its enough to make me considering biting on all the hype I've heard from Scream Queens and the later seasons of American Horror Story starring Roberts. Because I could definitely see me enjoying her there after Scream 4. So yeah, its not perfect. I can nitpick it. And maybe its not entirely necessary. The meta nature of its commentary on celebrity via tragedy or the blending of true crime and horror. It feels like Wes Craven saying that the old job he had for 40 years of shocking and scaring people via fiction had been replaced by the new wave of reality tv and exploitation and voyeurism of true tragedy. And a dozen years later with the way true crime has really dominated podcasts and documentaries and so much media people consume it feels almost like the most accurate prediction from this franchise. If Scream started as Wes looking back and seeing what was tired about horror then Scream 4 feels like a bittersweet goodbye to what the media landscape was coming. In many ways it feels like a fitting, if sad, final film. So yeah, I have sentiment wrapped up in this clearly. But I like the film and I think it does some things very well. It does some things kind of shaky. But ultimately it does the most important thing and feels like a good Scream movie to me.  - (15). Scream (2022) Directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett; Written by James Vanderbilt and Guy Busick Watched on Paramount+ ”To Wes!” This was my second time with this and I feel comfortable saying this is a very good, very appropriate and loving tribute and revival of Wes' original vision and franchise. Some seem to dismiss it as a retread and like... obviously there's elements of that. You could probably call this fan fiction if you were so inclined. But what sequel isn't? And this one is very clearly self aware as its monologues and rules about "requels" clearly show. Radio Silence know what they'd dealing with trying to revive a classic franchise. The impossible place you end up with horror fans these days between purists who have such a rigid idea of what the thing they love is that any changes will anger them and fans who need something new and deeper to justify it as more than a cash grab. Its no shock this is polarizing because its going head on at the state of horror the same way Wes did originally in 96. But there's no consensus now between the "elevated horror" fans and the "pure slasher" fans. Its all people yelling on Twitter one way or another. Which makes it funny and appropriate that I've seen people interpret this as being anti "elevated" and anti "purist". When really I think its just reflecting what's going on. But also I think the meta stuff about Scream has always been kind of too focused on. Its obviously there but at the same time so many often mislabel Scream first and foremost as a parody or something. Its a straight horror film at its core that excels because of the strong characters and story. And the franchise works because of its strong characters and core heart and commitment to above all else telling full stories. That's really the difference between Scream and most other slashers. Ghostface is not the star, he's a plot point. Its never really about watching people get murdered. That's there but Wes went and put it into full stories and characters which not everyone was doing. And that's kind of what all those rules and meta commentary was about. About what horror was doing... not that horror was broken or something. Just that it could be better. So ultimately I also just think this is a very good story. The Billy stuff is maybe a little weird and I'm not sure how necessary it is. It does feel like they could have told the story without hallucinations and nothing changes. And it all plays a little oddly supernatural/strange for the Scream franchise. But its also established pretty early on and doesn't play a huge factor the rest of the way so I'm fine with it. But Jenna Ortega and Melissa Barrera are great new additions to the Scream family. Its got the usual whodunit stuff and its got the "legacy characters". The trio of characters we've known and loved for 25 years. I'm rambling a lot. And have kind of lost my train of thought. Ultimately I went into this knowing I enjoyed it the first time but unsure if that was just excitement for a new film of something I love and whether it would hold up. But it absolutely did. I still really, really enjoyed this. Its not perfect or anything but I had a good time and it feels most importantly like a very true to the franchise entry of Scream. That's the hardest part for these revivals i think. To make something that feels like it belongs with the classic film made by legends. But I think Radio Silence pull it off with Scream 5. And I am excited to see what they did with 6.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2023 09:02
|
|
CHALLENGE TIME
|
For what it’s worth the reason for the decreased violence in Scream 3 is it started production like minutes after Columbine and the studio got real gun shy about things as you can imagine. The original script had like a cult of movie obsessed killer teens in Woodsboro. So they decided they had to go way there opposite route of killer high school students.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2023 00:01
|
|
|
gey muckle mowser posted:
Along with The Invisible Man's Revenge (1940s), Evil Ed (1990s), Man Thing (2000s), and Viral (2010s) this makes 5 decades but I’m just gonna keep track to see if I can hit them all.  9 (16). This Island Earth (1955) Directed by Joseph M. Newman and Jack Arnold; Written by Franklin Coen and Edward G. O'Callaghan; Based on This Island Earth 1952 novel by Raymond F. Jones Watched on Svengoolie Watching movies with Svengoolie can be different kind of experiences. Sometimes the commercial breaks and gags break up the flow of the film. Sometimes all that stuff helps you through a tough film. But sometimes it all kind of clicks and that's definitely what i felt here. This Island Earth is what it is. You can kind of see why its a heavily influential sci fi film but you can also kind of see why its a MST3K entry. Its clearly doing a lot of stuff that became so common in the genre going forward but its also a little silly in that way 60s sci fi has aged. And ultimately like much of its genre its a lot of talking in the lead up to the action or big stuff. The margin of "big stuff" happening in this film isn't very strong. But I dunno. I flowed along with it well. And in this case that definitely was at least in part me just really enjoying the Svengoolie show. I haven't been feeling great and I just got real comfortable with this. With all the goofy Svengoolie stuff but also with the very comfortable, cheesy nature of the film. And its not like silly in a bad way or anything. Like its a perfectly fine movie for its time. A little dry and thin for modern sensibilities. But I watch a lot of Svengoolie and 50s sci fi and its a pretty good one of them. And you can definitely see why it stood out from the pack and left such a mark. So yeah, not a great film. but a fine one. And a very enjoyable Svengoolie watch. And really something I really needed. gey muckle mowser posted:
 10 (17). A Field in England (2013) Directed by Ben Wheatley; Written by Amy Jump I have no idea what the hell this was. At suggestion I watched this with subtitles and while they helped I still had no idea what people were saying half the time. The gibberish was so pronounced it kept waking up my Alexa and confusing it. This is the worst kind of movie watching experience for me and not because of the unpleasant visual and audio poo poo that it did, although that stuff sucked. But because I kept having to rewind the film because I just had no idea what the gently caress was going on. Eventually I just gave up trying too make sense of it. I really just don't get it. Like at all. I also thought it looked kind of ugly which is weird since everyone loves its look. I dunno. I don't get it. Completely. Don't get it at all.  11 (18). Scream: The Inside Story (2011) Directed by Daniel Farrands Watched on Youtube I really just needed something to watch while catching up on reviews. And I am deep into Scream now so was happy to pop this up on Youtube while I wrote. Its a solid if kind of dry retrospective on the original classic. Its like a TV doc thing or something and feels like it. Kind of weirdly feeling like the template that would become true crime docs which is kind of ironic considering it came out around Scream 4 and that film's themes are really about the rise of true crime media and the kind of death of empathy in this stuff being entertainment and celebrity. But that's neither here nor there. The most interesting tidbit I got from this was Wes's own hesitation to make Scream because he had grown disenchanted not with the genre "rules" or the things that come up in Scream but in stuff like the misogyny and treatment of women. Wes saying reading the opening scene and not knowing if he wanted to make another scene of a young woman being tortured. Also really interesting to learn that the iconic decision for Drew Barrymore to be one and done was really her decision and a kind of fortunate accident. Its a nice collection of trivia bits and production details but also a very nice look at all the key cast and crew getting a fair amount of time and respect. And a nice way to see how Wes and everyone really thought about this stuff and how much is really built into Scream as more than just a slasher. It was an unnecessary watch that I wasn't sure I'd do but as a huge Scream fan and someone very much enjoying their current marathon and anticipating the new film it was a very enjoyable watch. 🌼💀Spook-a-Doodle Half-Way-to-Halloween ’23: Spring Cleaning💀🌼 Watched - New (Total) - (1). Scream (1996); 1 (2). The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944); 2 (3). Viral (2016); - (4). Scream 2 (1997); 3 (5). Mostly Ghostly 3: One Night in Doom House (2016); 4 (6). Man-Thing (2005); - (7). Vampires (1998); - (8). Vampires: Los Muertos (2002); 5 (9). Vampires: The Turning (2005); 6 (10). Evil Ed (1995); - (11). Scream 3 (2000); 7 (12). Do You Like Hitchcock? (2005); 8 (13). Day of the Dead: Bloodline (2017); - (14). Scream 4 (2011); - (15). Scream (2022); 9 (16). This Island Earth (1955); 10 (17). A Field in England (2013); 11 (18). Scream: The Inside Story (2011); Completed Collections: 3/13 - The Invisible Man; Mostly Ghostly; John Carpenter’s Vampires; Return of the Fallen: 2/13 - Viral; Day of the Dead: Bloodline; Spook-A-Doodle Challenges: 3/13 - Day of the Dead: Bloodline (Challenge of the Dead); A Field in England (Horror High) Meta Challenges: History Lesson - The Invisible Man's Revenge (1940s); This Island Earth (1950s); Evil Ed (1990s); Man Thing (2000s); Viral (2010s); Meta Challenges: Geography Lesson - The Invisible Man's Revenge (North America); Evil Ed (Europe); Man Thing (Australia/Oceania);
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2023 08:22
|
|
META-CHALLENGES
|
SidneyIsTheKiller posted:Being a Scream fan I'm sure you're aware of how Scream 4 was intentionally set up as a false reboot and all, but I think it might be helpful for me to note here that poo poo was real in 2011. We thought we were watching The New Cast of Scream. It made some sense for Gale and Dewey to take a backseat in the second half (if anything, during my first watch I found it a little odd that Sidney was still very much the main character throughout). There was no guarantee any of the original characters would return beyond this and it was almost guaranteed that one or more of them were going to bite it. When it hit the "second ending" and I saw that it was all coming down to those three, I had the biggest smile on my face. I'm sort of loosely familiar with the Scream 4 history. Like I know the original script had Sidney seemingly dying early on and being taken out of much of the film and the killer surviving to the next film. So I can definitely see how it would have been expected as a restart ala Scream 5/6. I actually wasn't very aware of it in 2011. Just not a time in my life I was very plugged into movies and had a lot of stuff going on. I only finally saw it when Wes died 4 years later. So yeah I can definitely see how Gale and Dewey getting backseated makes sense in that regard. Also probably gives some context for why Hayden/Kirby seemed to make such an impression on people if they really expected her to be the next generation. Speaking of... gey muckle mowser posted:
 12 (19). Scream VI (2023) Directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett; Written by James Vanderbilt and Guy Busick Watched on Paramount+ The end of my Scream marathon and a drat fine film to cap it. I was both looking forward to this because I love Scream, dig Radio Silence, and really enjoyed Scream 5… but also apprehensive because some fo the early press for the film seemed to be selling it as one of those “in the city no one will hear you scream” things that is rooted in the racist right wing “urban jungle” bullshit. Go ahead. Scream in New York City. I promise you people will listen. They’ll have an opinion too. But thankfully the film didn’t go that way. It doesn’t totally make use of its NYC setting but it does do a pretty even handed job with the density and close quarters of the city. People all around you, some of them friends, some of them indifferent, maybe one of them an enemy. But just people. The setting change does effectively change the feel of this to the point where it doesn’t exactly feel like a Scream film. That’s clearly deliberate. The Scream films are largely about terror in a small town where you know everyone but that doesn’t make you safe, it might give you less privacy and make you less safe. The switch to the city means the killer might not be someone you know. You don’t have familiar places or people you’ve known your whole life to hide. There’s actually not enough city horrors in my opinion and this does a good job capturing some of the situations ripe for horror/slasher terror like those narrow hallways apartments, cluttered alleys, and packed subways. Woodsboro kills were all about the slow wait for the silence of the suburbs to break. NYC kills are about something suddenly stabbing through the field of noise. I like Melissa Barrera as the new Sidney. She’s an absolute bad rear end. I don’t know how I feel about the Billy stuff. It really kind of feels unnecessary and like a tease of something I’m not sure we really wanna see. The Core Four is cool. Are the original Woodsboro Trio? No. But they’re cool. Jenna Ortega is just killing it these days and this is no exception. And Mindy and Chad are a fun kind of split of Randy with one being the earnest goof and one the kind of relentlessly much film rules nerd. You know she’s got a Letterboxd account no matter what she says. But really its mostly about the family bond they have through their shared trauma. Just like Sid, Gale, and Dewey (and Randy… but not long enough) had been through hell together and it gave them a trust and bond that exceeded the personal stuff these four not only actually like each other but they love each other and fight for each other. Its a crew I’m hopeful I get to see again. This one kind of backs off the meta film stuff a bit, which feels like another conscious decision to be less what Scream was and be a new version of it. The one rules rant is basically saying as much. Its not a sequel, or a sequel, its a franchise now which means its all about keeping the ball rolling and all bets are off. The change in setting obviously being a big part of that. The deemphasis on the meta stuff a big part of that too. I though the film was doing something about obsessive online fanbases and conspiracy rabbit holes and the ability to make people believe any lie and radicalize ala Qanon. But it kinda doesn’t really commit to that. I actually am kind of hopeful that what we got about online circles of psychotic Stab/Ghostface obsessors and the little tease that Stu might be alive could mean a 7th film could finally get us that abandoned idea of Stu’s cult of Following killers. Fingers crossed. But that’s not really what we get here. We do get a very hardcore Ghostface. With a loving shotgun! This film is vicious. The body count is bigger than ever and the kills are brutal. Maybe not the slashing that slasher fans come for. Way less focus on watching young women get stabbed like an Italian director with the one metaphor he knows. But holy poo poo, people get hosed up in this. Its a different Scream for sure but one I really liked. Radio Silence pay a ton of tribute to Wes Craven and what he made with Scream as a franchise in 5 but here they really seem to be doing their own thing. Neve Campbell is missed in the big picture, as of course is Dewey, but it also doesn't feel like their or Gale's story anymore. Not really. The "legacy" characters and stuff give us a link to the past but its the Core Four who are the focus here now and we've left Woodsboro. And to that extent as much as I think Neve should have gotten paid I don't mind that Sidney has moved on. I hate saying it but I didn't actually miss her. And that's a real testament to what they've built with this Scream revival/reboot/requel. And I say that as someone who loves Wes Craven and his Scream and cast of it. And while nothing here has reached the level of that original classic I'm starting to really dig Radio Silence's Scream and cast and I'm game for more.  13 (20). My Best Friend’s Exorcism (2022) Directed by Damon Thomas; Screenplay by Jenna Lamia; Based on My Best Friend's Exorcism by Grady Hendrix Watched on Amazon Prime This wasn't quite what I expected. The first act of the film feels like Evil Dead and Megan's Body tossed into a blender with 80s MTV and I was really digging it and expecting something very manic and darkly funny. but it plays itself a LOT straighter than I expected. I mean there's definitely some jokes in here but they're very dry. The second act kind of spends a lot of time doing the usual high school obsession stuff with some random kids getting their lives ruined and our main girl's life falling apart. Its all very.. I dunno. We're here for 80s pop songs and freaky possession poo poo and maybe some hosed up deadlite type stuff? Right? The last act ramps poo poo up though and is a lot of fun. Christopher Lowell is hilarious as the rad mall Jesus bro Exorcist. Its a really inspired play on the expected and Lowell is just an absolute ton of fun in the role. MVP for sure, which is a bit disappointing since I was pulling for the girls. But it is what it is. He’s great. And a pretty wild ending that definitely isn’t the usual exorcism film ending. All in all the film isn’t half bad. At its worst its a little dry and derivative. At its best its kind of inspired and a fun twist on familiar things. It just never really shifts into the next gear I was hoping it was gonna. Definitely a bit of a disappointment in that regard. I get the sense the novel its adapted from is a much more sincere YA coming of age with a quirky humor. I’m not sure that quite adapted here, or maybe just came up against the sort of built in expectations of the horror genre when you’re clearly taking inspiration from stuff like Evil Dead and Exorcist. I don’t know. But all in all a decent watch. And it could maybe click a little more with people more tuned into that YA thing? Great soundtrack though. And lots of vomit. And tapeworms, man. One of my greatest fears and genuinely eeked me out. 🌼💀Spook-a-Doodle Half-Way-to-Halloween ’23: Spring Cleaning💀🌼 Watched - New (Total) - (1). Scream (1996); 1 (2). The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944); 2 (3). Viral (2016); - (4). Scream 2 (1997); 3 (5). Mostly Ghostly 3: One Night in Doom House (2016); 4 (6). Man-Thing (2005); - (7). Vampires (1998); - (8). Vampires: Los Muertos (2002); 5 (9). Vampires: The Turning (2005); 6 (10). Evil Ed (1995); - (11). Scream 3 (2000); 7 (12). Do You Like Hitchcock? (2005); 8 (13). Day of the Dead: Bloodline (2017); - (14). Scream 4 (2011); - (15). Scream (2022); 9 (16). This Island Earth (1955); 10 (17). A Field in England (2013); 11 (18). Scream: The Inside Story (2011); 12 (19). Scream VI (2023); 13 (20). My Best Friend’s Exorcism (2022); Completed Collections: 4/13 - The Invisible Man; Mostly Ghostly; John Carpenter’s Vampires; Scream; Return of the Fallen: 3/13 - Viral; Day of the Dead: Bloodline; My Best Friend's Exorcism; Spook-A-Doodle Challenges: 4/13 - Day of the Dead: Bloodline (Challenge of the Dead); A Field in England (Horror High); Scream VI (Fresh Hell); Meta Challenges: History Lesson - The Invisible Man's Revenge (1940s); This Island Earth (1950s); Evil Ed (1990s); Man Thing (2000s); Viral (2010s); Meta Challenges: Geography Lesson - The Invisible Man's Revenge (North America); Evil Ed (Europe); Man Thing (Australia/Oceania);
