Here we have another somewhat complicated title for me to review. I think altogether, the ideas and underlying messages the movie gives are all well and good. However, when it's all said and done, this also illustrates how much the movie might not completely understand mental health problems and what people have to do in order to manage them. This movie represents that friend we have who is trying to help with all of its good intentions but may be saying all the wrong things to do so. "Spiderhead" itself is a chemical research facility, testing its pharmaceutical chemicals on penitentiary inmates who have volunteered in order to get a reduced sentence. While the hospitable Steve Abnesti (Chris Hemsworth) and his assistant, Mark Verlaine (Mark Paguio) oversee the project, the main test subject we follow is a young man named Jeff (Miles Teller) who is in for having killed his friends while driving drunk. As we watch, he and other test subjects are exposed to a variety of different mood-altering drugs that are meant to help with a lot of everyday problems. For example, there's a love drug that helps with physical attraction and could lead to less loneliness for some people or a fear drug that could potentially allow people to fear things that are ultimately bad for them like sugar, cigarettes or alcohol. That's pretty much the gist of the plot, as it all predictably leads up to something a little more sinister than just experimentation. In the meantime, it should probably be mentioned that there's a certain attachment Jeff has with another inmate named Lizzy (Jurnee Smollett). It's sort of refreshing in that there's a romantic tie there, but a lot of it has to do with their closeness and being able to tell each other anything. It's not just a lovey-dovey thing here so much as it's a mutual respect, best friend thing with attraction at work. And in case a lot of this is making you think of the movie 'Limitless', you're not exactly alone. But 'Limitless' did a much better job of things. 'Limitless' was a cautionary tale more about the overuse/misuse of a hardcore street drug as opposed to an actual pharmaceutical drug. This one feels a lot more like an actual jab at pharmaceutical companies, their potential behind-the-scenes experimentation, and what their full intentions are. I don't generally have a problem with such a thing, but the final narration of the film is something that gets under my skin a bit because, without spoiling anything, it really does seem to try to simplify something that's more complicated than the film lets on. That said, I will say the final message makes a solid point at the same time. Confused? Yeah, me too. Truth be told, in the end, it's hard for me to know what to think of this film on the whole. Going back to the film representing that particular friend we all have in our lives, it's hard to get upset at the film's potential misunderstanding of things as its intentions are good, and the point it makes IS still kind of solid. With all of that said, there's always the chance that I've misinterpreted things entirely and I'm overthinking something that actually IS closer to the cautionary tale that 'Limitless' was. Admittedly, this isn't one of my stronger reviews as my feelings towards it are very personal. In the lineup of Netflix originals, it's probably not one that I can find myself visiting again, and I'd strongly recommend past Netflix titles I've reviewed over this. It strikes me as a film that I will probably end up putting too much thought into despite its intended purpose, but at the same time, I can understand that it's a story about society and its desire to get everything more easily. I'm just completely on the fence with this one. I don't know that I'd say it's as terrible as everyone seems to be saying it is, but I'd also say that it's not one quite meant for someone like me. It's another fine example of "see for yourself". Not much more I can say. 2/5
0 Comments
I've found that recently, Netflix originals have been pretty low quality (at least what I've watched and reviewed here). To add to that, I haven't really given Adam Sandler a very fair chance for some kind of personal comeback (and yes, I do still need to see 'Uncut Gems'), as I've found, for the most part, things have gotten pretty stale for the guy. But, quite honestly, I'm happy to say that I stand corrected on Sandler's quality (and not for the first time) as I keep forgetting that the dude CAN act and can act very well. 'Hustle' here provides its audience with another role from Sandler that ends up delivering the best of everything he has. He's good at comedy (obviously), but he's also very good at showing intensity along with deeper emotions, and it all sort of shines through here. In some ways, the film provides a big breath of fresh air because nothing about what's on its surface is very typical. It's not your average Adam Sandler movie, but not your average sports movie, either. Yet at the same time, it did make me think that it's been quite a while since I've sat and watched a good sports movie that I really liked. This story centers on the Philadelphia 76ers international scout, Stanley Sugarman (Sandler). He's liked by team owner, Rex Merrick (Robert Duvall), largely based on his "never-back-down" attitude. However, he butts heads with Rex's son, Vincent (Ben Foster). This all sort of comes to a head after the sudden passing of Rex, leaving Vincent in charge of the team, and therefore Stanley's new boss. Despite Stanley's being away from his wife, Teresa (Queen Latifah) and daughter, Alex (Jordan Hull) along with a recent promotion to assistant coach, all that pretty much becomes null and void when Vincent basically demands Stanley to find the 76ers next star player. It's not long before Stanley is sent overseas where he meets up with his former college teammate, Leon Rich (Kenny Smith) who tries to convince him to leave the 76ers and become a player agent. He also soon meets the likes of an incredible young player named Bo Cruz (Juancho Hernangomez - now one of our own Toronto Raptors). Bringing Cruz to Vincent's attention, however, doesn't go well, and to make a long story short, it's not long before Stanley starts to consider Leon's advice and take this new talent under his wing, himself. As long as he can keep him out of any sort of trouble, and train him right. As the film unfolds, it does a good job of keeping things realistic in the sense that they use a lot of real NBA talent all throughout the film as opposed to just hiring extras and slapping uniforms on them. I was further impressed with (and I do this a lot) the film's soundtrack, as it exposes the audience to a lot of great underground and off-the-radar tunes. I will say there were a few I could have done without, but it was cool to see them not just pick and choose a bunch of easy-to-grab popular music. That's the sort of thing that helps give a movie a soul of its own and helps it to stand out. I think, quite honestly, whether you're a Sandler fan or not, whether you're even a basketball fan or not, there's still a lot to appreciate here. What stood out a lot to me was that it's inspirational, not only following Cruz's story but Stanley's as well - they both have something to prove to themselves. There's no over-the-top Sandler comedy going on here, but he'll still deliver a good line that'll give you a good laugh. You appreciate the development of each of these characters as the film goes on, and you love seeing them play off each other, largely just being a couple of "guys". I think this may have a safe spot on my list of best movies of the year. Just thank God hope hasn't become lost on these Netflix originals. 5/5 Here we have a curious newcomer, providing us with his film debut as both writer and director. The man in question is one, Matthew Reilly. This guy has to be the epitome of someone who sounds altogether familiar, but when you look him up, he hasn't done... basically anything but this (at least for the screen). So with that being said, I'm going to go ahead and give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. For someone's debut, it's not actually that bad for a straight-to-Netflix action movie. This one kind of hits the ground running, as an interceptor launch site in Fort Greely, Alaska is attacked by what is presumed to be a terrorist faction. A second interceptor site is found in an undisclosed area in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, closer to Hawaii. These sites' purpose is to intercept any nuclear warhead launches targeted at American soil. Sent to defend the second site from attack is US Army Captain, JJ Collins (Elsa Pataky), her deployment here mostly due to reported sexual misconduct from one of her superiors, along with a terrible amount of hazing and bullying, and before I get too far with it all, yes, this is a "woke" movie that is generally about highlighting this woman's abilities in the face of adversity. Collins comes on-site as part of the last line of defence after Fort Greely's hostile takeover, working under Lt. Colonel Clark Marshall (Rhys Muldoon) command. She further works with Beaver Baker (Aaron Glenane), whose personality suits his name as the token toxic male character, and Corporal Raul Shah (Mayen Mehta), a not-so-confident pencil-pusher type who, for some reason, they chose to work at this facility. I have to say, Shah is not my favourite character type, and some of the lines this guy has to say are kind of ridiculous. Actually, a good chunk of this movie is kind of ridiculous. Anyway, eventually, Collins finds herself against all odds as the facility is, of course, eventually infiltrated by a terrorist team led by ex-military intelligence soldier, Alexander Kessel (Luke Bracey). As I was watching this guy though, in a weird way, I started to wonder if the great Hank Scorpio of 'Simpsons' fame (possibly the single-greatest one-off character that show ever had, Season 8, Episode 2) inspired this guy in some ways. He's not exactly the same guy or anything, not even with a similar personality. However, just a few decisions and lines the guy delivers is just enough to make you want to watch that episode all over again. I think my biggest takeaways from this were that 1, this was definitely written as a woke movie with a fair amount of almost forced "girl power" within. I DO NOT have a problem with this idea, but