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2023 09:59
|
|
|
I’ve said it before but I think Dawn of the Dead is a real interesting case of Gunn’s mean sense of humor but sentimental style coming up directly against Snyder’s nihilistic and celebration of destructive action approach. There’s scenes in the movie you can completely reimagine in your head in Gunn’s voice. There’s an early one where the group enters the mall and “Don’t Worry Be Happy” is playing in the background. In Snyder’s hands that’s dark. In Gunn’s hands it’s probably setting up a punchline. On the flip side of this were purely a Snyder film it probably would have been a grade harsher without as many moments of individual character levity or sentimentality. It’s very interesting if you’re familiar with both guys now.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2023 23:41
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:How'd you do with The VVitch for reference? I'm curious how much of this is just bending your ear to Early Modern English and how much of it is the rest of the movie.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2023 00:42
|
|
|
Yeah even like one of the bigger moments towards the end when Sarah Polly offs a zombie. Snyder plays it as a “bad rear end” moment where you can definitely see how that would have played as a dark joke when Gunn probably wrote it. I mean it’s early in Gunn’s career so maybe his script and style is less refined. But you can see both auteurs in the movie and really notice their differences trying to fit together.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2023 02:36
|
|
|
 - (21). Fright Night (2011) Directed by Craig Gillespie; Screenplay by Marti Noxon; Based on Fright Night by Tom Holland I remember liking this one a bit more the first time I saw it, at least enough to be on the other side of those usual arguments about remakes. You know the ones. But remakes don't bother even when they're uninspired, but they especially don't bother me when they do something different. And this one is definitely at its best when it just goes all in on the action. Its a little wacky and the CGI doesn't all work but its fun and its definitely different. The first part of the film sort of drags a little probably more so because there its mostly doing just a modern update of the original. And we have an absolutely stacked cast here. I mean Toni Collette's just sort of around. I'm also kind of sucker for using those weird pop up suburbs in horror movies. There's such an eery atmosphere to those little towns in the middle of nowhere that just have rows of identical housing and zero population traffic because no one actually lives there. They just sleep there between commuting back and forth from work. So like all the parts here are good and maybe it was just that I'm feeling sick or that I had just watched the original a few weeks ago so the story was fresh in my mind but I was sort of like "ok, lets get on with it" for a bit. But the film definitely clicks when Colin Farrell is just cut loose. That's probably part of the slow burn feel of the first half because we're nt hiding anything here. We know he's the bad guy. But its not until they just let him go full on villain instead of "suspicious neighbor" that things really take off. And again, the CGI and action here is sometimes wacky but its also fun. And once the movie shifts gears it never really lets up. Well there is like one scene where David Tennant's Vincent Price is giving a backstory for some probably unnecessary personal stakes and added melodrama. But its quick and not too disruptive or anything. We get back to Farrell going full on Dracula with a budget and writhing around like an animal when he's hurt. I love that interpretation of vampires and its fun here. And like the whole thing is barely over 100 minutes. Its a solid film. Not the original of course and probably not some super necessary world changer. But a solid little horror film with some fun action. Not a bad time. gey muckle mowser posted:
 - (22). Brain Damage (1988) Written and directed by Frank Henenlotter Watched this almost exactly a year ago and just didn't know how I felt about it. Rereading my old review the short version is that I liked some of what it did, didn't like some of the "transgressive" stuff it did, but ultimately felt like it never felt like a fully finished script as opposed to like someone's interpretative psych journals and dreams laid out into something coherent but not exactly meaty. So it felt like a good film to give a second chance especially since I didn't really remember many of the details at all. But I gotta say I feel exactly the same. There's definitely some fun with the idea here. I enjoy that the evil brain parasite is kind of a gentleman. I think the main guy is... fine but he's not exactly compelling. Then again he's playing a moron who is high out of his mind all the time so he pulls that off effectively enough. But I dunno, it just doesn't feel like the story goes anywhere. I mean its a simple enough story of a problem spiraling out of control but its the meat on the bones that feels thin. And there's a lot of metaphor and ideas here. Drug addiction, some sex stuff, general existential crisis? It feels like Henenlotter's going through some stuff here and we're getting glimpses at it. But it also feels like he hasn't really worked it out yet so the film doesn't either. And I mean, that could work. Some people like that kind of storytelling and it can be very intimate and provocative when done well. But I dunno. I wouldn't call Henenlotter a bad filmmaker but I'm not sure he's a good one either. He's an interesting one. And a highly competent one. This is a weird rear end idea that easily could have gone off the rails a bunch of times and its a testament to his ability that he actually did tell a simple little story here. And there's some very good puppetry and effects at work that hold up well. But I dunno. The whole thing just never really comes together for me. Its ok, but just never clicks. And I just feel like I may be a lot warmer on the film if it wasn't for that sexual assault scene. Its not only gross but just like entirely unnecessary. Just why?  14 (23). Fright Night Part 2 (1988) Directed by Tommy Lee Wallace; Written by Tommy Lee Wallace, Tim Metcalfe, and Miguel Tejada-Flores; Based on Characters by Tom Holland I actually got the vaguest sense I'd seen this before. One of those movies I maybe caught on TV a long time ago and just remember random parts of? Also kind of reminds me of that Jim Carrey vampire film which came out a couple of years earlier? So could be some confusion there? I dunno. Anyway this is fine. Julie Carmen's pretty good as the seductive lead vampire of her big coven of weird and varied vamps. We got wolves, we got rollerskates, we got a big buff dude who loves him some bugs. And really the vampire bowling scene is just plain fun. Feels like there should have been more of that. The problem is in part the one real drawback of the first film. Charlie's just not that interesting. Its kind of nice to see his love interest get to play smart hero instead of damsel in distress but we still kind of have to care about Charlie's plithe and I dunno... I don't.. And Peter Vincent's around doing stuff. But again, its just not that interesting. There's interesting stuff here for sure and it feels at least half like its own film. But Charlie and Peter feel like they're kind of doing the same thing again and that just isn't as interesting as it was the first time. Its not a bad film and it does its own thing. And really, its worth it for the coven of vampires. But I dunno. I just couldn't care about Charlie. Weird learning there were ideas for more sequels but they and this all kind of flipped right out of the gate because right before release the producers were murdered by their sons, the Menendez Brothers. Yeesh. 🌼💀Spook-a-Doodle Half-Way-to-Halloween ’23: Spring Cleaning💀🌼 Watched - New (Total) - (1). Scream (1996); 1 (2). The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944); 2 (3). Viral (2016); - (4). Scream 2 (1997); 3 (5). Mostly Ghostly 3: One Night in Doom House (2016); 4 (6). Man-Thing (2005); - (7). Vampires (1998); - (8). Vampires: Los Muertos (2002); 5 (9). Vampires: The Turning (2005); 6 (10). Evil Ed (1995); - (11). Scream 3 (2000); 7 (12). Do You Like Hitchcock? (2005); 8 (13). Day of the Dead: Bloodline (2017); - (14). Scream 4 (2011); - (15). Scream (2022); 9 (16). This Island Earth (1955); 10 (17). A Field in England (2013); 11 (18). Scream: The Inside Story (2011); 12 (19). Scream VI (2023); 13 (20). My Best Friend’s Exorcism (2022); - (21). Fright Night (2011); - (22). Brain Damage (1988); 14 (23(. Fright Night Part 2 (1988); Completed Collections: 4/13 - The Invisible Man; Mostly Ghostly; John Carpenter’s Vampires; Scream; Return of the Fallen: 3/13 - Viral; Day of the Dead: Bloodline; My Best Friend’s Exorcism; Spook-A-Doodle Challenges: 5/13 - Day of the Dead: Bloodline (Challenge of the Dead); A Field in England (Horror High); Scream VI (Fresh Hell); Brain Damage (Second Chance); Meta Challenges: History Lesson - The Invisible Man's Revenge (1940s); This Island Earth (1950s); Fright Night Part 2 (1980s); Evil Ed (1990s); Man Thing (2000s); Viral (2010s); Meta Challenges: Geography Lesson - The Invisible Man's Revenge (North America); Evil Ed (Europe); Man Thing (Australia/Oceania); STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 07:41 on May 7, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2023 07:36
|
|
|
gey muckle mowser posted:
 15 (24)Children of the Corn (2020) Written and directed by Kurt Wimmer; Based on "Children of the Corn" by Stephen King Last May I watched all the Children of the Corn movies... it was rough. But I couldn't watch this one yet because it hadn't been distributed yet. And for some reason that made me sad? I love Stephen King and I love completing things. What can I say? So I've been waiting a year to watch this and... well.. its a Children of the Corn movie. Probably on the positive end of the movies for sure. Its pretty competently made. Elena Kampouris is pretty solid as the lead protagonist and Kate Moyer is pretty fun as the deranged kid villain lead. The dynamic between the two is obviously the core of the movie and its pretty solid. The problem is everything else is kind of not. There's not one other character in the film remotely fleshed out well or given any real weight. And the story is kind of dumb. I don't mind them going back to the start of the story and showing the kids doing the deed against the town. Its a different take and there's at least 3 other versions of King's story with the dysfunctional couple that wander into it. So sure, do this other different but very simple path. But the story is doofy. Basically everything relies on everyone acting absolutely batshit insane. Which like... ok. That's kind of the premise right? Like even with the adults? The idea in the story is that corn fungus loving with everyone's heads and getting to the youngest kids the quickest. So yeah ok. But there's just weird and bizarre poo poo going on. Ok, kids torturing one another in a disturbing way? Sure. Adults being belligerent and impatient? Sure. But like adults just randomly losing their poo poo on the kids? Just weird poo poo. And the killer for me is the really bizarre plot our heroine attempts to play out. I dunno if we're supposed to assume she's affected as well just less so but like her decision to kidnap her parents in the middle of the night to put them in a mock trial for a reporter is not rational. And why would the reporter do it? That's hosed. And I'm just gonna say it. Maybe this is all her fault for putting so much trust and responsibility in the hands of the deranged 10 year old. First step to avoiding this. Don't empower the psychotic child. This should be easy. I dunno. Its just all kind of silly. But its also mostly watcheable. But that's kind of where it peaks. The solid leads, basic production competency, and doofy plotting kind of carry you through. And there's He Who Walks. He shows up. That's something. On paper this feels like it should be enough but then you just have doofiness like our main girl's brother murdering their mom and a couple of dozen others in front of her and then like them exchanging a nodding gesture later like its all cool. It just don't make sense. And its ok for a horror movie to kind of not make sense as long as its fun or scary or something. But I dunno. This one just doesn't ever do it right. But it is after all a Children of the Corn movie. And at least I'm done with them. For now.  16 (25). The Signal (2014) Written and directed by William Eubank; co-written by Carlyle Eubank and David Frigerio Kind of a drab sci fi thing over all. I dunno, that's not my thing generally. To be honest all the white outfits and walls and poo poo was giving me a headache. I wasn't ever really thrown off besides that. The first act does a solid job establishing our main characters and their relationships and giving us reason to care about their fates. The second act puts them in a harrowing and uncertain environment where you're interested and concerned about what's happening with them. But I just don't think it nails the landing at all. I've read the comments from the writers that the idea is to explore the idea of rational decision making vs doing what your emotions drive you. Or something like that. And loosely you can see that but it really doesn't feel like it comes together in any kind of coherent or meaningful way. And its all building to the big reveal at the end which doesn't feel all that shocking or original and kind of doesn't feel like it allows for any of that metaphor stuff to have any meaning. You know? I dunno. I'm not generally a fan of sci fi and at the risk of sounding snobbish I tend to find their philosophical debates in these movies to be pretty shallow and unsophisticated. And it does feel like the emphasis tends to shift away from any kind of humanist approach to these questions and into the fascination with alien or futuristic or robot stuff. I don't get the whole robot/cybernetics/whatever thing. Never did. I dunno. Its decently enough made and has a good cast and I'm sure all this sci fi philosophy and shocker would resonate more with its intended audience. But I dunno. Just didn't work for me.  17 (26). The Mole People (1956) Directed by Virgil Vogel; Written by László Görög Watched on Svengoolie The focus seems to be on that college professor intro as the symbol of the boringness but I actually kind of liked that? Its hokey and dry but so am I. It was like a built in Ben Mankiewicz intro or something. I dunno. It amused me. The rest of the film? Not so much. I have built up a certain tolerance to these 50s movies being somewhere between 20% to 90% dudes talking about stuff but holy poo poo this was dull. Its not even dudes talking, its dudes walking. They just keep hiking here and climbing there and walking over there. Holy gently caress its a slog. And then when they finally get to the mole people its a bunch of OTHER dudes talking about underground weirdo Incan politics or something. Its all so drat dull. But the movie was so short that Svengoolie aired a very amusing interview with Lance Henriksen to fill the air time. That was fun. Just put more Mole People stuff in your Mole People movie, guys. Its not so hard. But like 30% of this film is footage from other films or stock or long lingering shots of matte paintings. So I guess they just didn't have a lot of inspiration to fill the 40 minutes or so. You almost get the impression that they just got rejected for an episode of the Twilight Zone or something.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2023 07:16
|
|
|
gey muckle mowser posted:
That’s nothing. I was so scared of the Haunted Mansion I sobbed uncontrollably and my mom had to wait outside with me. I don’t remember how old I was but it was definitely too old to throw a temper tantrum.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
My appreciation of As Above So Below comes largely in how well I think the film subtlety balances each characters’s journey with the not at all subtle Dante’s Inferno theme. Each one has their own little story and the movie uses the found footage approach to creepily interject bits and pieces.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2023 01:07
|
|
|
 18 (27). Mom and Dad (2017) Written and diretced by Brian Taylor I know we get into like zombie movie tactical realism survivalist strategy debates and they suck. But like shouldn't this one be manageable? You only want to kill your kid. You're rational otherwise. They seem to be picking up on that quick. That poo poo's actually kind of easy to manage. I feel like there probably should have been a better response in this well off community or something. I dunno. This walked a line with me but ultimately didn't work. This shade of dark comedy is too much for me generally. I don't really love or hate Cage but him just going over the top in and of itself isn't enough for me. That does seem to be the main draw for people and like I get it. But there doesn't seem to be a lot beyond that. Like there's a unique premise and a setup and it gets backed into a corner of conflict... and then... it ends. I think they forgot to write an ending. Brien Taylor obviously doesn't write sophisticated films. That's ok. Again, it feels like this may have started with "lets have Nick Cage go loving nuts" and it feels like that's not a rare starting point these days. But I don't think there's a full film here. There could have been. It probably wouldn't have been fully my thing. But I feel like they said "Lets have Nick Cage go loving nuts", figured out a reason to make him do that, and got to the point where they figure out what comes next and just stopped. The more I thought about this the more I just really disliked it. I don’t even know why it annoys me so much. It just really does. gey muckle mowser posted:
 19 (28). Big Legend (2018) Written and Directed by Justin Lee Watched on Amazon Prime This could have been worse, but it sure could have been better. I picked it because it looked like one of the more decently made Bigfoot films and it had Lance Henriksen and Adrienne Barbeau in the credits. Don’t count on them, they’re in maybe 10 minutes of film combined. But it was competently enough made. I definitely feel like I could have watched a lot worse in the Bigfoot genre. Its clearly low budget but the director uses a lot of reasonably well shot footage of the gorgeous forest to really get past that in a similar way that found footage does. I’ve said that there’s so many bad Bigfoot movies because its so drat easy to go film a piece of crap with a dude in a suit in the woods but this is at least a decently shot one of those. Where it fails is probably on the lead who simply isn’t up to the task of carrying such a character driven story. 90% of the film is us just with this guy, and most of that the he’s not even talking. So it takes a lot to make that work. And he’s not a very well written character nor is this a very well written plot. But Kevin Makely also doesn’t really add anything to the equation besides a solid beard and a need to take down or turn up his performance about 15% at any given point of the film. The film’s better when the wacky other guy is around since he not only has character beyond stoic silence and angst but he’s also just a better actor. Sorry, dude. Maybe next time you make a film so heavily reliant on your lead you should do some casting instead of just getting your buddy who is really into Bigfoot. The film attempts to go full Predator at the end… again, it could have been a lot worse. The Bigfoot costume isn’t great but its not terrible and even though the action is a little goofy especially with Bigfoot fighting like a dude and not an animal its more action paced than the entire film to that point so it kind of feels climactic by default. Of course the real climax of this film is a comically audacious tease of a sequel/cinematic universe. If you thought The Mummy and Universal were cocky trying to establish an entire Dark Universe the way they did wait until you see the pure balls it takes to try and do that here. I’m actually disappointed he didn’t follow through and make the sequel. I definitely would have watched it out of sheer curiosity if he did. You could do worse for Bigfoot. You could be better for bad cinema. Its definitely not really a film worth watching unless you’re really interested in another Bigfoot film that’s just kind of topping out at mediocre.  20 (29). Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (1966) Directed by Jun Fukuda, Screenplay by Shinichi Sekizawa Watched on HBOMax Godzilla is such a dick. First he and Ebirah are having a perfectly pleasant game of catch and splashing each other when he has to go and boil Ebirah with his atomic breath. Which has to be a micro aggression against shellfish, right? Then he just picks a fight with Mothra while she's trying to evacuate some people. What a jerk. I was on a nice run with these movie a year ago when I hit the weird Star Trekky Astro Monster and that just derailed me completely apparently. I kept meaning to get back into this but the way the film got so weird in such an unexpected way really threw me. This one's pretty weird too. Like the vibe both give off is that the producers know they have kaiju movies to sell but now they're doing them in other films. I guess that's not dissimilar to the way like the MCU works now with the brand and super hero thing being the market appeal but different sort of films or vibes happening. I dunno. Any way this is a weird one. Like almost a wacky teen comedy Bond film or something? I dunno. Stop me if you've heard this one. A bunch of bros lose a dancing competition to win a yacht because they want to go search for their shipwrecked bro only to steal a boat from a bank robber and then they all get shipwrecked when they're attacked by Ebirah the giant crab and they end up on Mothra's island where her little fairy ladies are trying to wake her up to help the locals because a group of terrorists are there building nukes and controlling the giant crab so then the bros stumble across a napping Godzilla and wake him up so he can fight the terrorists, Ebirah, and a giant bird and then he just gets carried away and fights Mothra too until she once again leaves his aggro rear end behind. Its weird. Not unamusing. The kauju stuff is good althogh it feels like it as a long time to get to it and then its just Godzilla rampaging around like a jerk. But that stuff is solid. Ebirah is actually really cool looking. Godzilla kind of looks like a muppet and not in a good way. Bit it is what it is. The shots of the two of them facing off as Ebirah stands in the ocean and Godzilla stands on land are really cool and would be super bad rear end if they had figured out a better way for them to fight than playing catch. But that's fun too. And then Mothra showed up because I guess they had her in storage or something? I dunno. I'd really love to understand how this film got written. Apparently it was a King Kong film with Rankins, Bass, and Honda at first? That's weird. It definitely could have had more kaiju. Ebirah's not around that much in his own film and Godzilla and Mothra literally sleep through most of the film. But there's some fun stuff. And if you can vibe the silly campiness of it all its probably a lot of fun. Still the first half of this is really kind of rough as you try very hard to care about this very silly human stuff. I'm not one against human melodrama in kaiju films but like... this stuff is just silly. But if that can connect with you then great. I didn't hate it or anything. It was a fun enough watch especially once the monster action started. But man... we've definitely gotten into deep silly territory here. 🌼💀Spook-a-Doodle Half-Way-to-Halloween ’23: Spring Cleaning💀🌼 Watched - New (Total) - (1). Scream (1996); 1 (2). The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944); 2 (3). Viral (2016); - (4). Scream 2 (1997); 3 (5). Mostly Ghostly 3: One Night in Doom House (2016); 4 (6). Man-Thing (2005); - (7). Vampires (1998); - (8). Vampires: Los Muertos (2002); 5 (9). Vampires: The Turning (2005); 6 (10). Evil Ed (1995); - (11). Scream 3 (2000); 7 (12). Do You Like Hitchcock? (2005); 8 (13). Day of the Dead: Bloodline (2017); - (14). Scream 4 (2011); - (15). Scream (2022); 9 (16). This Island Earth (1955); 10 (17). A Field in England (2013); 11 (18). Scream: The Inside Story (2011); 12 (19). Scream VI (2023); 13 (20). My Best Friend’s Exorcism (2022); - (21). Fright Night (2011); - (22). Brain Damage (1988); 14 (23). Fright Night Part 2 (1988); 15 (24)Children of the Corn (2020); 16 (25). The Signal (2014); 17 (26). The Mole People (1956); 18 (27). Mom and Dad (2017); 19 (28). Big Legend (2018); 20 (29). Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (1966); Return of the Fallen: 4/13 - Viral; Day of the Dead: Bloodline; My Best Friend’s Exorcism; The Signal; Completed Collections: 5/13 - The Invisible Man; Mostly Ghostly; John Carpenter’s Vampires; Scream; Children of the Corn; Spook-A-Doodle Challenges: 7/13 - Day of the Dead: Bloodline (Challenge of the Dead); A Field in England (Horror High); Scream VI (Fresh Hell); Brain Damage (Second Chance); Children of the Corn ’20 (Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things); Big Legend (Tales from the Cryptids); Meta Challenges: History Lesson: 8/5 - The Invisible Man's Revenge (1940s); This Island Earth (1950s); Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (1960s); Fright Night Part 2 (1980s); Evil Ed (1990s); Man Thing (2000s); Viral (2010s); Scream VI (2020s); Meta Challenges: Geography Lesson: 4/5 - The Invisible Man's Revenge (North America); Evil Ed (Europe); Man Thing (Australia/Oceania); Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (Asia);
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2023 04:01
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Wait Rankin? Bass? The throws folk music in all their cartoons Hobbit people? They almost made a Godzilla movie? They apparently made a King Kong cartoon and wanted to bring him back to the big screen to coincide. And that's what the movie was originally gonna be. But Toho was insistent on Jun Fukuda directing and Rankin-Bass were insistent on Ishiro Honda soRankin/Bass pulled out and took King Kong with him. So Toho replaced him with Godzilla. Rankin/Bass would then work with Toho and Honda to make King Kong Escapes a year later. History is crazy.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2023 06:19
|
|
|
 - (30). Extraterrestrial (2014) Directed by Colin Minihan; Written by The Vicious Brothers (Colin Minihan and Stuart Ortiz) “This is hosed up.” I used to be really into the Vicious Brothers but I think they kind of vibe a little too mean for me as I get older and less game for all the meanness and "humor" around. Still. Minihan and Ortiz make pretty good films. They're a very below the radar duo in horror and its kind of odd. Grave Encounters is kind of a low key cult classic I think but it seems like the rest of their stuff has kind of been overlooked as is they're pretty consistent rate of turnout. Then again they did get one of the recent remake/reboot/requel movies that got real popular lately. Then again of all the franchises they drew Urban Legends. So still kind of getting the short stick. But I digress. Extraterrestrial is a pretty good movie that very cleverly mashes up the classic cabin in the woods horror movie with the classic alien abduction movie. The result is a fast paced, tense, and pretty vicious ride. If you've seen some of the Vicious Brothers' films you'll recognize their regular cast members like Brittany Allen and Sean Rogerson. There's also a few nice larger than cameo appearances from names like Michael Ironside, Gil Bellows, and Emily Perkins. And I really liked Melanie Papalia. She's got spunk. Its a good cast that help out some fairly shallow characters. And there's like that one really annoying douchebag as always. The film looks good with tons of effective merging of those two alien abduction/cabin in the woods things. And its not just fast. Its mean. Maybe too mean. Well that's a matter of taste. But its mean. Like the ending is real mean. The whole last third of the film is mean as gently caress. Just kick to the nuts after kick to the nuts. And that's where I do think the Vicious Brothers stuff ages a little for me and just feels like the unrelenting meanness I'm trying to get away from. But lord knows I seem to be the exception to that these days, especially online. So I imagine for a lot of people they'd have a ball with just how mean and juvenile this film really is. But I guess what else can you expect from some dudes who call themselves the Vicious Brothers?  21 (31). Blood Moon (2014) Directed by Jeremy Wooding; Written by Alan Wightman Watched on Freevee This is a technically well enough made film. Everything and everyone looks good. It plays like a bunch of British people putting on a western to such a broad and cliched degree that it borders on parody. The man in black and saloon madame in particular just feel like caricatures rather than real characters or people. He's such a silly dry silent bad rear end and she never stops saying witty audacious things. Its all quite stupid. Also that one crook is speaking at such a low bad guy baritone that I bet his throat hurt. This must be what non-Americans feel like whenever they watch a bunch of Americans put on accents and play another culture. Its all quite silly played against its all very serious and competent western motif. But really the problem is its just not very good. The story is weak and nothing feels terribly consequential. The characters are weak. Everything is just a trope of better westerns you've seen. And the werewolves barely show up. And when they do the limited budget shows itself as they have to actively avoid any of the actual pivotal action or kill blows either because they can't afford it or because British censors wouldn't allow it. I don't know. But maybe don't mash up westerns and horror if you're not able or willing to go to the level of violence and gore that kind of demands. Its just a very dull and long feeling 90 minutes with few highlights. If you really love westerns or if you think you might get a kick out of watching a bunch of Brits and Australians play cowboys and... yeah, that's kind of a problematic element there too. But mostly its just not a very good execution of a kind of interesting premise.  22 (32). Son of Godzilla (1967) Directed by Jun Fukuda; Screenplay by Shinichi Sekizawa and Kazue Shiba Watched on HBOMax I really do enjoy how in this world Godzilla is just like something everyone is used to enough that you might just stubble across him napping on an island or flying across the ocean in the middle of the night and you're more or less unphased. Whoops, Godzilla. Best go around. Oh what's that? Some giant praying mantises bullying a newly hatched baby godzilla? Better set our equipment up somewhere else. HBOMax only had the english dub, which is unfortunate but what can you do? At least it helped my headache to not have to read so much. And while if we were closer to the original Godzilla film I might have sought out the original version to get the best version or at least intended version we're in silly Baby Godzilla territory now so like... whatever. The human story is nothing and silly as usual. The giant bugs and spider are just kind of there and pretty cool looking and all but nothing deeper. Its more kaiju fighting and I guess I get that at this stage it was just Toho being like "ok, we gotta make a Godzilla film every 6-12 months for Christmas" or whatever. I get it, I do. And they do seem to putting some effort into the new monsters and some kind of different wacky story each time. But they're definitely not the draw and I doubt they ever were. Its obviously about Baby Godzilla. And he's pretty cute, I admit. They went fully for it with him just being a toddler playing around and scared and poo poo and it kind of worked. I think I believe in that guy's character more than any of the humans. And Godzilla's basically going through the standard "immature rear end in a top hat becomes a father and has to grow up" movie. So I guess this might be his actual face turn? He only demolished one human settlement and probably only killed a few people this time. That's progress? I'm not sure there's enough of that for a whole movie but this one did feel like it balanced the kaiju stuff better. It felt like much more of the movie was either monsters fighting or Baby Godzilla being a kaiju toddler. Which is definitely better than some of the other movie's divide. So yeah, its an ok little Godzilla film. Now that we're full in the silly bad suits rolling out a new one every year phase expectations are set and this was a silly little goof. I had a good enough time even if it kinda was whatever. I guess it all comes down to if you find the kid cute or not. 🌼💀Spook-a-Doodle Half-Way-to-Halloween ’23: Spring Cleaning💀🌼 Watched - New (Total) - (1). Scream (1996); 1 (2). The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944); 2 (3). Viral (2016); - (4). Scream 2 (1997); 3 (5). Mostly Ghostly 3: One Night in Doom House (2016); 4 (6). Man-Thing (2005); - (7). Vampires (1998); - (8). Vampires: Los Muertos (2002); 5 (9). Vampires: The Turning (2005); 6 (10). Evil Ed (1995); - (11). Scream 3 (2000); 7 (12). Do You Like Hitchcock? (2005); 8 (13). Day of the Dead: Bloodline (2017); - (14). Scream 4 (2011); - (15). Scream (2022); 9 (16). This Island Earth (1955); 10 (17). A Field in England (2013); 11 (18). Scream: The Inside Story (2011); 12 (19). Scream VI (2023); 13 (20). My Best Friend’s Exorcism (2022); - (21). Fright Night (2011); - (22). Brain Damage (1988); 14 (23). Fright Night Part 2 (1988); 15 (24)Children of the Corn (2020); 16 (25). The Signal (2014); 17 (26). The Mole People (1956); 18 (27). Mom and Dad (2017); 19 (28). Big Legend (2018); 20 (29). Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (1966); - (30). Extraterrestrial (2014); 21 (31). Blood Moon (2014); 22 (32). Son of Godzilla (1967); Return of the Fallen: 4/13 - Viral; Day of the Dead: Bloodline; My Best Friend’s Exorcism; The Signal; Completed Collections: 5/13 - The Invisible Man; Mostly Ghostly; John Carpenter’s Vampires; Scream; Children of the Corn; Spook-A-Doodle Challenges: 7/13 - Day of the Dead: Bloodline (Challenge of the Dead); A Field in England (Horror High); Scream VI (Fresh Hell); Brain Damage (Second Chance); Children of the Corn ’20 (Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things); Big Legend (Tales from the Cryptids); Meta Challenges: History Lesson: 8/5 - The Invisible Man's Revenge (1940s); This Island Earth (1950s); Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (1960s); Fright Night Part 2 (1980s); Evil Ed (1990s); Man Thing (2000s); Viral (2010s); Scream VI (2020s); Meta Challenges: Geography Lesson: 4/5 - The Invisible Man's Revenge (North America); Evil Ed (Europe); Man Thing (Australia/Oceania); Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (Asia);
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2023 05:20
|
|
|
 23 (33). We Have a Ghost (2023) Written and directed by Christopher Landon Watched on Netflix Not bad really but kind of guilty of the usual sin of modern streaming stuff where it has less restrictions on what it needs to be and so it kind of feels like its trying to be too much. Like tightened up it would have made a fun 90 minute horror comedy kinda similar to Beetlejuice or something. Give Jennifer Coolidge a bigger role and just have fun. Maybe taken another route it could have leaned into the darker thing with the murder mystery and CIA stuff and whatever. But this feels like none of that stuff really has enough time to mean much so just kind of feels a little weird. A lot of this probably has to do with being adapted from a novel so it feels simultaneously overstuffed with all the chapters from the book but also shallow with all the stuff that got cut. That's just a guess but it would explain all these multiple sub plots that feel kind of unnecessary and undeveloped. And those problems seem compounded with the free reign of streaming where no one's ever saying "you gotta cut 20 minutes" so instead it becomes an extra 30. Still, I enjoyed a lot of it. I got some good laughs. Its a good cast and a simple enough if familiar story. But one that more or less works. I got a little tired of its length but not enough to want to turn it off or pause it or anything. But it doesn't have a strong enough narrative to really carry momentum the whole way and it feels like there's stuff left that they could have done more with. Or less. It just feels like it could have been a tighter, better, funner film. But it is what it is and that wasn't bad. gey muckle mowser posted:
 24 (34). American Carnage (2022) Directed by Diego Hallivis; Written by Diego Hallivis and Julio Hallivis Haters abound. All the reviews are all obsession on Jenna Ortega or the usual "every POC horror is a Get Out knockoff". The usual. Don't get me wrong I watched this for Ortega too but it was a pretty cool movie and in truth she ain't one of the leads. This is definitely a case of "hey, we made a movie with someone who just broke big, lets stick her front and center on the poster and make some money." But its a pretty cool and timely movie only slightly exaggerating the cruelty of which immigrants and dreamers are being treated in America loaded up with a talented diverse latinx cast that does a good job balancing the comedy and horror for a smooth watch. The twist isn't the most shocking thing and the movie isn't gonna change the world. But I thought it moved well with the good cast and a plot that never really stayed in one place too long but kept things moving. Probably not overly scary but not that kind of horror really. And I said the twist is predictable but really its kind of twist after twist after twist. And that's not like super clever or anything but it keeps everything moving well. The social commentary doesn't get any deeper than it has to. The racism we can see on the news every day, that the whole thing is really rigged to keep the status quo going exploiting people, a touch of the willful blindness of consumerism, and a little bit about the discarding of the elderly in there to boot. It ain't a thesis but its a lot of proper messages and vibes. And the core cast of Jorge Lendeborg Jr., Jenna Ortega, Allen Maldonado, and Bella Ortiz all step up to make it a good movie IMO. With a pretty fun ending. Not a home run but a very solid double.  25 (35). The Rental (2020) Directed by Dave Franco; Screenplay by Dave Franco and Joe Swanberg Watched on Netflix A horror written and directed by Dave Franco and Joe Swanberg and starring Allison Brie and Lip from Shameless is not a combination I can fully wrap my mind around. Nonetheless this is one of those movies that’s been dancing on the bubble of my watchlist the last couple of years so this is the month to just clean it out. In truth not the film I expected. With Brie and Franco involved I guess I just sort of expected it to kind of be a comedy, even if a Swanberg like dry one. I wasn’t super in the mood for something serious but that’s on me for not digging a little deeper. It was alright I guess. Its a day later and its already kind of faded for me. The cast is talented enough and its made well enough. The story is probably the issue. The majority of the film is devoted to these pretty unlikable folks on the most boring vacation as their obvious dysfunctions and betrayals play out. There's a decent tension and sinister feeling in the air but its not super clear where its going. Then it shifts kind of abruptly into its last act and that just feels kind of unearned and shallow. Its not really set up in any meaningful way, we're not given any information about this new element until the epilogue, and you just spent all this time making us dislike these characters due to their issues you now are not going to resolve. I'm not saying I cared deeply about their relationships nor do I wish any of them dead... but nothing feels fulfilled and satisfying. You just swerved us for the sake of it and I guess I'm kind of annoyed. Its not a clever enough twist to warrant it. And to be honest the fact taht Franco admits they were doing it this way to set up a potential sequel/franchise just annoys me. A second film would even probably be better because presumably we wouldn't have this fake out scenario. But using an hour of your film as a swerve to setup your villain for future movies is just... annoying. Yeah, I guess I'm annoyed. I didn't really feel that way last night when I finished it but now as I think back on it I kinda am. Its not terrible or anything but it just doesn't deliver enough to counter balance the negatives. 🌼💀Spook-a-Doodle Half-Way-to-Halloween ’23: Spring Cleaning💀🌼 Watched - New (Total) - (1). Scream (1996); 1 (2). The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944); 2 (3). Viral (2016); - (4). Scream 2 (1997); 3 (5). Mostly Ghostly 3: One Night in Doom House (2016); 4 (6). Man-Thing (2005); - (7). Vampires (1998); - (8). Vampires: Los Muertos (2002); 5 (9). Vampires: The Turning (2005); 6 (10). Evil Ed (1995); - (11). Scream 3 (2000); 7 (12). Do You Like Hitchcock? (2005); 8 (13). Day of the Dead: Bloodline (2017); - (14). Scream 4 (2011); - (15). Scream (2022); 9 (16). This Island Earth (1955); 10 (17). A Field in England (2013); 11 (18). Scream: The Inside Story (2011); 12 (19). Scream VI (2023); 13 (20). My Best Friend’s Exorcism (2022); - (21). Fright Night (2011); - (22). Brain Damage (1988); 14 (23). Fright Night Part 2 (1988); 15 (24)Children of the Corn (2020); 16 (25). The Signal (2014); 17 (26). The Mole People (1956); 18 (27). Mom and Dad (2017); 19 (28). Big Legend (2018); 20 (29). Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (1966); - (30). Extraterrestrial (2014); 21 (31). Blood Moon (2014); 22 (32). Son of Godzilla (1967); 23 (33). We Have a Ghost (2023); 24 (34). American Carnage (2022); 25 (35). The Rental (2020); Return of the Fallen: 5/13 - Viral; Day of the Dead: Bloodline; My Best Friend’s Exorcism; The Signal; We Have a Ghost; Completed Collections: 5/13 - The Invisible Man; Mostly Ghostly; John Carpenter’s Vampires; Scream; Children of the Corn; Spook-A-Doodle Challenges: 8/13 - Day of the Dead: Bloodline (Challenge of the Dead); A Field in England (Horror High); Scream VI (Fresh Hell); Brain Damage (Second Chance); Children of the Corn ’20 (Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things); Big Legend (Tales from the Cryptids); American Carnage (Woke in Fright); Meta Challenges: History Lesson: 8/5 - The Invisible Man's Revenge (1940s); This Island Earth (1950s); Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (1960s); Fright Night Part 2 (1980s); Evil Ed (1990s); Man Thing (2000s); Viral (2010s); Scream VI (2020s); Meta Challenges: Geography Lesson: 4/5 - The Invisible Man's Revenge (North America); Evil Ed (Europe); Man Thing (Australia/Oceania); Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (Asia);
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2023 06:00
|
|
|
 26 (36). Destroy All Monsters (1968) Directed by Ishirō Honda; Screenplay by Takeshi Kimura and Ishirō Honda Watched on Svengoolie Its what its all been building to! Its Godzilla Infinity War/Endgame! Its me almost finishing all the Svengoolies on my DVR! Feel the excitement! This era of Godzilla films is obviously a bit weird as the formula seems to have become that the studio doesn't think the monsters are enough so each film has a weird Star Trek/Bond film plot all its own. I guess its what was popular at the time and I can understand why they might have thought you can't just have monsters punching each other movie after movie. I'm all for building a story. But these stories feel very separate and odd. I mean they're related and are basically the reason the monster stuff is happening but its just odd. I guess if you were more into that goofy 60s sci fi stuff or grew up with it as a kid that all might be more fun but I'm mostly here for the monster stuff. I'll take some good human stuff if you got it... but this don't got it. So yeah the human/alien half of this movie just isn't very good. Its probably charming in its cheapness and dumbness to many but its also pretty boring for long stretches of time and doesn't like make me care about anyone or anything. I sorta felt bad for that guy who's girlfriend became an alien controlled mass murdering monster terrorist but then he violently assaulted her and it got weird. But the monster stuff is fun. And worth the price of admission. Getting all those monsters together and having them team up for destruction and then the big end fight is a real hoot. Its just fun to see monsters smash models and there's a good bit of that half way through this. And then the big final fight is such a good time I had myself rooting for monsters and poo poo. Anguirus is the clear MVP of that fight and Gorosaurus was dead weight. Why you dropkicking Gidorah, you moron? Bite! Anguirus has shown you the way! You're a big scary t-rex! Bite! But hey Manda and Baragon didn't even show up for the fight so at least you did. And man Godzilla Jr is adorable just cheering along with the whole thing. So yeah. Tale of two movies. Boring sci fi/human/alien thing. Very fun monster stuff. I could have definitely gone for more of the latter than the former but I had a good time especially with Svengoolie's goofiness. A good enough time that I think I might even try and complete this collection of Godzilla films this month. Its like 7 more films so its a lot but I think I'll plug away and see how long my interest holds. I'm having fun right now so let the train keep rolling.  - (37). Hellraiser (2022) Directed by David Bruckner; Screenplay by Ben Collins and Luke Piotrowski Still pretty good on a second watch. Its a good Hellraiser movie, which is either a low bar or a high achievement depending on how you look at it. Its obvious strength in that category is obviously that it IS a Hellraiser movie. Taking all the themes and elements and telling a new story instead of just shoving Pinhead into a random horror movie. But its well done too. David Bruckner has been making some good films and low key making a name for himself in horror and he not only makes a good Hellraiser movie here but adds some good character gravitas and stuff. Odessa A’zion is great in the main role as the far from perfect but also pretty sympathetic and good main character. I've seen criticisms that the character stuff is too rushed but given the film's length I'm not sure what you could do that wouldn't make this too long. I think the "problem" is that Bruckner does something here a lot of horror movies don't do and makes a circle of horror movie characters who give a poo poo about each other. That's kind of rare in horror. So often its stereotypes turning on each other or being catty or just being picked off fairly indifferent to one another. This one actually does have everyone act decent and human and give a poo poo. And that means we gotta kind of quickly introduce the relationships but I didn't have a problem with that. Actually something I really liked is that these weren't a close circle of friends. The one person who unites them goes pretty early. But they're all decent people so they don't abandon each other. There's a very natural sense of doing what's right. Which is a bit of an exception in horror and especially Hellraiser, a franchise kind of built on hedonistic, selfish, and sociopathic characters willing to screw anyone to get what they want. And we've got one of them too but we got our core cast of decent human beings and I liked them and gave a poo poo about them when evil kinky demons hosed with them. Maybe it tries to do a bit too much or with a bit too many characters? I dunno. I don't think so but like I guess the roommate is kind of undeveloped. But I dunno. I enjoy it, think it flows pretty well, and didn't mind the rewatch at all. Its not gonna change the world but its a pretty good movie in a franchise with very few pretty good movies. But hell even besides that its just pretty good.  27 (38). Oxygen (2021) Directed by Alexandre Aja; Written by Christie LeBlanc Watched on Netflix A super tense affair. It sounds super on the nose but I literally had trouble breathing through this film. Just heavy mouth breathing for like 90 minutes. Mélanie Laurent does a tremendous job carrying the full weight of the film and the impossible dilemma she's in and panic she's feeling and Alexandra Aja keeps the pace moving with new challenges and concerns so that a film focused on one actor in one place barely even moving doesn't ever get dull. Admittedly the harder sci fi turn the film takes lost me a tiny bit. Its just not my genre and those kinds of subjects don't interest me much. But I still think its handled well and I like the way Laurent's character deals with her existential dilemma in a very matter of fact and human way. "I'm not the one who did this to you!" Just yelling at the walls. I can relate. Yeah, so a good film. Well acted and well paced. Not the most shocking twists but not the most predictable film either. But I think the twists are secondary to the character. It doesn't matter whether or not I could see the plot beats going late because I was deeply invested in the plight of our character and the terror she's feeling. Not a film I'd watch again soon because I don't need that anxiety but one I'd definitely recommend.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2023 07:48
|
|
|
gey muckle mowser posted:
 28 (39). The House (2022) Directed by Emma de Swaef, Marc James Roels, Niki Lindroth von Bahr, and Paloma Baeza; Written by Enda Walsh; Story by Emma de Swaef, Marc James Roels, Niki Lindroth von Bahr, Johannes Nyholm, and Paloma Baeza Watched on Netflix Really good, really weird stop motion animated anthology. I watched this when I couldn't sleep and was a little loopy which only made it weirder. And while it is weird its sort of coherent enough to get a sense of what's going on. Kinda. There's a lot of themes here and they don't all feel like they necessarily fill out or close off. Although a really great credit song from Jarvis Cocker actually manages to bring it all together in a way that really made sense to me. The unifying link is just the various ways we over focus on the material and the ideal and lose sight of everything else including family and friends. "A home is a place love and life can mix, A house is nothing but a collection of bricks." I think what makes this unique aside from the very creep imagery is that it definitely feels like a collaborative effort. Its not an anthology made by one party or one that's a bunch of different things pieced together. There's clearly a shared idea here between all the creators at play. Its not always clear or neat but it all definitely feels like its working together towards some goal. I would agree with most that the second short is the relative weakest as there doesn't seem to be a clear morale or anything. Its much more of a dark comedic breather I think. The first short is intensely creepy and weird and I definitely get why its the favorite of most. Its unmistakably the most horror of the three and deeply unnerving on a lot of levels. So the almost goofy second one makes sense to me for relief. And then the last one might have actually been my favorite? People seem to dislike that its the least freaky and most clear but that's me. Narrative over vibes. It tells a simple story with a clear enough morale of letting go and appreciating what you have. Its just a very good anthology. All first time feature film directors so there's probably rough spots on all of them. But its a really unique and memorable entry. More freaky puppet horror please.  - (40). Blacula (1972) Directed by William Crain; Screenplay by Joan Torres, Raymond Koenig, and Richard Glouner You gotta love a 70s vampire movie because you can never tell if the vamps are wearing capes and Star Trek uniforms to fit their new lifestyle or to go clubbing. Some homophobia aside Blacula is a surprisingly sophisticated blaxploitation entry. Not at all the campy parody you expect from that name, it actually has real significance as the slave name that was given Mamuwalde when Dracula was trying to further dehumanize him. And its the name he finally uses when he accepts the monster he's become instead of the noble prince who was betrayed. His story follows the classic Stoker Dracula story a fair bit in the reincarnated love sense but it resonates a little more here since Dracula is always a dick and Mamuwalde really was hosed over. So even though he's out their killing folks and is definitely the bad guy you still can feel for him trying to regain what was stolen from him. Dracula really is a racist dick. He was a 18th century nobleman so it tracks. Good acting well above its standing from William Marshall. A fun vibe of style and music. A solid if uninventive story that's given a boost by the racial components. In a lot of ways this is a great showcase of the blaxploitation dilemma. You can see it for the stereotypes and problematic elements or you can see it for the most sophisticated test and subtext for black voices and artists. Its a good balance and a genuinely worthwhile piece of horror history all fans should see. And of corse the cop shot the wrong person.  29 (41). Mega Python vs. Gatoroid (2011) Directed by Mary Lambert; Written by Naomi Selfman This is bad. Real bad. I watched it while I was catching up on reviews and man I was disappointed when I finished and had to focus more on the film. Its really really bad. An Asylum SyFy channel film starring Tiffany and Debbie Gibson. I guess you can say this film knows its camp? But its not funny or anything. It really does seem to be trying to make us take some of this terrible CGI and acting seriously. I mean it doesn't think its gonna win an Oscar or anything. But it sure seems like... gently caress I dunno. I'm the doofus who watched this. What can I say? Its weird how little Debbie Gibson and Tiffany's characters seem to have rational human responses to stuff that happens. the whole film feels like an excuse to have the 80s pop stars have a catfight in their 40s as if we're fulfilling some horny teenager's wish from 1985. Its odd. The ladies do look good though so good for them. But its weird. Was someone asking for this still? Is somone gonna make a Brittney/Christina bad Asylum film soon? I dunno. I've never seen a Sharknado film so I'm clearly not the audience for this thing. I watched because it was Mary Lambert but she's really slumming here. This sure ain't gonna make me check out one of those films thought. And its gotta be bad for them, right? Like Sharknado has to be better than this, right? I honestly can't think of a single positive thing to say about this without being creepy towards Debbie Gibson. Which I guess I now have been so now I don't like myself any more than I like this film. The ladies did tour together after this so I guess something good came from it? Also there was never a giant monster fight. Which like... is the entire reason... its on the poster... what the hell, guys? Please god let this be the worst thing I watch this month. 🌼💀Spook-a-Doodle Half-Way-to-Halloween ’23: Spring Cleaning💀🌼 Watched - New (Total) - (1). Scream (1996); 1 (2). The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944); 2 (3). Viral (2016); - (4). Scream 2 (1997); 3 (5). Mostly Ghostly 3: One Night in Doom House (2016); 4 (6). Man-Thing (2005); - (7). Vampires (1998); - (8). Vampires: Los Muertos (2002); 5 (9). Vampires: The Turning (2005); 6 (10). Evil Ed (1995); - (11). Scream 3 (2000); 7 (12). Do You Like Hitchcock? (2005); 8 (13). Day of the Dead: Bloodline (2017); - (14). Scream 4 (2011); - (15). Scream (2022); 9 (16). This Island Earth (1955); 10 (17). A Field in England (2013); 11 (18). Scream: The Inside Story (2011); 12 (19). Scream VI (2023); 13 (20). My Best Friend’s Exorcism (2022); - (21). Fright Night (2011); - (22). Brain Damage (1988); 14 (23). Fright Night Part 2 (1988); 15 (24)Children of the Corn (2020); 16 (25). The Signal (2014); 17 (26). The Mole People (1956); 18 (27). Mom and Dad (2017); 19 (28). Big Legend (2018); 20 (29). Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (1966); - (30). Extraterrestrial (2014); 21 (31). Blood Moon (2014); 22 (32). Son of Godzilla (1967); 23 (33). We Have a Ghost (2023); 24 (34). American Carnage (2022); 25 (35). The Rental (2020); 26 (36). Destroy All Monsters (1968); - (37). Hellraiser (2022); 27 (38). Oxygen (2021); 28 (39). The House (2022); - (40). Blacula (1972); 29 (41). Mega Python vs. Gatoroid (2011); Return of the Fallen: 7/13 - Viral; Day of the Dead: Bloodline; My Best Friend’s Exorcism; The Signal; We Have a Ghost; Oxygen; Mega Python vs. Gatoroid; Completed Collections: 5/13 - The Invisible Man; Mostly Ghostly; John Carpenter’s Vampires; Scream; Children of the Corn; GMM Challenges: 9/13 - Day of the Dead: Bloodline (Challenge of the Dead); A Field in England (Horror High); Scream VI (Fresh Hell); Brain Damage (Second Chance); Children of the Corn ’20 (Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things); Big Legend (Tales from the Cryptids); American Carnage (Woke in Fright); The House (Drawn and Quartered) Meta Challenges: History Lesson: 8/5 - The Invisible Man's Revenge (1940s); This Island Earth (1950s); Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (1960s); Fright Night Part 2 (1980s); Evil Ed (1990s); Man Thing (2000s); Viral (2010s); Scream VI (2020s); Meta Challenges: Geography Lesson: 4/5 - The Invisible Man's Revenge (North America); Evil Ed (Europe); Man Thing (Australia/Oceania); Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (Asia);
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2023 08:49
|
|
|
 30 (42). Night Teeth (2021) Directed by Adam Randall; Written by Brent Dillon Watched on Netflix I largely enjoyed this although I do agree with those who say it lacks... bite. Bad puns for all. Its got a good cast, a slick and sexy look and vibe, a simple but cool world, a simple enough story. You could probably say its inspired to be Vampire John Wick in its world and maybe if it had leaned a little more into the world it was building it would have hit more? We really don't get to see any of the vampire structure. Megan Fox and that dude from Mad Men do little cameos but not much to it. And I loved the idea of this generations deep group of Boyle Heights protectors of their community who the vampires seemed to fear enough to hold a truce with. But again, we don't really see much of that handful of guys making a questionable run. And then there's like a whole other group of vampire hunters and some kind of drama between they who want to kill the vamps and the Boyle Heights crew who I guess just want to maintain peace. But this is just teased at without showing more. I these ways it reminded me a great deal of Day Shift, another stylish and solid Netflix vampire flick that feels like it builds a pretty interesting world that it just never digs deep enough into. And like that's a tough line because spending too much time on world building can take away from your core story. But I also think tossing too many ideas out there that don't get followed up on is kind of distracting in the same way. And whether that's a product of the streaming era where there's less editing of ideas and trimming of fat... or everyone trying to build a franchise... It has this negative affect where the film feels like there's more that just never comes. I did enjoy the core story though. Its my second Jorge Lendeborg Jr. film in a week and I really enjoy him as a likable, relatable lead. Its my first Debby Ryan movie but I enjoyed her, though she had solid chemistry, and I bought in with her as this kind of middle ground character who could be real bad, is real bad rear end, but might have the heart of gold. And Lucy Fry is solid as the psycho villain who you may be in more trouble with when she's nice to you than when she's mean. Its a solid crew and setup but it also feels like their story just kind of stalls out a little towards the end. I dunno. It followed through on the path it set and of course the real finale is with Victor and over everyone's fates. But I dunno. It did feel like it kind of meandered to that ending rather than build momentum. I dunno. I did mostly enjoy it though. I just kind of felt like there could have been more. Its hard these days not to assume that's just someone focusing more on building a franchise than one satisfying story but in this case its possible the film just suffered from its production being stalled by Covid? Or maybe its just as simple as a lot of ideas and not trimming them down enough to focus on 75% of it. It definitely feels like it could have been better, but I don't think that means it wasn't good. It just wasn't great.  