I still think there's a right way and a wrong way to write that kind of role. It seems the best way is to just write the hero role with no gender in mind - 'Alien' pulled this off incredibly well, and that's going back to 1979! But listen, don't let me take anything away from anyone, either. The truth of the matter is that Collins is still a pretty fun action hero to follow, and one can take some of her cheesiness with a grain of salt. If you can think of her as a Schwarzenegger type - in other words, she's there simply to be a strong hero with an odd (perhaps lame) one-liner. I think if you can go into this with the right mind-set, you can still be entertained by it. It's important to remember a bunch of stuff going into this, however, and the big one is the idea of this being one man's directorial AND screenwriting debut. The saving grace is actually probably his co-writer, Stuart Beattie, who one might recognize from writing for the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' movies, along with golden gems like 'GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra', 'I, Frankenstein' and '30 Days of Night' (okay, so maybe not so much sarcasm on that last title, which I admittedly enjoy). The other thing is not to take it too seriously - it can fit nicely into the "dumb, fun action" category if you allow it to. It's not something I'll rush to watch again, but I was entertained as long as I thought of it as a video game movie that wasn't based on a video game. 2/5 This is another one of those titles that really should have been better than it was. On paper, the concept is actually kind of awesome. The sad thing, however, is the execution of it all. It could have been a very visceral horror movie with some pretty original ideas, but instead, it really does come off as some kind of made-for-TV horror, despite some of the more gory scenes. But, I'll cut it at least a bit of slack, as it's director Toby Meakins' film debut as well as a Netflix original. We meet a family of three; Laura (Kate Fleetwood) her son, Gabe (Pete MacHale), and a reclusive father named Hal (Eddie Marsan), who obsesses over retro video games in his... mancave? Hal receives an interaction fiction game entitled "CURS>R", and gives it a try. It ends up being a text-based adventure game with a catch - decisions in the game affect the world around you. We learn how sinister this software is when, while playing it, Hal accidentally brings harm to his family with a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" question. Then we never see any of these people again until near the end. The film then introduces us to a college student named Kayla (Iola Evans), who's trying to improve her skills at school with coding. Her friend, Isaac (Asa Butterfield), helps her with this, as she provides him with various technology in return. Her home life is awful, with her drug-addicted mother, Thea (Angela Griffin), and their rent collector, Lance (Ryan Gage), who may as well be an evil pimp. We learn here that Kayla is the tough daughter who faces all of their problems head-on, takes care of her mother, and gives Lance the right amount of attitude to show she doesn't fear him. One day, Kayla finds the 'CURS>R' game in Isaac's apartment while visiting, and discovers a hotline number with the game, offering a prize of $125,000. Upon calling the number, Kayla gets the voice of the one and only Robert Englund telling them to play the game, which will give them a code, which will get them the money. Kayla, tempted by the offer, decides to play, promising to split the prize money with Isaac. However, it pretty much becomes a horrific version of 90s 'Jumanji', where the game's various "yes/no" options get deadly in real life. My biggest problem with this is how unrealistic it is. I'm not talking about the game's supernatural powers either. I think the idea of a cash prize still existing from a retro text-based game is kind of ridiculous. I know there were games out there that did involve the concept of grand prizes - the most famous probably being the unfinished 'Swordquest' games for Atari. Check that link out, it's actually pretty interesting stuff! Anyway, besides that elephant in the room, there was something about Kayla that truly bugged me, and I can't really put my finger on it. It's almost as though her "girl power" felt forced somehow. Nothing against the actress, but some kind of combination of writing and direction with her felt... off. Pushing my criticisms aside, however, there are still a few things one can appreciate about this. In some ways, aside from hearing Robert Englund's voice, there was a bit of a 'Nightmare on Elm Street', dream-like quality to this, and I have to admit that a lot of it made me squirm. On top of that, I actually did kind of like the climactic sequence, where she faces a "final boss". As I mentioned before, I think they have the right idea for something somewhat original here. But the execution left a little to be desired. Elsewhere, it's fairly heavily criticized, but between a new director and it being a Netflix original, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. It's certainly no type of must-see, though. 3/5 Here we have the latest from the great Richard Linklater, who makes it obvious that this is a passion project based on his credits for the film. Altogether, Linklater is the writer, director, and producer here, along with the story being loosely based on his life, growing up in Houston, Texas. This not only meant living nearby NASA Johnson Space Center but being there for the first moon landing in 1969. Now, of course, this isn't the first film he has all these credits for. But it's something you can tell he holds near and dear to his heart. This is him showing us his own nostalgia for growing up in the late 60s. He shows us what it was like to be a kid back then, and it's the perfect answer to the question of what kids did before the internet, video games, and other luxuries we completely take for granted nowadays. And quite honestly, the movie is mostly the unfolding of his childhood as opposed to anything to really do with NASA, space, and the rest of it. It's more of a nostalgia trip framed with a childhood fantasy about being part of a top-secret test mission to the moon before the actual '69 moon landing. It's sort of a weird section of the movie that plays out as though it's real, but it's all this boy, Stan's (Milo Coy and Jack Black when narrating) fantasy. Otherwise, the movie is simply about what it was like to grow up in that time. To make it more interesting, it's all done in the same animation style as one of my personal favourites of his, 'Waking Life' (animation sketched over live-action). Now, I will say this about Linklater's material - it may be considered an acquired taste to some. I find a lot of his overall style to be very artsy while trying to get it across to your average Joe. 'Dazed and Confused' is probably the most relatable of his work, overall, as it's more of a high school film than an art project. 'Waking Life' or 'Boyhood' would be the other side of that scale. This can be found right in between those two films. But don't worry, it's not as "out there" as 'Waking Life' was. This is, quite plain and simply, Linklater showing us childhood in the late 60s, and as long as you're open to hearing his stories, you can enjoy this just fine. Personally speaking, I was of two minds on this one. For starters, I appreciated how he brought us back in time and shared his nostalgia with us. I further appreciate the art style (I do love this type of animation), and the minute details he gets into with his descriptions. On the other hand, while I liked the storytelling, the whole NASA fantasy that he has felt sort of unnecessary. I do get it, and perhaps I'm nitpicking, but I might have liked it better if it was just the nostalgic story, and left relatively basic. He's exposed to NASA enough that the title would still make sense. Anyway, I'm gonna say right off the bat that if you're a Linklater fan, it's worth checking out. It's a pretty fascinating look back, especially when we see things we consider old that is brand new at the time. Think of there being arcades, but the only machines there are of the pinball variety. It's a cool slice of history, and I can't help but appreciate the fact that Linklater tells it through the child's eyes. He does so without talking down to his audience and even educates us on a few things here and there. I really liked this, and I think it will appeal to anyone who grew up in that era, along with anyone looking to find out "what was it like back then?" 4/5 Let me come right out of the gates by saying that despite all of the positivity I've been giving Netflix original movies lately, this is definitely one of the "lesser" titles in the collection. Some may recall how underwhelming titles like 'The Woman in the Window' and 'Awake' were to me. However, I wouldn't quite say this one is quite as bad. The plot is about as basic as it gets for a bottle movie, but with a few interesting tweaks going on throughout. The first is the introduction of our three main characters; all of whom are nameless. We are first introduced to (according to credits) "Nobody" (Jason Segel), who has broken into a wealthy tech CEO's vacation house and been enjoying the splendours of his laid-back, relaxing lifestyle. However, it's not to last. On a last-minute vacation, the CEO (Jesse Plemons) and his wife (Lily Collins) enter the home, and Nobody tries to hide while trying to sneak out, undetected. It's not long, however, before the wife spots him, and soon, things start to escalate. It's a bit of a twist on the average home invasion movie, but not nearly as intense as most under that category. In other words, there's not really a horror/thriller element to it so much as a bit of suspense, and the question of who the "bad guy" really is, or indeed, if this really is a hero/villain situation at all. I do admit that it's not a bad look at the characters' relatable situations. Segel plays that part of us that really wants to stick it to the man, but Plemons makes an interesting point about how being wealthy isn't necessarily all sunshine and rainbows. Collins, I think, sort of plays the audience in this, and manages to see both sides to the story. So it's a pretty neat character study altogether, but again, nothing particularly special. It's something to throw on if you have an hour and a half to kill that's about on the same levels as your average TV crime drama. For me, this one came across as something like a student film, or where all of these actors may have gotten their starts if they weren't already well-established. There's really not a whole hell of a lot more to say about it, as nothing truly stood out for me. If you have the time, it could make for a mildly interesting Sunday afternoon movie, as long as curiosity hits you. Otherwise, I would probably recommend other Netflix titles above it. It's interesting enough as far as the dialogue goes, and a bit of a twist ending, but it's still very average. 