31 (43). The Howling: Reborn (2011) Directed by Joe Nimziki; Screenplay by Joe Nimziki and James Robert Johnston A couple of years ago I watched the entire Howling franchise except this one because it wasn't freely available. And sure I could have sought it out but... I had just watched the entire Howling franchise. And its NOT good. I was very very ready for it to be over. But here I am with that one lingering movie and gotta close that book. And to be honest I think I may have seen this awhile back but I didn't remember it so yeah... And well actually its probably one of the better Howling movies. That's a low bar but like, its a mostly competent and watcheable werewolf movie. And its got like actual werewolves! That's not always a thing in Howling movies or werewolf movies in general. But this one's got full on, shameless werewolves and plenty of them. They're not great, but big points for just going for it. The big problem is obvious in how dated this is. It screams "Twilight for Werewolves." The tone, the soundtrack, the voiceovers, the adolescent malaise. Its all very of its time and feels dated. The film even directly references Twilight in that "no no, we're cool not like those other guys" sad way when its clear you're all kind of the same. Angsty teen melodrama with an inflated sense of poetry and purpose. And not the healthiest relationship. Although I actually really liked Lindsey Shaw. The lead is your usual boring generic lead dude and I can't even bother to look up his name. But I thought Shaw brought a cool energy to it where its not super clear if she's just a bratty rich girl playing with danger or genuinely kind of the girl who will get you in trouble. The film plays coy about who is a werewolf and who isn't and its all a little meh but she kind of pulls it off with her stares. I also just got done rewatching Banshee so it was nice seeing Ivana Miličević but like she doesn't get a lot to do and its kind of weird because she's gotta play that sexy sinister... mom? Its odd. I dunno. Its not a good film. Its not the worst film. Am I grading it on a curve because I was fearing much worse from a Howling movie? Maybe. But honestly it was watcheable and largely fine if just way, way outside its timezone and not nearly as cool as it thought it was. Its one of the more competent and at least understandable Howling sequel ideas and executions and considering the generally low bar for werewolf films in general not even standing out as bad for that. But its not a good film. And I think I'm mostly just happy that its all finally over. Wait... they're making another one? gently caress.  - (44). Let Me In (2010) Written and directed by Matt Reeves; Based on Let the Right One In by John Ajvide Lindqvist Watched on HBOMax I know the thing to do is to compare this to the original and i get that but its just not where I am. For one I don't mind remakes. And I understand English remakes. It branches out to a broader audience. Some people just can't or won't engage the same way with a movie in a foreign language. I watch them but there's still often a disconnect that comes from not understanding the language and reading a translation. You miss out on details and performances. So just taking the same story and doing it again with a different group of talented artists? I don't see the harm. Sometimes I like a good cover song or second cast Broadway show too. But also like it seems like I always watch the remake and the original a couple of years removed from each other so the comparisons aren't as sharp for me. I enjoy both films and think they do what they're doing well. But details of how one does certain things or what goes more than the other just don't stand out to me. It feels to me like this version goes a little more overt on the idea of the circular nature of Owen's beginning and Father's end. That Father was probably once too a lonely and troubled boy that Abby seduced into her world to serve her. And that Owen's story too will end with him being a lonely, disturbed, and troubled man who's story can only end in violence and probably Abby sucking him dry. And there's that unspoken but obviously present question of the sexual and romantic nature of all of this. At what point does the cutesy romance between two "children" become something much creepier? Although at its core I think the real heart of this story is a kind of deconstruction of the entire romantic vampire thing. Because this relationship is always creepy. Abby is never a girl. She's always a god knows how old predator manipulating Owen. And I think it really is at its core kind of going at all those Twilight and Interview With a Vampire and Buffy stuff that plays the vampire as so romantic. And I mean the romantic stuff goes back to Bram Stoker and Dracula but it does feel like in the modern era of vampire films there was a super heavy focus on that teen fantasy element that is really kind of creepy. And it feels like maybe vampire stuff is getting away from that now and more into the truer nature under the glitter and pretty faces. And Let The Right One In/Let Me In feels like it deliberately sets up the story with children and an old man to really showcase that and tell us. Abby may look and act like a child, but she's a monster and predator. Its deeply disturbing and unnerving. And I think its probably as good as the original or close? Its close enough to warrant exposing the story to people who wouldn't or can't watch the original. I know people who just plain can't keep up with subtitles. And this is a talented cast and crew including two excellent child actors who have rounded into very good and accomplished adult actors. So its some quality stuff. Maybe not up to the original, maybe not worth your time if you feel that did everything you think it needed to. But really very good in its own right.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2023 06:41
|
|
|
I am completely out of control. Send help.  - (45). The Ghost and Mr. Chicken (1966) Directed by Alan Rafkin; Written by Jim Fritzell and Everett Greenbaum Watched on Svengoolie on MeTV I'd seen this before but with my playoff teams eliminated and me recovering from being sick I was enjoying a really beautiful day and was caught up on Svengoolie for once and happened to be watching nothing at 8PM so I actually watched Svengoolie live! Well... on DVR delay but I finished at the same time he did. And really it was a totally light and fun pleasant watch for my pleasant day. Exactly what I was looking for and what Svengoolie does best. Just goofing around with this old film and giving us little details about the cast and production. And a bunch of corny jokes to go with the corny jokes in the film. I don't think the story or movie is really amazing or anything but Don Knotts was just so drat good at what he did. No one did awkward and scared like him. He could just make everything shake at once in different vibrations. He's was a really gifted physical comedian and athlete. When he's running through the house his legs move in a way I really don't think I could make my legs move if I tried. He's just basically a living cartoon. Its wonderful. And I'm amused remembering the bit about how they dressed Joan Staley down because she was just too drat beautiful and sexy to work as Don Knotts' love interest. And like... yeah... no fooling. Even Don had to own it. "An average guy like me and an above average girl like you." Fo sho. Its a fun goofy little Scooby Doo story. Probably just too past its time for most modern audiences but just kind of perfect for the Svengoolie show or the mood I'm sometimes in to just be my dorky dad. Ain't nothing wrong with some good wholesome fun now and then.  - (46). Hatchet (2006) Written and directed by Adam Green Watched on Hoopla I was gonna watch Victor Crowley to just finish this franchise for good and never think of it again. And then I remembered who I am. I didn't really remember the Hatchet movies. Its been years. Pre-Letterboxd so I don't have reviews up. Can't even remind myself. So I did it... I started a full rewatch. God save me from myself. And the first one doesn't even have Danielle Harris! This might have been both worse and better than I remembered it. Its really stupid and its sense of humor is of that very early 2000s mean and edgy type. Its also obviously a very tongue in cheek attempt to make a very broad 80s slasher and like... that's not my thing but I get it. It is other people's thing. And its just kind of an unabashed full out red meat slasher of the 80s type for better and worse. That's not a genre I enjoy nor an era I want back but obviously there is an audience for it and that's fine. It wasn't unwatcheable though. The cast is competent and I enjoyed Parry Shen's totally shameless and corny as hell tour guide. Shamelessly corny. That's my sense of humor. Although once he drops the act and puts on the accent its a little... questionable. But again, that edgy early 2000s humor. There are bouts of cleverness and funny here. I get the sense that if Green wanted to make something just a little more clever he probably could. But its pretty lowest common denominator and broad for the most part and that's clearly all intentional. It is what it is. I'm sure there's an audience and I ain't gonna look down on them. You wanna see a generic slasher monster literally rip limbs off generic staple characters for no good reason? Don't mind or want that unPC 80s sensibility and problematic gags and ideas like the "deformed" child being a monster or heavy ethnic accents? Adam Green has got you. And it doesn't really ever go too far over the line to bug someone like me. Its tight and pretty to the point so its all pretty watcheable. I definitely didn't think it was good, even for what it set out to be. But it set out to be something it mostly is so there you go. At least I have Danielle Harris to look forward to in the sequels. At least that’s what I tell myself to justify my decision.  32 (47). Return to Sleepaway Camp (2008) Written and directed by Robert Hiltzik This is pretty bad. Its not like noteworthily bad. I'm pretty sure Hiltzik is trying to be a little broad but it doesn't graduate to full on camp. It feels like its him trying to sincerely make a sequel to his original cult classic. Problem is it feels very out of its time. It feels like a guy who last made a film in the 80s trying to make something for characters 25 years later. Its not very smooth. Like the entire core story is built around every single character in the film being incredibly cruel bullies to a completely over the top mess of a character who is "special". Maybe not overtly so but the movie directly uses that word to describe its overweight, bad hygiene, socially awkward, quick to anger, main character. And the movie's entire response is to just keep piling on and being as cruel as possible. Its all very, very, very mean in a kind of very distasteful way. Now that's obviously gonna work for some people. And I guess its sort of the point. I dunno. Its just really badly done. Maybe the weirdest part of the film was when the one character who is actually human to the kid is then attacked and suspected as the killer for actually being loving human. And again... its deliberate. The character doing so is clearly deranged. But its just a very mean and unpleasant time. An hour in I decided I was rooting for the smelly kid to just kill everyone. They kind of deserved it. Mostly its just not very good. Its not terribly well acted or written or directed. The surprise reveal is telegraphed pretty hard and not a surprise at all. Like really you have to really, really not be trying to not guess it. And I never try and guess the mystery in a movie. But this was plain as day. About the most memorable thing from this is the choice to cast Isaac Hayes literally as Chef. Like with the outfit and everything. Which I guess was kind of funny in 2003 when they made this? Its probably one of the few times the film felt like it went full camp instead of just broad. Which isn't to say its especially good. Its just like the only memorable thing. Its just a lot of nothing. Nothing terribly creative or clever or different. Everything feeling kind of just recycled from glory days. It was delayed for like 5 years supposedly because they kept tinkering with the CGI but to be honest it just kind of feels like maybe they knew they had a lot of nothing and just spent five years trying to figure out how to make it more interesting. But ultimately its just not. Maybe if you love the original its worth it for the few nostalgia notes and returning characters but like... its just not good and drags bad. And is quite possible one of the meanest films I've ever seen. 🌼💀Spook-a-Doodle Half-Way-to-Halloween ’23: Spring Cleaning💀🌼 Watched - New (Total) - (1). Scream (1996); 1 (2). The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944); 2 (3). Viral (2016); - (4). Scream 2 (1997); 3 (5). Mostly Ghostly 3: One Night in Doom House (2016); 4 (6). Man-Thing (2005); - (7). Vampires (1998); - (8). Vampires: Los Muertos (2002); 5 (9). Vampires: The Turning (2005); 6 (10). Evil Ed (1995); - (11). Scream 3 (2000); 7 (12). Do You Like Hitchcock? (2005); 8 (13). Day of the Dead: Bloodline (2017); - (14). Scream 4 (2011); - (15). Scream (2022); 9 (16). This Island Earth (1955); 10 (17). A Field in England (2013); 11 (18). Scream: The Inside Story (2011); 12 (19). Scream VI (2023); 13 (20). My Best Friend’s Exorcism (2022); - (21). Fright Night (2011); - (22). Brain Damage (1988); 14 (23). Fright Night Part 2 (1988); 15 (24)Children of the Corn (2020); 16 (25). The Signal (2014); 17 (26). The Mole People (1956); 18 (27). Mom and Dad (2017); 19 (28). Big Legend (2018); 20 (29). Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (1966); - (30). Extraterrestrial (2014); 21 (31). Blood Moon (2014); 22 (32). Son of Godzilla (1967); 23 (33). We Have a Ghost (2023); 24 (34). American Carnage (2022); 25 (35). The Rental (2020); 26 (36). Destroy All Monsters (1968); - (37). Hellraiser (2022); 27 (38). Oxygen (2021); 28 (39). The House (2022); - (40). Blacula (1972); 29 (41). Mega Python vs. Gatoroid (2011); 30 (42). Night Teeth (2021); 31 (43). The Howling: Reborn (2011); - (44). Let Me In (2010); - (45). The Ghost and Mr. Chicken (1966); - (46). Hatchet (2006); 32 (47). Return to Sleepaway Camp (2008); Return of the Fallen: 7/13 - Viral; Day of the Dead: Bloodline; My Best Friend’s Exorcism; The Signal; We Have a Ghost; Oxygen; Mega Python vs. Gatoroid; Completed Collections: 7/13 - The Invisible Man; Mostly Ghostly; John Carpenter’s Vampires; Scream; Children of the Corn; The Howling; Sleepaway Camp; GMM Challenges: 9/13 - Day of the Dead: Bloodline (Challenge of the Dead); A Field in England (Horror High); Scream VI (Fresh Hell); Brain Damage (Second Chance); Children of the Corn ’20 (Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things); Big Legend (Tales from the Cryptids); American Carnage (Woke in Fright); The House (Drawn and Quartered) Meta Challenges: History Lesson: 8/5 - The Invisible Man's Revenge (1940s); This Island Earth (1950s); Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (1960s); Fright Night Part 2 (1980s); Evil Ed (1990s); Man Thing (2000s); Viral (2010s); Scream VI (2020s); Meta Challenges: Geography Lesson: 4/5 - The Invisible Man's Revenge (North America); Evil Ed (Europe); Man Thing (Australia/Oceania); Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (Asia);
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2023 07:59
|
|
|
50 films. Just completely out of control. 33 (48). Hatchet II (2010) Written and directed by Adam Green Watched on Amazon Prime Better than the first one by sheer virtue of Tony Todd getting a full starring role rather than a 1 minute cameo. This one is generally better in that regard in forgoing the cutesy cameos and actually just giving the horror names an actual starring role... for better or worse. Danielle Harris, Tom Holland, Kane Hodder. They're all called to act here and well... Holland isn't a good actor. I love Harris but she makes some choices here with her accent and the tone of her acting. In fairness I can't blame her for not really knowing what is expected here for a film that is simultaneously a complete camp lark and 80s pastiche but also tries to be the real deal. Harris is asked to play a melodramatic role so she plays it and because so much of the rest of the film is either goofy or just poorly acted she stands out as a rather over the top marker. Its weird but I blame the director more than the actor. This movie's just kind of all over the place. If it were funny I'd probably enjoy it more but most of the jokes are just some variation of a sex joke. Victor Crowley has deep sexual issues because he sure does like murdering people in sexually suggestive ways. Its weirder than it is funny, IMO. But your mileage may vary. I watched it late last night and honestly I've already forgotten a lot of it. There's just not a lot there. The Crowley stuff is all very generic and the supporting cast is just there to die in true 80s slasher fashion. Which is a shame because they actually seemed decent but they only had enough character for you to recognize who was dying randomly and pointlessly. They're cannon fodder. But its at least quick and to the point. They don't waste much time and Todd effectively delivering 90% of the exposition helps a lot. Obviously there's an audience for both this slasher homage/revival and Green's juvenile sense and gross of humor. It just ain't me. Sadly I am the audience for horror cameos and slavish devotion to finishing a franchise.  - (49). Signs (2002) Written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan Watched on HBOMax Its been a long time since I saw this so I was unsure if it would hold up. A lot's happened since then including us finding out what a piece of poo poo Mel Gibson is and M Night Shyamalan's career becoming a bit of a polarizing joke at times. I worried that too much baggage and too many crutches would show up here. And when the film opened with the over the top melodramatic credits I feared the worst. But this still worked for me. Night's jokes here landed for me unlike in many of his other films and they don't come at the expense of the tension and genuine chills. The twist is a little silly of course but thankfully this is early in Shyamalan's career where that felt less driven by a need to be weird or shocking and more just fitting the story and theme. And ok, the theme here is hokey but its harmless hokey. "Everything happens for a reason". I was discussing earlier how I find much sci fi philosophy very shallow and vacuous like that of a college freshman who is convinced that because they're having these thoughts for the first time it must be the first time someone's having them. But Night's stuff is more like a bumper sticker. Its simple and cheesy but its fine. And the monologue Gibson gives his brother midway through is a very good one to set the whole thing up. And ultimately it doesn't really matter, right? Signs or coincidences. Its just what you make of it and what you need. And the real emotional punch of that isn't actually the water or the bat, its the asthma. And I'm willing to admit that gave me chills and feels. It worked. Its well set up, well acted, and well written. And even if the CGI alien is a little wonky and we only get so much actual action that works because the fear isn't really about the real threat at play. Its the abject fear of regular people helplessly dealing with the unknown and impossible. The sheer panic and "what the gently caress do we do?" that would result from something as world changing as this happening. Told on a very small and simple level its very effective. Like watching people prepare for a hurricane x100. And played in parallel to the change of life of grief and loss it all just really works well. So I may hate Mel Gibson and I may think Shyamalan kind of jumped the shark awhile ago but when he works he works. And its funny because I recently watched A Knock At The Cabin and really didn't like it at all but in many ways it just feels like a bad retread of many of the ideas here. That could have worked against it too but nope. I just ended up really, really liking Signs still 20 years later.  34 (50). Evil Dead Rise (2023) Written and directed by Lee Cronin At least a teenage boy has a good excuse for opening the book. He's a teenage boy. He's supposed to be that stupid. Really, really dug that. Does not mess around and does not hold back at all. Mean and nasty and balls to the wall. The common complaint seems to be the same one levied against the 2013 film that its not enough like the campier place that the franchise ended up in with Army of Darkness and Ash vs the Evil Dead... or even Evil Dead 2. But I think both films feel true to the original tone of The Evil Dead and Raimi's sensibility. And Rise plays plenty of tribute to the franchise and Raimi but its also here telling its own story, which is good. Just like with '13 I think its much better that these films do their own thing than try and recreate the magic of Raimi and Campbell. And really for me the outline here is simple. Some idiot finds the book and reads from it, some poor bastards get possessed, Deadites wreck havoc and are total assholes while doing it, a lot of people die bloody and painful, and some unlucky SOB has to find a chainsaw. Lily Sullivan's Beth is probably not quite as memorable as Campbell's Ash or Jane Levy's Mia but that's a pretty big bar IMO. I think Sullivan is very good. And its really Alyssa Sutherland who steals the show and that's an angle that I don't feel like any of the Evil Deads have really played with quite to this degree. And that's part of what I think definitely made this feel like a proper Evil Dead film to me. Its referential and true to the franchise plenty but its also new and innovative in a lot of ways. I was particularly a fan of the entire act of the movie just observed through the peep hole. Which gets to another thing people were critical of that I really liked, the apartment setting. I guess people were bothered that they weren't like roving multiple floors and dozens of residents but I thought they really used the apartment setting well within their small story. Yes there could have been a bigger crazier thing but that would have been an entirely different movie. And honestly I wonder how many people who have that criticism have lived in apartments. A floor very much is its own world in and of itself and I think the film did a solid job with that with the neighbors being about exactly as deep as I felt they should be to feel like real people but not take time away from the family story. If you think Evil Dead has to be the camp of Ash then this is definitely not gonna satisfy you. If you think things are "CW" when there's pretty characters with relationships who have feelings about when bad things happen to each other then you might not like this. But I think this felt very much in line with '13 and the original film to me. So much so that I'm thinking of going backwards and rewatching them just to assure my memory is solid. And because I'm down to watch more idiots open the book and let hell loose. I hope they make a bunch more of these because the world is filled with idiots and the story and horror possibilities are only limited by the creativity of the artists involved. Groovy.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2023 05:12