3/5 Once again, we have a film that isn't doing so wonderfully on the critical side - but it definitely has a fairly solid following from your average fan. As for myself, I think we have a movie that, at this point in time, we really, truly need, and just about everyone needs to check out. Not to preach, but it's the underlying message the movie delivers (and even punctuates with a bit, fat exclamation mark). What's the message? Well, read on. As the film opens, we meet an astronomy Ph.D. candidate named Kate Dibiasky (Jennifer Lawrence), working with the Subaru Telescope in Hawaii. She discovers a comet, and reports it to her professor, Dr. Randall Mindy (Leonardo DiCaprio). But what's initially cause for celebration turns into cause for panic, as Mindy calculates that the comet is on a path directly towards Earth. The impact will make for an extinction level event, so is immediately reported to NASA, who then confirms the details. Kate and Randall are then sent to the White House to report their findings, along with NASA's head of Planetary Defense Coordination, Dr. Teddy Oglethorpe (Rob Morgan). Once there, however, the scientists are met passively by President Janie Orlean (Meryl Streep) and her Chief of Staff, Jason (Jonah Hill), whose position has something kind of hilarious behind it, but I'm not going to spoil that. From there, all I'll really say is that Randall and Kate become sort of accidental celebrities, and a lot of it is to push Orlean's campaign, as presidential midterms are just around the corner. While Randall begins to make a name for himself through no real fault of his own, he experiences the pressures of being a celebrity while alternately trying very hard to get the important message of impending doom through. Meanwhile, Kate becomes a little more of a meme, and famous for all the wrong reasons. She wants nothing more than to warn the world of what's about to happen, and can't stand how ignorant the world gets when it comes right down to it. It further dabbles in things like conspiracy theories, and people creating their own stories and theories even though there's clear-as-day data staring them right in the face. Indeed, this is another movie that will make us all take a good, hard look at ourselves. It's also done as a dark comedy, so with that, in a lot of ways, I'd compare it to something like 'Idiocracy' (but not as "dumb-fun"). I suppose I can see where critics are actually coming from when it comes to looking at the movie as a whole. The idea that the film doesn't really know what it wants to be springs to mind, and with that, perhaps there's a point. However, my personal taste sees this as something meant to be taken seriously with its message, but the execution of it is meant to be taken as a comedy about the world's general ignorance and apathy when something catastrophic comes along. We really do have it sort of programmed into us to assume that things are well in hand for worst case scenarios. But do we? I mean, do we really? Anyway, I should point out that the underlying message of the film is just one of the better pieces of it. Otherwise, you have a pretty stellar cast of talent, and the performances are all great. Other than those mentioned, we also get the likes of Cate Blanchett, Mark Rylance, Tyler Perry, Timothée Chalamet, Ron Perlman, Ariana Grande, Kid Cudi, Michael Chiklis and a few more I'm sure I'm missing. But damn, for a Netflix original, they went all out with the casting. To top it off, this is written and directed by Adam McKay; the guy who gave us the 'Anchorman' movies, and who worked alongside Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish for the 'Ant-Man' screenplay. So, while I highly recommend this movie to people right now, I will admit that it won't necessarily be for everyone. There is a bit of an acquired taste going on here with things like cinematography and the darkness of the comedy within the script. This is one of those movies that just might make you start yelling at your screen in frustration; but that's what the comedy is all about here. Personally, I think it's a brilliant film in its execution, but there's a lot of my personal taste scattered throughout this movie as well. I tend to be a bit odd at times (just look at my passion for 'Scott Pilgrim vs The World'). Anyway, if you have Netflix and about 2.5 hours to kill (yeah, sorry, it's a bit long) I say go for it. If nothing else, it'll make you think. 5/5 Netflix has been doing a pretty solid job lately with their Christmas material. For my money, at least 'The Christmas Chronicles', and 'Klaus' are well worth it, instant Christmas classics. This one, however, didn't quite land as strongly for yours truly. For starters, it's another Netflix original about how Christmas got started, which they already did with 'Klaus'. For another, maybe it's just me, but I found this movie to be pretty harsh for a Christmas movie. We open in the style of 'Princess Bride', but instead of kids being sick, kids have recently lost their mother. On that Christmas Eve, young Andrea (Isabella O'Sullivan), Moppet (Ayomide Garrick) and Patrick (Eden Lawrence) are left alone with their Aunt Ruth (Maggie Smith) when their father has to leave for work-related purposes. From here, Ruth tells the children a Christmas story of a boy named Nikolas (Henry Lawfull), who lives in the forest with his father, Joel (Michiel Huisman), and who also lost his mother two years prior to the story. Nikolas' mother once told him the story of a land called Elfhelm; a land full of magic and elves that one day rescues a lost girl from the harshness of the winter weather. He takes comfort in the memory of this story every night, but soon the probability of Elfhelm being real is increased when Joel sets out to find it. Along with a group of hunters, their hope is to find Elfhelm and prove it exists, which will in turn get them a reward from the King (Jim Broadbent) who is in search of an object that will bring joy to the otherwise bummed-out kingdom. Upon Joel leaving, Nikolas is put under the care of his Aunt Carlotta (Kristen Wiig), where he manages to find a map that confirms Elfheim's existence. So, life with Carlotta sucks enough for Nik to make a daring escape with his pet mouse, Miika (Stephen Merchant), in an effort to head north to find his father and get the map to him. Little does he know, however, that finding his Dad along with Elfhelm will turn out to be the least of his big adventure, and his life was about to change forever. I mean, c'mon, it's obvious who Nikolas is supposed to grow into. Along the way, Nikolas gets some help from a few key characters. The coolest is probably Blitzen - the first of his reindeer, according to this movie. There's also a variety of elves who need help with a kidnapping, and of course, the Truth Pixie (Zoe Margaret Colletti). She's a sidekick type character who is just kind of there, and frankly quite irritating - a kid hopped up on way too much sugar who maybe tried weed for the first time ever. No offense to the young actress, of course, but I have to say, this character got under my skin. I know that I mentioned this film is kind of mean-spirited, but didn't get so far into it because a lot of that takes place on the side. I also think it's sure to give the big-time Christian community a bit of a problem, as "Christmas" is "just a word" here, and Nikolas' nickname from his mother. The concept of Christ (Christmas' real namesake) doesn't enter into it. Personally, I like the idea of avoiding religious connotations. 'Soul', for example, did it extremely well. But in this case, it's more about a specific word that already has a specific meaning ("Christ Mass" or just the celebration of Christ) so some might be bugged by this. I think it's safe to say that there are better Christmas movies about the same thing that teach the same positive lessons. I think this one just gets a little too dark at times, and the whimsy of Christmas is sort of lost on this one. I might suggest it's a Christmas movie that takes itself too seriously, despite the odd chuckle you might get from Miika. Stick to 'Christmas Chronicles' and/or 'Klaus' as far as Netflix goes. Unlike them, I won't feel a need to come back to this one next year. But who knows? Maybe it's just lost on me because it's honestly kind of depressing. 3/5 Moving right along with the 'Fear Street' trilogy, here we have something I very much prefer over the first chapter. Not that I thought the first one was particularly bad or anything, it's just that the slashers this chapter pays tribute to are more reminiscent of one of my favourite horror series - 'Friday the 13th', or *insert camping horror movie here*. This felt more intense, the kills were actually pretty brutal (in a good way - straight to the "point", like Jason), and I guess to give some honesty, I'm just a bit bias towards that style. We pick things up with the twist ending to '1994', in which Deena (Kiana Madeira) and Josh (Benjamin Flores Jr.) seek out a woman named C. Berman (Gillian Jacobs). She's known to have had visions a long time ago of the so called Fier Witch who supposedly cursed the town of Shadyside. The reasons behind it spoil the ending to 'Part One', however, so I'll hold off and just say they need her help. Berman brings us back to Camp Nightwing on the night of an infamous incident known as the "Nightwing Massacre" (which honestly sounds more like the title to a 'Batman' comic, but here we are). We are then introduced to Ziggy Berman (Sadie Sink) who is chased down by a crowd of Sunnyvale bullies, accusing her of stealing. Things start to get pretty dark until counselors Nick Goode (Ted Sutherland) and