|
|
|
 35 (51). Alice, Sweet Alice (1976) Directed by Alfred Sole; Written by Rosemary Ritvo and Alfred Sole Watched on Kanopy Its a Video Nasty, "American giallo", and "proto slasher" and I hate all those three things so It should come as no surprise I hated this. But I was actually coming in with some genuine open mindedness. Mainly because as much as I dislike giallo and slashers its mostly because of the derivative elements of the lesser majority. I find that the ealry stuff, the trailblazer that help shape a sub genre or fad often are way better. They're the films that did something new and different so well that it bore off a whole sub genre of imitators. And a Video Nasty is just sort of a generic label. It doesn't say whether a film is good or bad, just that it has some kind of offensive content. But I do find that much of the video nasty films kind of don't have much to show for them but the offensive stuff. But this one is a heavily praised, highly rated, cult classic so I was game. But I hated it. Mostly I was just kind of bored. So bored I paused to do my laundry. I don't really know what I was supposed to get from this besides that the director super hates Catholics. More on that later. The key mystery/thriller just didn't feel terribly eery or anything. It seemed much more focused on that Catholic stuff or the parents' bad divorce or just the kid's mental state. And I guess that's the point but it didn't feel like an especially good exploration of any of these things and I couldn't figure out what the focus was supposed to be. And then weirdly the movie resolves its mystery with like half an hour left. Ok? Maybe that will go somewhere? Nope. Just kind of more Catholic hate? Ok full disclosure, I'm what one calls a laxed Catholic. I was raised and educated Catholic but I've fallen out of practice. I believe in the core principles and values I was taught of service, kindness, love, forgiveness, charity. I don't know about the rest. And there's plenty of reason to be mad at Catholics whether its the Vatican doing bad poo poo or your local priest being an rear end in a top hat. From bad politics to rampant abuse and cover up, there's definitely reasons to be mad and being as familiar as I am with the Catholic Church I bet I have more reason than most who hate it. But there's really nothing here. Like the film doesn't seem to be saying anything. It just really really doesn't like Catholics. And I read the director's backstory so its clear that's much more of a personal hatred than it is any kind of idealogical one. And that makes sense. Because there's just not any substance to this stuff that I can tell. And look, dude did some hosed up poo poo, pissed off his local Catholic church, and they pushed prosecutors to make your life miserable. That's grounds to be mad. But that's people being lovely to each other. It ain't something deeper. And you definitely started it. But that's neither here nor there. I don't want to get into the questionable prosecutions around Alfred Sole's problematic incest necrophilia porn with iffy real cast and crew ideas of consent and usage of minors. Lets not open that can, I just got over the bad mood it put me in. But I didn't like this movie before I went looking for backstory and analysis to see what I may have missed in it. And honestly even without that stuff I just didn't feel like I got any substance from what others read. Yes its anti Catholic. Yes it seems to put a lot of blame on broken families. Maybe its got ideas of gender stuff? I'm less convinced of that. But is there any depth or insight here? Or even thought provoking starter questions? The 70s feels like it has a lot of this stuff. I guess people were really feeling the family and societal strife. Vietnam, civil rights, sexual revolution, etc. Ok. But I dunno. I just didn't get anything from this. It feels like it comes from a specific kind of sub sub genre of like middle class 70s angst or something. I dunno. But I'm not feeling it at all. And you throw in weird pointless poo poo like pedophiles and weird child sexuality stuff you lose me completely. gey muckle mowser posted:
 36 (52). Incantation (2022) Directed by Kevin Ko; Screenplay by Chang Che-wei and Kevin Ko Watched on Netflix Not a bad film. Its definitely got a lot of creepiness and a very emotional core story and solid performance from the lead. Its choice to tell the story through found footage and non linear ways is kind if disorientating. Others have said that it doesn't exactly follow found footage "rules". Like it gives some reasons for stuff but there's also a lot of angles and editing and stuff. I can't say I'm bothered by that but it was a very busy distraction. And then the non linear stuff adds more business. I can see why they chose to tell the story this way to preserve mysteries and big stuff but its just a lot. I think found footage works best with a simple story to give it a more intimate look and cover up some flaws. When you have a script like this that has so much going on and so many details and characters and acts it just kind of becomes messy I think. Still its a creepy film with some good stuff and even if it runs a little long and even if I was very tired and feeling terrible and hopped up on drowsy drugs I still stayed engaged to the end. Maybe all of that leaves my memory of details a little fuzzy or me not sure what to talk about but in the end its a decent film with a basic monster idea I always liked of like the kind of quasi Buddhist thing of thought/faith giving power to stuff being done pretty well. I do wish the film had found a cleaner way to tell the story but really not bad at all.  37 (53). All Monsters Attack (1969) Directed by Ishirō Honda; Screenplay by Shinichi Sekizawa Watched on HBOMax This movie is a fever dream. Or at least that's how it felt since I had been in pain for 24 hours and was filled with drugs and wasn't entirely sure I wasn't dreaming this entire film... which itself is a child's dream? What the hell is going on? And I appreciate the sentiment but I'm not sure smog is truly a worse monster than a rampaging fire breathing giant lizard destroying Tokyo. Godzilla killed a lot of people. Lets not whitewash that because he's a dad now. Ok, back to this weird kid dreaming his bully into a kaiju and him making friends to a talking Godzilla Jr so that Godzilla will kill his bully. Really, I can't tell if I imagined this or not. Ok so whether this is the product of Honda wanting to make a kid's movie or just the compromise of a low budget or both this is undeniably a weird film in a franchise that has a lot of weird films. I don't know if I think its the worst one but I'm not sure it isn't either. Its dumb. Mildly charming in its dumbness for a bit but that also kind of wears out. Had Honda come up with a good final act for this it might have come home. But its the kid being chased by wacky bank robbers in some Home Alone stuff while he imagines monsters giving him pep talks. Its weird. I get why Honda would remember this fondly. you make so many monster movies something different is gonna stand out and its a sweet idea. But like you shortchange the audience on the draw of monsters and don't really make a super great or different something else. You're gonna have some disappointed fans.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2023 05:12
|
|
|
I didn’t dig too deep but I got most of the info from this podcast summation. https://www.therialtoreport.com/2020/02/09/deep-sleep-3/ It does sound like the charges were largely trumped up “obscenity” stuff due to pressure from the community and church. It also seems apparent that Sole engaged in a pretty exploitative guerrilla filmmaking process that set his community against him. Sole himself is credited as admitting he employed minors on his crew to score it and showed them the movie over and over and that he purposely deceived family and friends about the full content of the film by filming the sex scenes entirely separate from the rest. I didn’t really dig deeper because I was mostly curious as to whether he just filmed a regular porn and the law came down unfairly on him or if he actually did skeevy things. It sounds like both are true to me. He did skeevy poo poo but the prosecution against him was clearly political in nature. But it did give me I think some context for his anti catholic tone and the weird sex stuff in the film. Edit: Which is not to say that I think the skeevy filming practices or petty crimes he committed warranted the prosecutions of him. Just that I think he sounds skeevy. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 14:41 on May 16, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2023 14:38
|
|
|
Shaman Tank Spec posted:As an aside, holy poo poo, I knew the name of the writer/director/actor, Rusty Cundieff, sounded familiar, but I had to go to IMDB to realize he was Ice Cold in Fear of a Black Hat. And Mark Christopher Lawrence from the same movie also pops up here! To be clear Rusty made Fear of a Black Hat too. Didn’t just star in it.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2023 16:44
|
|
|
 38 (54). Critters Attack! (2019) Directed by Bobby Miller; Written by Scott Lobdell Its a TV Movie Critters sequel like 30 years after the original that I didn't even know existed. I actually watched through the franchise a few years ago but didn't bother with the webisode one... which is apparently different from this one... but came out the same year. I dunno. Do I gotta add it to Letterboxd and watch that too? Yeah, maybe. Its kind of what you might expect. I happen to love Critters 2 but the rest ain't great. 3 and 4 in particular. So the expectations were low. Its like okish for what it is. The critters look pretty good even if they're kind of painfully immobile a lot of the time. The characters and story are pretty week. I actually did like the kid group by the end but it takes a long time to really get everything set up and going. The film feels like it moves very slowly and never really has a lot of bite. Pardon the pun. The TV budget and rating certainly is part of that but I also just thing the story kind of drags through cliches that don't ammount to much. And it was nice to see Dee Wallace back. Always good to see Aunt Dee. But she could have been worked a lot better into the film. That or kept as a surprise for the end. The way they do it where she is revealed early and then just disappears for a long time before she comes back for the finale just ends up making her feel absent. Its not the make or break of the film or anything but its definitely part of what kind of doesn't quite work. "Doesn't quite work" is probably the phrase I'm at. I love puppets and have a soft spot for Critters and this could have been a lot of fun. I was in the mood for this sort of thing for sure. And I didn't hate it or anything, But it never fully clicks. Ultimately it feels like a solid effort for what was given it but it still feels like a TV movie rolled out kind of cheap and dirty. With a little more money and effort it feels like it could have been stronger.  39 (55). Kids vs. Aliens (2022) Directed by Jason Eisener; Written by John Davies and Jason Eisener ”sigh loving teenagers…” This is a feature film adaption of the Alien Slumber Party scene from VHS2, a segment I mostly remember as being decent for its chaotic energy and fast pace. Here we do away with the found footage stuff and tell real story with characters and stuff and there's kind of a mixed bag of response. On one hand I did kind of like the main kids and I really enjoyed the mix of 80s kid energy. Neon colors, wrestling, dinosaurs, mad max type designs, lots of yelling, unsupervised children doing dangerous poo poo because of absent parents. It was all very 80s kid. Oh and the villainous teenage boy who is just a total loving psychopath. Very 80s. So the intent here is clear and I did have a lot of fun with it for awhile. I think things slow down in the middle as it tries to set up its story before the alien poo poo starts. There's where the cliche of everything kind of hurts things. Its not bad, its just not that interesting. And the film just slows down for awhile which doesn't benefit it. Starting fast, slowing down, and finishing fast is a tough road to go because that middle part might just be too much of a slow down for the momentum if its not really really interesting or good. But the last part speeds up a lot finishes decently well. I think there's probably both too many ideas in play with too little clear story. This would have made a very good hour and maybe a pretty good 1 and 45 minutes. But at 75 minutes or so it manages to sometimes feel like its padding stuff out and sometimes feel like its rushing ideas. But it feels like a labor of love and I did mostly enjoy myself. I wish I had enjoyed myself more but to be fair I was feeling very sick and tired and I went to sleep the second the movie ended. So some of its me. I liked the cast, I liked the style and look, I liked the basic idea. I had a solid amount of fun. I just think its a little rough around the edges.  40 (56). Siren (2016) Directed by Gregg Bishop; Written by Ben Collins and Luke Piotrowski; Based on "Amateur Night" by David Bruckner and Nicholas Tecosky Watched Kids vs Aliens which was a spinoff of the VHS series so decided to watch the other spinoff I’d been meaning to check out for years. It was alright I guess. It looks and feels cheap and kind of sneezy but that’s at least partially intentional or played into. The characters are nothing generic douche bros but again… leans into the story. Being story appropriate doesn’t make them characters any more interesting to follow but it does help accept the world building. This world building is a super skeezy underground night club that is actually like a demonic honeypot or something? The movie doesn’t exactly make that clear and I think that’s actually the most disappointing aspect. Ultimately the weird world of medusas and sirens and poo poo was much more interesting than some assholes getting hosed by gender dynamics karma. The story here is largely different from the short, mainly in that it has all that more interesting demonic night club stuff that doesn’t get explored enough. It does bring back the same actress from the short which is cool. She’s an effective monster even if the film doesn’t really write enough story for her. That’s kind of the weirdness I guess. There’s like two decent movie ideas here… maybe they’re the same one… but neither feels like its fleshed out with a good enough story. Its not terrible or anything. There’s enough good and promising stuff to kind of counter the boring or generic stuff. I don’t know if it fully balances out but its close depending on your tastes I guess. Or just your mood. I started watching this when I was feeling bad and bounced right off it. I then restarted it a few hours later when I was feeling better and engaged more. Still not a great or even especially good film. But it was catchable and not without some memorable stuff. But anthologies often work because they showcase ideas that aren’t deep enough to get a full feature. And the clear challenge in extending a short into a feature is finding that deepness to flesh it out. And this was kind of a valiant effort to basically build a whole new kind of interesting world to support it but still not really a strong enough story to make it work. Or maybe they just needed more engaging generic dudes?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2023 04:44
|
|
|
 - (57). Duel (1971) Directed by Steven Spielberg; Written by Richard Matheson I watched this back in February so I considered skipping it but the thing is the last/first time I watched it was on Svengoolie. And while I enjoyed it I also felt like the commercial breaks and corny jokes probably did the film a disservice as a tense thriller. Granted it was originally a TV movie anyway but still. I thought at the time I owed it a rewatch without the noise so now seemed as good a time as any. Besides its a very good hot day time horror. And yeah, i'm glad I did because I was right. It was a tenser and more flowing affair naturally. It also just looked better. Svengoolie must have shown the TV version because the theatrical version looked like a film more than I remembered. Then again maybe Sven showed the theatrical version because I had seen the school bus scene and apparently that was added for the extended version. So who knows? Ultimately its a very good, very tense, very well acted, very great stunt worked film for sure. A great first showing for a legend that clearly gives you hints of the classics to come. I don't think this is up to those classics but its drat good. I'm not a big car stunt guy so that probably holds it back a bit for me, but on the other hand that means it holding my attention the whole way as well as it does really speaks to how good not only those stunts were but how good the story those stunts were worked into was. Just a real good watch even for the second time in a few months. And good enough to make me think about working some Speilberg into my post May watchlist.  - (58). Hatchet III (2013) Directed by B. J. McDonnell; Written by Adam Green Watched on Amazon Prime Three days ago I made the decision to rewatch the entire Hatchet series. Then I got about as sick and in pain as I've ever been for the next few days. And once I was feeling better I watch the next Hatchet movie. Because I'm a glutton for punishment. I decided to rewatch these because I didn't remember much about them and wanted to get the story and characters and stuff. Joke's on me. This tired retread of tired retreads has nothing resembling a story or meaningful characters unless you count the gag of bringing Pary Shen back to play new characters each time or bringing in familiar faces from past horror films. I liked Shen in the first film but his roles/characters are increasingly nothing. The horror cameos are also dragging a bit with the dude from Gremlins and the lady from TCM2. Well Sid Haig is there which is something I guess. Was I supposed to know who Derek Mears is? It feels like we're really scraping to justify the gimmick here, guys. This is a dull affair. A nothing story. A forgettable cast. Danielle Harris returns but spends most of the movie handcuffed doing and saying nothing. I'm not saying she's a make or break part or anything but what's even the point of bringing her if you're not gonna use her? She got naked for this movie and you couldn't write her a real role? It feels like at this point Green has really lost sight of any parody he started with and is now just actually thinking Victor Crowley is an interesting character to continue. He's not. He's intentionally designed as generic as possible. Maybe Green isn't deluded and in love with his creation. Maybe its just that he's discovered the value of cheap slasher sequel cash ins. Either way this is a drag that doesn't feel like its got any real purpose for existing. The previous films were bad but I could kind of see their appeal for someone else. This? I don't know who this is made for. And somehow there's still another one left.  41 (59). Victor Crowley (2017) Written and directed by Adam Green Watched on Peacock Comedy is subjective. But man I found this painfully unfunny. I guess to its credit at least this once again feels like its back to being comedy as opposed to 3 which feels like they just forgot they were making a joke and started to think someone actually wanted more Victory Crowley lore. This is no longer a slasher parody. Now its just a slasher comedy. Technically I guess. There is slashing and Crowley but most of this is just unlikable people and juvenile comedy. I kind of liked the production crew. So they died unceremoniously so the unlikable people could yell at each other more. Because I guess that's funny? I dunno. Laura Ortiz was kind of decent as the smarmy best friend? But like she's got nothing really to do. Its a weird rear end not very good script. There's a pair of red herring subplots that just get derailed suddenly for a laugh I guess? And then again, its like 30 minutes of them standing in a small space yelling at each other. The whole thing seems like its intentionally backloaded for a gore fest in the final 20 minutes or so so the rest of the film is this kind of dragging dull really outdated comedy. Well again, subjective and all. I dunno. Its on me for watching 4 of these films. I can't blame anyone else. I guess Hatchet has an audience and Adam Green has a fanbase and I guess they're getting what they want. I dunno. At least I'm done. Of gently caress... a teaser for another one. Why do you do this to me, Danielle Harris? 