Kurt (Michael Provost) step in. Almost right away, we see an unspoken thing between Ziggy and Nick. Meanwhile, Ziggy's sister, Cindy (Emily Rudd) and her boyfriend, Tommy (McCabe Slye) are cleaning the mess hall when Nurse Lane (Jordana Spiro) warns Tommy that he will die that night. Sunnyvale campers believe her to have been possessed by the witch, but no one gets how real things are about to become. When Cindy and Tommy stumble on her former best friend, Alice (Ryan Simpkins) and her boyfriend, Arnie (Sam Brooks) in the infirmary to investigate Nurse Lane's motives, the group soon unveils something that leads them to the Fier's house. Soon enough, this leads to one of them getting possessed and wielding an axe while the others make their escape. From there, a generous body count starts to rise that leads back to Camp Nightwing, ultimately putting Ziggy and Nick in danger. And what can I say? The result is that I had more fun with this one than the last one. This felt a bit more like a love letter to movies like 'Friday the 13th' than a straight up mimic of 'Scream'. My only real complaint moving forward with this is that the characters still aren't particularly likable. Most of the characters portrayed throughout this series are pretty much assholes, and if I can't have a character to get behind and route for, it's not quite as entertaining. However, I suppose in this case, I have a tendency to route for the killer. Not because violence is good or anything, but those kills are what make movies like 'Friday the 13th' and 'Halloween' earn a whole bunch of sequels. We're not in it for the teenagers so much as we're in it for the killer. All in all, I had more fun with this than the last one. It was a pleasant surprise, and I'm curious to see where they are going to take it next. 4/5 Those who know me well can probably tell you how much I am into the whole sleeping process and what it does to our minds. We're forced to face our fears with nightmares, try to make sense of our dreams, and a select few even have to endure the terrifying reality that is sleep paralysis. I find it all very fascinating though. It's neat to think about some of the more bizarre stuff that makes us tick. So movies about this stuff are something I'm drawn to, i.e. 'Nightmare on Elm Street', 'Inception', 'Waking Life', etc. You'd think this would be another movie to add to my list, but it's more of a cool concept with a badly written execution. It all starts when an EMP goes off because of... reasons, and everything electronic goes dead. A family of three, Jill (Gina Rodriguez) and her two kids, Noah (Lucius Hoyos) and Matilda (Ariana Greenblatt) are affected by this with a car accident that throws their car into a lake. As Jill and Noah manage to swim for it while Matilda drowns, but a local manages to revive her. As a result of this EMP, the world is forced awake, and no one can seem to sleep except for two people - a random, unseen woman, who is being kept at a special facility, and Matilda. From there, it basically becomes a 'Last of Us' situation, where Matilda's immunity to the situation could be the key. Being such a 'Last of Us' fan, of course, this kind of irked me. But I did appreciate that the "monster" (so to speak) was different. The idea of not being able to sleep forever does have me curious as to what could really happen to the body. This is a film that seems to take it to an extreme for dramatic purposes, but to be perfectly fair, it also suggests that the side effects of sleep deprivation are sped up. I don't fully know how much of what the film suggests happens is true, or if it is, how long it's supposed to take for things like organ failure. One thing I've always found fascinating is the record holder for staying awake. 17-year-old Randy Gardner pulled it off in the winter of '63/'64, doing it as an experiment. He was awake for 11 days, 25 minutes, and found that the deprivation had little effect aside from mood changes (aka "being cranky and needing a nap"). Apparently on the 10th day, he was still able to do things like beat his friend at pinball. On the other hand, he was seen as having not only crankiness, but trouble concentrating, paranoia short-term memory loss, and indeed, even hallucinations (as the film suggests). Ultimately though, after the 11 days, he was in pretty good health, other than odd changes in his natural sleep for a bit (which was probably to be expected). Anyway, getting back to the film, my humble opinion is that it's Netlfix trying to make another 'Birdbox' while bringing in the general human concepts of 'The Last of Us'. In the end, I don't really get how I feel about it. As mentioned before, it's a cool concept with a poor execution. Parts of it felt extreme, parts of it annoyed me (nothing against the actor, but I did not like Noah at all) and parts of it just didn't make any sense by the end. Honestly, when the big reveal happens you have to wonder about the other people across the globe experiencing the same thing and just how "rare" Matilda actually is. Personally speaking, I'll stick to 'The Last of Us' for what is pretty much the same story - but it actually makes you care in the first 5 minutes. 2/5 |