🌼💀Spook-a-Doodle Half-Way-to-Halloween ’23: Spring Cleaning💀🌼 Watched - New (Total) - (1). Scream (1996); 1 (2). The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944); 2 (3). Viral (2016); - (4). Scream 2 (1997); 3 (5). Mostly Ghostly 3: One Night in Doom House (2016); 4 (6). Man-Thing (2005); - (7). Vampires (1998); - (8). Vampires: Los Muertos (2002); 5 (9). Vampires: The Turning (2005); 6 (10). Evil Ed (1995); - (11). Scream 3 (2000); 7 (12). Do You Like Hitchcock? (2005); 8 (13). Day of the Dead: Bloodline (2017); - (14). Scream 4 (2011); - (15). Scream (2022); 9 (16). This Island Earth (1955); 10 (17). A Field in England (2013); 11 (18). Scream: The Inside Story (2011); 12 (19). Scream VI (2023); 13 (20). My Best Friend’s Exorcism (2022); - (21). Fright Night (2011); - (22). Brain Damage (1988); 14 (23). Fright Night Part 2 (1988); 15 (24)Children of the Corn (2020); 16 (25). The Signal (2014); 17 (26). The Mole People (1956); 18 (27). Mom and Dad (2017); 19 (28). Big Legend (2018); 20 (29). Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (1966); - (30). Extraterrestrial (2014); 21 (31). Blood Moon (2014); 22 (32). Son of Godzilla (1967); 23 (33). We Have a Ghost (2023); 24 (34). American Carnage (2022); 25 (35). The Rental (2020); 26 (36). Destroy All Monsters (1968); - (37). Hellraiser (2022); 27 (38). Oxygen (2021); 28 (39). The House (2022); - (40). Blacula (1972); 29 (41). Mega Python vs. Gatoroid (2011); 30 (42). Night Teeth (2021); 31 (43). The Howling: Reborn (2011); - (44). Let Me In (2010); - (45). The Ghost and Mr. Chicken (1966); - (46). Hatchet (2006); 32 (47). Return to Sleepaway Camp (2008); 33 (48). Hatchet II (2010); - (49). Signs (2002); 34 (50). Evil Dead Rise (2023); 35 (51). Alice, Sweet Alice (1976); 36 (52). Incantation (2022); 37 (53). All Monsters Attack (1969); 38 (54). Critters Attack! (2019); 39 (55). Kids vs. Aliens (2022); 40 (56). Siren (2016); - (57). Duel (1971); - (58). Hatchet III (2013); 41 (59). Victor Crowley (2017); Return of the Fallen: 7/13 - Viral; Day of the Dead: Bloodline; My Best Friend’s Exorcism; The Signal; We Have a Ghost; Oxygen; Mega Python vs. Gatoroid; Completed Collections: 9/13 - The Invisible Man; Mostly Ghostly; John Carpenter’s Vampires; Scream; Children of the Corn; The Howling; Sleepaway Camp; Critters; Hatchet; GMM Challenges: 10/13 - Day of the Dead: Bloodline (Challenge of the Dead); A Field in England (Horror High); Scream VI (Fresh Hell); Brain Damage (Second Chance); Children of the Corn ’20 (Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things); Big Legend (Tales from the Cryptids); American Carnage (Woke in Fright); The House (Drawn and Quartered); Incantation (Holy Terror) Meta Challenges: History Lesson: 9/5 - The Invisible Man's Revenge (1940s); This Island Earth (1950s); Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (1960s); Alice, Sweet Alice (1970s); Fright Night Part 2 (1980s); Evil Ed (1990s); Man Thing (2000s); Viral (2010s); Scream VI (2020s); Meta Challenges: Geography Lesson: 4/5 - The Invisible Man's Revenge (North America); Evil Ed (Europe); Man Thing (Australia/Oceania); Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (Asia);
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2023 21:42
|
|
|
 42 (60). Mirrors (2008) Directed by Alexandre Aja; Screenplay by Alexandre Aja and Grégory Levasseur; Based on Into the Mirror by Kim Sung-ho Watched on HBOMax A pretty good if kinda weird film. This film was somehow both exactly what I should expect from the two main parts of it and also not at all what I expected. When I saw Keifer Sutherland in this and the basic plot summation I immediately assumed it would be a kind of cop thriller to capitalize off of 24's success, and it more or less was. But I'm watching it because its Alexandra Aja and he's known for making pretty gnarly, pretty gorey, pretty all out horror films. And it was that too. So while I was expecting something kind of tame instead its basically Jack Bauer falling head first into a full on horror film and getting more than what he was prepared for. Its an interesting mix. I never actually watched 24 and I think its entirely possible I haven't seen Keifer Sutherland in anything since the 80s. But Jack Bauer was pretty ever present so I was basically expecting him to cop around a ghost murder mystery or something. and that's more or less what we get for awhile. Kiefer is fine I guess but he plays it kind of weird. He plays it like I imagine Jack Bauer worked. He's not exactly a nice or stable dude, he yells a lot, does some really questionable poo poo, and screams "poo poo!" every time things go bad. I don't know why that amused me. He just yelled it so loud and forcefully. It wasn't what I expected. But again, kind of exactly what I feel like I should expect? The movie kind of takes a very sudden horror turn midway through with a bathtub scene. Its... a lot. Its a horror film up to this point but all of sudden its a HORROR scene. That quiet cop thriller ghost murder mystery gets a big blast of gore and from that point on poo poo gets increasingly horrory and gnarly and out of Jack's comfort zone (as he continues to yell "poo poo!"). It feels like Aja kind of intentionally played the game here riding the expectations of what a Jack Bauer horror would be and then gradually throwing him into what a Alexandra Aja horror is. Its a pretty fun ride and far from predictable. The film this ended up was nothing like what I went in expecting. I wouldn't call it a home run but its a pretty good and interesting watch. Like I'd just recommend it for the weird tonal play but I think there's some gore that really would please a lot of horror fans. Its not like all the way full on hardcore gore hound or anything. But its a unique balance that doesn't really pull its punches.  43 (61). Bloodrayne: The Third Reich (2010) Directed by Uwe Boll; Written by Michael Nachoff Watched on Amazon Prime On my journey to finish off Letterboxd Collections I've rewatched a few series I have regrets about. But even I'm not such a poor decision maker that I'm gonna rewatch a couple of Uwe Boll movies. So I don't really remember poo poo about Bloodrayne except that she's a Blade knockoff who bears an inconvenient amount of cleavage in really bad movies. I think that's enough. This isn't as bad as I was worried it would be, but its still real bad. The poor writing is never more apparent than when Bloodrayne is delivering her grade school philosophy journal monologues. I bet Uwe thought he was being deep. It really sometimes feel like the writing and acting is a high school play someone weirdly gave a movie budget too. This Bloodrayne is mildly better than the first one I think but its a nothing character. She has no depths or motivation or anything. She's as basic as the character starts with from a one line description. And easily none of the other characters are any better. Clint Howard seems to be having fun overacting as a nazi scientist and Micheal Pare is at least competent. Brendan Fletcher is a dude I feel like I've seen in a dozen things but can't remember a single role. But really they're all at the mercy of their terrible director and his bad script. Still its watcheable which I feel like puts it above the other two films. Its been 18 months since I watched 2 and 2 years since I watched the first one so maybe I'm wrong. But as I said I'm not rewatching these films. I'm not that much of a glutton for punishment. Oh hold on, its another ridiculously timed and over indulgent sex scene. About the only thing I enjoyed in this was how anticlimactic the final battle scene is. Its actually kind of hilarious. No, no, not enough to like this or make you think you should watch this. Please don't. I'm just glad I'm done.  44 (62). Run Sweetheart Run (2020) Directed by Shana Feste; Written by Shana Feste, Keith Josef Adkins, and Kellee Terrell Watched on Amazon Prime Not at all what I expected, even though the basic twist had kind of been spoiled for me. Still movie surprised me. Its a little rough around the edges. Its kind of campy, absurdist tone feels at odds with the very straight tone early on. The longer the film goes on the more I kind of started to get it. That this was the vibe we're going for but it did sort of feel like a push and pull. What we have is almost a kind of Odyssey by way of O Brothers Where Art Thou or Bible story by way Dogma or fairy tale by way of The Warriors. You get me? Like there's a real fantastical tone thats there but it doesn't feel like it comes to naturally, rather it feels like its fighting against the more simple tone of what the film looks like on the surface. And its got these themes about the patriarchy and misogyny for sure. And they're all a bit on the nose but that's obviously by design. But I really did dig the idea here. The ever evolving cast of characters Cherie encounters along her journey. The sinister bad guy performance of that guy from Game of Thrones. Ella Balinksi does a solid job holding down her end but she's given the tough task of being the straight man... err, woman... of the adventure. Like most in that roll I think she kind of ends up feeling lesser than but not because of any failing on her part. Just because everything else is so over the top in its own way or spectacle like that she's left carrying the bag. But she does a solid job at it. You kick some rear end, lady. So yeah, not quite a home run but I did really dig what it was going for and a lot of what it did. Maybe didn't all quite come together but I think it just could have used a tweak her or there or a fuller commitment to things going off the rails into the fantastical or absurd. But then again that probably would have pushed back against the intended setting and misdirect and metaphor... well not really a metaphor. Its all right there. But nothing wrong with that. All for more women and POC horror stories. Let the dudes who have dominated the genre for generations with misogynistic slashers and virgin final girls be on the other side for awhile and complain that there's too many "message" horrors. They just scared like you know who that the tide is shifting. Best run.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2023 07:06
|
|
|
 45 (63). Renfield (2023) Directed by Chris McKay; Screenplay by Ryan Ridley; Story by Robert Kirkman Everyone seems way down on this and the main complaint seems to be that there's not enough Cage Dracula but I mean... look at the name, guys. Its Renfield, not Dracula. And I actually really got a great kick out of the way it played around with the Universal Origin or the Hammer sequels. That's all kind of in the first 10 minutes and ok, I'm riding a really good short idea a little. But it was a great mood setter that really put me on board early. And then you got like Jean Ralphio screaming his rear end off. I was just having fun. And ska took a beating. There's a fair share of crowd pleasers here besides that internet meme guy. Look I like Cage fine and I think he's a very fun Dracula. But I judge the film for what it is... and what the name on the poster is. And actually there's more Cage in this than I expected. He's easily the secondary character at worst and there's more of him than Awkwafina. And he's great. And yeah ok, the Awkwafina cop stuff isn't the best and doesn't really feel like the story we want here. It definitely feels like a bit of a clumsy means to an end fir the plot. But I don't think its too bad nor that it takes up too much of the film. Mostly it sets up Awkwafina's family situation and motivation for the pivotal final act role. And ok, yeah. I don't hate Awkwafina the way many do but she definitely feels a bit of out of place here. But just little. I don't think she actually hurt the movie. Its more the choice to go with the cop plot when they probably could have made do with the core story of Renfield's own personal journey and Jean Ralpio and Shohreh Aghdashloo along with the support group. Its actually a very loaded and talented cast and I think that very much helps it past some of the rough spots of the script. But ultimately I guess you gotta feel the vibe or not. And yeah, ok, I totally get why people would have wanted to see that Universal or Hammer parodies they teased. But I didn't come in expecting either of those movies so I accepted them as just a hilarious bonus. Would those movies have been better than this one? Maybe. I don't know. But I enjoyed the movie I got. Nicholos Hoult is entertaining in the lead role, its maybe one of my favorite Nic Cage performances, and there's a loaded extended cast beyond Awkwafina who I also think is fine. Ultimately I had a really good time and was highly entertained. And that's all that really matters, right?  46 (64). Vampire's Kiss (1988) Directed by Robert Bierman; Written by Joseph Minion Watched on Hoopla Not at all what I expected. I watched this one off my list just because I enjoyed Cage as Dracula in Renfield and thought I'd finally check out that other Cage vampire film I'd heard so much about. But definitely not what I was expecting. Its probably not some kind of hot take for me to say that this film feels less like any kind of vampire story so much as it does feel like the daddy of American Psycho. I suppose when you get down to it American Psycho could certainly be looked at as a thematic vampire film at a certain angle so that makes it feel even more natural. But Cage could easily have been Patrick Bateman's terrible, absentee, abusive father. Just one of those one night stands. So yeah obviously this is about Cage's completely manic performance. And Nicolas Cage and manic performance is almost redundant at this stage but this is definitely a doozy. Completely deranged and absurd in a way that truly makes you wonder what the hell even possessed Cage and the director to do the things he's doing. María Conchita Alonso's fear and terror from him might as well been real. I can't imagine not being terrified by Cage in this. Its a wild ride for sure. I don't think I was as blown away as many but I'm not generally blown away by Cage or this kind of wild thing. But its good and engaging and certainly a memorable performance in a memorable career as well as what feels like an inspiration/prequel to another cult classic in American Psycho. Its certainly a film to watch. And to think I had long confused this with that one Jim Carey vampire teen comedy.  47 (65). The Attic (2007) Directed by Mary Lambert; Screenplay by Tom Malloy and Bob Reitano Not a good film, which is a shame. With Mary Lambert behind the camera and Elisabeth Moss in front of the camera I was hoping for something better. Not great, just a solid spooky film. Moss does a fine enough job and Lambert seems to do as well as she can with the flimsy budget and materials at hand. The real problem here feels in the script and overall writing. Its just a bad story. To start with the film spends no time at all establishing its characters or story. Its just right into things in opening minutes with the spooky poo poo happening before you barely even know anyone's name and Moss' character already being affected before the film even started. Its a weird choice that gives us no time to give a poo poo about these characters or know them before their lives get turned upside down. All we ever know Moss as is this isolated, disturbed young lady. All we know her parents as are these stressed people concerned and angry that their daughter is acting the way she is. It just doesn't work. Its also just kind of an unnecessarily confusing and janky story that drags. Having spent time getting to know our characters away from their haunting could have certainly helped the pacing of this film a lot but it also feels like the film spends a lot of its time and energy just kind of feeding red herrings and spooky mysteries to keep things going. And in the end the results aren't super shocking but they also don't make a lot of sense or come together in a satisfying way. Its just a bit of an uninspired mess. Script was written by the actor who also chose to play a developmentally disabled character. Which may have biased me against his decision making but does make me feel like most of this falls on him. Its a cheap film that does a lot of stuff badly. Mary Lambert doesn't seem to have as many hits on her resume as misses and there's probably at least a few directing choices that should fall on her. And no matter how good an actor Moss is and she's certainly of the caliber who could carry a film and she doesn't here. But in the end I just think its a real bad script above all else. Its just not a good story and you can't turn crap into a diamond even under the best of circumstances.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2023 06:24
|
|
|
 - (66). Monkey Shines (1988) Written and directed by George A. Romero; Based on Monkey Shines by Michael Stewart I watched this just over a year ago with friends and the weirdest thing is reading my old review I had a completely different interpretation of the film that time. Back then I thought the main guy was a total rear end in a top hat and that the whole thing was borderline metaphor or red herring about him being the bad guy. Like I really, really didn't like this guy. I actually sympathized with the guy more this time. He's definitely being an rear end in a top hat but I saw how lovely things were for him and how much the terrible circumstances and betrayals he was experiencing were just putting him in a terrible place. And the developing relationship with Ella just leaving him more and more isolated and angry. Not so much because she was necessarily influencing him but that they were influencing each other. That they were getting too co dependent and isolated from everyone else and things weren't going in a good direction. The supernatural/sci fi element is maybe a little low effort and it feels like the film could have been more as a full on metaphor and message film. I think this is kind of what I don't like about a lot of sci fi, that it feels like deeper human ideas often get sidelined for the science fiction. And maybe that's why I've had two completely opposite reactions to it. The ideas here of "animal instinct" and "sin" are overtly stated. A mad scientist messing with nature with terrible consequences. A man falling into a hole and wrestling with his nature and darker elements. Animal being used and experimented by man and turned into a "slave" thinking for itself and lashing out. Codependency of man and animal for better and worse affecting each other symbiotically. All these threads are here but it doesn't feel like they really get fleshed out because we're really focused on killer monkey finale! And don't get me wrong, its a good killer monkey finale. Its a good film. Jason Beghe is good in a role that asks a lot of him as a paraplegic going through some real highs and lows. I mean I guess it would be better if a real paraplegic had been given the opportunity but its the 80s. Speaking of A+ effort for the gratuitous sex scene. I mean yeah its pretty unnecessary and just kind of an excuse to get an actress to show her boobs and climax on camera for no great story reason. But its a creative one. I guess that's it. This is kind of a B horror film? But its a real effort one. I mean I guess it was actually one of Romero's first money studio films and obviously a big production especially with the live animals and puppet work so heavily used. But content wise you can kind of see why this sorta bombed. It looks goofy and B. But its obviously a film that Romero and everyone went into giving their best and coming out with a pretty good film. And certainly a unique one.  - Crooked House (2008) Directed by Damon Thomas; Written by Mark Gatiss Watched on Amazon Prime I guess this won’t technically count here since its actually a 90 minute 3 episode TV miniseries from the UK. Odd. But it was on my list for my challenge so its here unofficially. That was, you know... fine. Its a TV miniseries made up of 3 30 minute episodes but it actually plays much better as a 90 minute film. Its an anthology but the third episode is really kind of the wrap around paid off. The first two episodes are perfectly quant little british ghost stories. You know the type. Period pieces, snobbish Brits kind of asking for it, family secrets and terrible stories about the people who got devastated by the colonialists and capitalists, and some spooky ghosts. Nothing especially memorable or interesting but perfectly fine little British ghost stories that are eery in a way that is safe to watch with your kids around Christmas time as they seem to tend to do. So like I dunno. That does seem like a British tradition and these first two episodes probably would have been perfectly fine fill ins for tradition? But the third story pulls it together. The young man who has been excitedly eaten up these ghosts stories takes the next step in his bad decision tour and courts some ghost stories for himself. I know horror fans who insist they'd absolutely read out of any blood scripted book they find and open any forbidden door and that's basically who we got here. And he gets what he wants and follows down the road long past the point he should stop and then its too late and poo poo gets weird and hosed up. This feels much more heavy and much creepier than the previous pieces but it also works well for that because its those quaint British ghost stories that lulled our protagonist into his bad idea that this could be fun. And boy does that not work out for him. I don't think its great but for what it is its all perfectly fine. As I said I think it plays better in 90 minutes than 3 nights but its kind of a low level engagement either way. But its eery and simple and familiar but in a cozy way. And then it ends big and strong. Makes for a solid watch that lulls you in and then spooks you with the jump scare.  - (67). I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997) Directed by Jim Gillespie; Screenplay by Kevin Williamson; Based on I Know What You Did Last Summer by Lois Duncan Watched on Netflix 25 years ago I walked out of the theater and said I hated I Know What You Did Last Summer and that Kevin Williamson was a hack propped up by great directors. I've held this opinion ever since and come up against fans but I finally decided to revisit. And now I must say... I hate I Know What You Did Last Summer and think Kevin Williamson is a hack propped up by great directors. The first and maybe worst problem of the movie is that the characters are such loving assholes. Its not just that they're spoiled teens who treat everyone else like poo poo. Its not just that the entire premise of the film is that they murder a guy and ditch his body. They're just complete assholes even to each other. Now the story probably wants to and could do something with the idea of how the trauma of what they did rips them apart and destroys their relationships. But the film really doesn't do that. It introduces us to them as assholes, immediately does the deed, and then jumps forward to them after their relationships have deteriorated. So there's none of that. Its just assholes. And I read a little about the book and it feels like Williamson intentionally makes them bigger assholes. Like the book starts the year after with the kids being stalked, which inherently puts us in a position to sympathize. And when the book does reveal what the kids do they call an ambulance, they don't ditch the body. So like they're actually humans there. Here the movie just introduces us to under the worst conditions and then what? I didn't read the book so I can't say how it handles things but its gotta be better than this. You could say the idea is to make the protagonists unlikable enough that we don't feel bad for he slasher killing them. And maybe. Certainly that falls into the formula of the slashers Scream was trying to move away from where characters exist solely to die. But this movie has us spend time with our unlikable protagonists. And when the killer shows up the first thing he does is kill the kid they've been bullying. So what the hell? I truly can't tell where this film's sympathies lie at any given moment. By the end it sure seems to want to flip things back around to feeling for our protagonists but like... it doesn't work. They're still the spoiled assholes who treat everyone like poo poo and ran into a dude and ditched his body in the water. Nothing's changed. Apparently there's a cult following for Sarah Michelle Geller's character as having a well defined character. I didn't see it. Rather I think she stands out because she's the only one of the bunch who doesn't seem like a totally self absorbed sociopath. Gellar and Jennifer Love Hewitt are fine I guess. So are Prinze and Philipe. Lets be real, its a stunning cast of stars of the time put out there in tight clothes to sell as a slasher. They're not working with anything. The characters are shallow, unlikable, and stock. The dialogue at best bland and is occasionally deeply painful in its cheesy earnestness. And the story's just loving stupid. I mean really. If you think about it even a little bit its incredibly loving stupid. How the gently caress did the killer get a body and 100 crabs out of a trunk in a matter of minutes in broad daylight without even leaving a wet trunk? That's hardly the biggest problem but its emblematic of just how loving stupid this script really is when you think about it at all. And the final twist is not only dumb but it manages to completely invalidate the entire movie without actually doing the one thing it seems meant to do in alleviating guilt. Its just a loving disaster. This is a dogshit movie that works only as a nostalgia driven, horny as hell, brain dead slasher/murder mystery. Watch to see JLH get chased around by a guy with a hook while not wearing a bra. That's it. Otherwise the only redeeming quality of this film is exposing Kevin Williamson as a lovely writer when Wes Craven or even Robert Rodriguez isn't driving the car.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2023 04:26
|
|
|
 - (68). Annihilation (2018) Written and directed by Alex Garland; Based on Annihilation by Jeff VanderMeer Watched on Showtime I dunno, I just don't really get this. I mean I think I do. I don't think its terribly deep. I know people who love it and say it really touched them and I don't wanna take that away. Its cool it works for some people so well. I had a big review written for this last night that my laptop crashed and erased and I'm actually glad because it was kind of a mean rant about "sci fi fans" that was probably really unfair and just a group of people I made up in my head. I'm actually really glad there's an audience for this. For me it just bored the hell out of me. I don't know. I'm gonna try and do this without being mean. For me the problem with sci fi is often two things. One, I'm not really interested in the sci fi future elements that drive so many of these and enamor so many fans. Future worlds full of spaceship adventures or dystopian nightmares where the world has gone to hell on paths we're concerned with today. I just rather be here, now, I guess. The other thing is that these kinds of ideas and philosophical questions often come up in these films and are treated as very deep and serious elements but I find they're usually handled very shallowly without adding much to the conversation. They point out something bad or sad that's been pointed out many times before and then the film just kind of gets sidetracked by those enamoring sci fi elements and leaves the conversation unresolved. And then that's "thought provoking" and "leaves the audience asking questions" but like... that's just because you stopped talking. Not because you said anything interesting. Was that mean? I hope not. I dunno. Its a pretty film filled with visuals and stuff that feels like the main draw. Its a talented cast who do well with characters that feel a bit one note to me. There's obvious themes of loss and change and whether to fight or accept that are there and clearly do resonate with many. But it just feels shallow to me. I just never feel like we go deep with the characters or these issues or anything. And the ending that people go crazy for... I dunno. I just don't get anything from it. The film drags for me and then doesn't leave me with anything in the end. And like none of that cool A/V stuff really is much more to me than a light show. I dunno what to say. Its just not my thing. I guess that's it really. Its just not my thing.  48 (69). Godzilla vs. Hedorah (1971) Directed by Yoshimitsu Banno; Written by Yoshimitsu Banno and Takeshi Kimura Watched on HBOMax That was a fun one and a weird one. Well "weird" is becoming a relative term with these movies. Its clear that like they were in this place with these movies where they kept bouncing back and forth between wanting to keep cranking out the same stuff to make the money and do something new and different. And they sure come up with some weird stuff trying to be different. I wasn't super sold on the idea that smog and pollution was worse than Godzilla. I mean I appreciate the idea and all and yeah, serious world threatening problem. But rampaging firebreathing monsters that destroy entire populations once a year also kind of a problem. It feels like you could actually do something interesting with playing kaiju as a parallel to natural disasters. I guess the current Monsterverse is going the exact opposite route making them into some kind of sentinals of the earth or something. I dunno. Its weird because... you know... rampaging monsters murdering lots of people and puppies and stuff. But I digress. Turning the pollution into a giant partially man made kaiju is an inspired idea. Its kind of weird and nonsensical that it just randomly turns into a space ship sometimes so that it can spread smog. Like I get it but its weird. But hey, we're weird now. I get it. Its not as weird as some of the other plots in the last few of these movies. Hedorah is a pretty cool looking monster even beyond the idea. And I mean its fun to do a different monster that's more than just a giant dinosaur or bug. I don't know if I'm totally sold on Godzilla's face turn. Maybe he's maturing now that he's a dad? Maybe he just needed a weekend away from the kid? I get the sense the idea her is Godzilla found mutual ground with humanity over protecting the Earth. Which is cheesy but ok, whatever. I've been really hesitant about the idea of Godzilla being treated as the good guy since that first really tragic movie but I guess ever since he became a dad I've just softened up. I'm soft that way. Its fun and kinda silly but also kinda well meaning about a something important. I'm glad I got back on this kick and I'm definitely gonna try and finish these by the end of May. They're a very fun and easy palette cleanser and I got that momentum back I lost around movie #7 or 8. There's a lot of them. And I'm only in the first "era". Wait are these really named after Japanese emperors? That's weird.  49 (70). The Thing with Two Heads (1972) Directed by Lee Frost; Written by Lee Frost, Wes Bishop, and James Gordon White Watched on Svengoolie Well that was a weird one! Its tough to really get a handle on what The Thing with Two Heads is even trying to be. One part old school sci fi mad scientist movie. One part blaxploitation action/murder mystery film. Sometimes very seemingly camp and poking fun at itself and at the same time dealing with a serious issue of racism in a way few films of that time were? I really struggled at times to know if something was being done intentionally or not. And then came that ending which was so perfect and hilarious it just sold me on this thing entirely. You know that weird thing going on where some people compare every POC horror with some kind of social or political idea to Get Out? Well this one is actually kind of a bit like Get Out? Go figure. Its not a good film. Its a weird one. There's the dirtbike scene in the middle of the film that feels like it goes on for like half an hour or something. Its weird. The film doesn't seem to ever pick a tone or genre or point. It doesn't ever really commit to the blaxploitation thing or the whole "prove my innocence" thing or the mad scientist sci fi thing. Its just a little of a lot. Its weird. And this is a movie that for sure benefited from watching on Svengoolie since his corny jokes and trivia bits about the surprising number of Oscar winners involved in this thing really kept this moving and interesting. I don't know that I'd ever recommend anyone watch this straight. But I wouldn't tell you not to. Its a weird one for sure and if nothing else it left me with a big smile on my face. Oh happy day...
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2023 08:48
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I think the movie of Annihilation isn't actually that deep. It's got a moderately complex visual metaphor, but it's glossing over most of the meat of the premise. The film it most reminded me of is Sunshine in that it has a big convoluted sci-fi premise that it doesn't really do justice in order to give the kind of limp-wristed faux-deep "message"that seems profound but is incredibly well-trod ground. The kind of thing that sounds serious but not if you're just reminding the audience it's a possible topic for discussion. Even though it's well executed, it didn't really have much staying power with me. Yeah like the mean version of my review was that sci fi like this feels like talking to a freshman philosophy student to me. There’s a worthwhile conversation and all but it’s clear the kid just started reading and isn’t adding anything new to the conversation. They’re just real excited to be in it. But more simply yeah. It just feels like the movie starts a bunch of conversations and the goes “look at the pretty colors”. I dunno. A True Jar Jar Fan posted:I feel like this after every Alex Garland movie, I wish I liked them more than I do. I liked Ex Machina more but I think that’s a tighter story with a smaller cast so it’s all about the hype focus on those characters rather than the familiar robot/life stuff. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 16:37 on May 21, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:05 |
|
|
 - (71). Night of the Creeps (1986) Written and directed by Fred Dekker What a loving weird rear end movie. I've seen this before. I know i've seen this before. I absolutely remember it. But I couldn't remember a thing about it coming in. Everything was familiar when it happened but I had no idea it was coming. I think that's mostly because of how loving scatter brain and bizarre this film kind of is. It switches between like three different movies in the first 10 minutes. People say and do absurd things like ask to store their box of brains in the basement or randomly confess murders to some kid they just met. It sometimes drops a super meta joke super dryly. Its sometimes extremely clever and sometimes incredibly random. Its a wild ride for sure and an entertaining one but so weird. The core story is a pretty simple 80s zombie tale without a ton of surprises and with the cliches and tropes seemingly purposely turned up to 11. That 80s douchey frat was so on the nose my underwear just spontaneously wedgied itself. And there's just a gratuitous boobs shower scene because... its the 80s? Or because its making it particularly gratuitous for a laugh? Who knows? And you know its not even until this moment that I realized the horror director name thing. Its weird and wild and fun. Maybe trying very hard to be something? Maybe not totally perfect? Probably a little too heavy on the cliches and tropes like a homage in the middle of the thing its homaging as its happening? I dunno. But its fun. And that's what counts.  50 (72). Slumber Party Massacre (2021) Directed by Danishka Esterhazy; Written by Suzanne Keilly; Based on The Slumber Party Massacre by Rita Mae Brown ”Are they out slumber partying us?” This was goofy fun. I've never seen the original. Avoided it because I don't like slashers and on its face it seems like such an obvious extreme of the misogyny of 80s slasher and horror. But I've heard its really a subversive feminist thing so I've been meaning to see it. And normally I absolutely would have watched it before seeing the remake/reboot/whatever. I'm usually good like that. But I just didn't. What can I say? It happens. But this is fun. Its all very over the top and silly about what its doing but its fun. There's no deep meaning here or anything. Just having a lot of fun with turning those old misogynistic tropes on their head in a borderline cartoon way. It does a good job kind of walking the line between parody and straight. I think the film kind of loses something when it just kind of turns into a slasher. Like just a regular old slasher. But that happens so late into the film and still kind of works in the meta "whoops, be careful what you ask for" sense. So I didn't really mind it too much. It just kind of changed the tone and pace of the film right at the important part. I know what it was going for but I dunno. Maybe if hadn't been a TV movie it could have gone a little harder into that stuff. Or maybe if I was a slasher fan I would appreciated the actual slasher part of the slasher parody more. Who knows? But I liked it. Its a fun movie. Not perfect, not great. But any flaws and nits I can pick are countered by fun elements and good performances. I guess I should probably watch the original one.  - (73). I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (1998) Directed by Danny Cannon; Written by Trey Callaway I hate the original so like obviously I wasn't too excited to rewatch the sequel. That being said I didn't remember the sequel at all and it doesn't have Williamson's involvement so who knows? Clearly its just a generic bad slasher sequel. Its got the sexy young stars in their tank tops and it introduces a small crew of hotel people including Jack Black, Jeffrey Combs, and Jennifer Esposito so it has a larger body count. A smarter script would have used these people as red herrings for the killer and done some intrigue or something. But this isn't a smart script. Its not a clever script. Its a bare bones sequel. Still considering I think the first film is a loving terrible mess of writing that thinks its way more clever than it is I actually was cautiously hopefully early on that a generic slasher would be better. And I mean I definitely had an easier time with this film. Its not making me mad. Which isn't to say it isn't stupid or bad in ways. It absolutely is. But its not really trying and it certainly doesn't seem to think its outsmarting anyone. So whatever. At least the protagonists aren't all sociopaths. Well Julie still is I guess. And she forgets all about Brandy at the end. But at least she's not outwardly projecting it all film this time. But the film drags and is badly paced. None of those extra characters or kills add anything. I was sort of enjoying Mekhi Pfifer's energy at first but he just becomes obnoxious quickly. Brandy is just there but at least she has more presence than Will. Black and Combs are there and feel super wasted in that as they barely do anything. I was initially thinking the decision to take the setting from a rainy dreary fishing town to the Bahamas to be fun but then they make that place rainy and dreary and abandoned and its all an excuse to introduce voodoo in a dumb way. Which is probably racist but its so nothing I don't even know. Ultimately its a bad film because its just a lot of bad uninspired elements done poorly. And yet I still found that preferable to the first film which thought it was doing more and just made a mess of things. So I think I might like this more than the first film. Or at least I hate it less. I don't really hate it at all. Its just another bad slasher on the pile I'll probably forget about again.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2023 04:12
|
|