 At this point, it's safe to say that when it comes to horror series, 'The Strangers' is about the furthest from my favourite as any of them get. However, I'm here to offer my opinions on the good and the bad, and in all honesty, this wasn't quite as bad as I had expected going in. However, don't get me wrong, the movie is still pretty bad, loaded with cliches, full of scenes that are either confusing or don't make any sense, and I'd once again point to this as, if anything, an entry-level slasher film at best.
We also see the film drawing from several elements we've seen before, such as 'Halloween II' and its hospital survival setting, while picking up where the last one left off. With all of this criticism coming right out of the gate, I'm sure you're all wondering what that bit about it not being as bad as I had expected is all about. I will get to it, but for now, we'll flash back to the last film, which ends with the lead from the previous movie, Maya (Madelaine Petsch), hospitalized after the events, and in a post-credit scene, waking up next to "Scarecrow" (Matúš Lajčák), indicating that there would be a second chapter. As the film begins, we notice that the post-credit scene appears to have been a dream. Still, it's not long before the dream comes true, as the characters who have become known as "Scarecrow", "Dollface" and "Pinup Girl" discover Maya's still alive and go to the hospital to seek her out, evidently with no one but two people on the job that night, and patients who are sleeping through the whole debacle, and that's not the only bit of nonsense we get throughout the film. Meanwhile, the film takes the time to get the community of Venus' varying opinions on what happened to Maya and her now-executed boyfriend, Ryan (Froy Gutierrez). The film also opens with a bit of text showing some figures involving murder in the United States, and the fact that so many of these murders came at the hands of strangers, surprising no one. However, I believe the idea behind the Venus community and how they talk, which is usually, in a word, "fishy," has to do with the idea of whether or not we can trust anyone, and guessing who among them has a dark side and who doesn't. Even Maya gets stuck with confusion at the matter here, and I can give the film some credit for this - except a handful of these characters have nothing to do with anything, so it's a neat idea that falls apart. Back to the plot, however, when the three masked strangers reach the Venus Hospital to seek out Maya and finish the job, that's when Maya channels her inner "final girl" (perhaps most famous and accepted of all horror tropes) and attempts to escape the hospital and survive her attackers. It's actually not a terrible concept, trying to make Maya someone who can hold her own and become a new Scream Queen, but she may have hit the mark with a better script, as the movie has her do a lot of stuff that I didn't feel worked quite right. For example, at one point, she returns to the scene of the crime she survived while still being hunted. I suppose the idea they had here, namely with her returning to the cabin where she got stabbed, was to have her face her fears and transform into a badass, but I felt there was enough to work with when we see her survival skills in action. But then again, she does light a bonfire while she's surviving a hunt, which, to me, seems dumb. Anyway, that's really all the film amounts to - Maya surviving her attackers. In contrast, the film occasionally flashes back to "Scarecrow" and "Pinup Girl" as children, offering a brief origin story. Ultimately, it's nothing special or surprising, and it's easy to shrug off. 'The Strangers' continues to be among the low-end of horror from my perspective. Even when it tries to do something a little different, it's never enough because it doesn't really bring anything new. I like the concept of mistrust here, particularly the idea of Maya becoming a badass survivor and the notion of a flashback villain origin story; however, none of it is well-executed. All in all, this felt like a film that had some of the right pieces to be at least decent, but it falls apart in specific moments, which halfway insult the audience. To no one's surprise, despite a few things I can ever so slightly forgive, it's yet another dud in the series. 2/5  I've said it before, and many would agree; at this point, we are amid a horror Renaissance, where old and tired ideas and concepts are being either reimagined or done away with altogether. A whole new set of unique filmmakers has been taking the helm lately, and the genre has made a significant comeback. It takes a lot to give me a genuine scare anymore, and I'm constantly on the lookout for the next movie that will legitimately make me lose sleep, feeling that fear I once did in my youth.
Although what I'm looking for is still hard to find, I still enjoy a lot of what I have seen lately, and the more I think about it, the more I appreciate 'Weapons' here. Some of my peers helped overhype me for it, so I went in with my expectations a bit too high, which led to stumbling whenever I encountered something remotely irksome. However, we can chalk that up to a "me" thing, as I so often say, because aside from a few speed bumps, this was very entertaining. There was no loss of sleep on my part, but the film still managed to stick out. Narrated by an unseen child, the backstory is explained, as two years ago, in the fictional sleepy town of Maybrook, Pennsylvania, seventeen children from Justine Gandy's (Julia Garner) eighth grade class randomly get up out of beds, run out into the night, and never come back, save for one kid named Alex (Cary Christopher). The community's suspicion immediately points towards Ms. Gandy, and is propagated by a distraught parent, Archer Graff (Josh Brolin), who digs tenaciously for answers as to his kid's disappearance. While Justine tries to find answers in order to clear her name, despite the school principal, Marcus Miller (Benedict Wong) insisting she lay low, Archer does the same, despite the authorities seemingly not taking his requests seriously. But while these two offer the main perspectives throughout the film, several others are offered from supporting characters' perspectives, and the film is cut together in a style reminiscent of 'Pulp Fiction.' To the film's credit, it's interesting how all of the layers get peeled back one by one as all is eventually revealed. I won't go into much more detail, not so much in case I give too much away, but more that it's a matter of going in blind, being much more beneficial. I gave you the bare basics of the plot, but as things unfold, they get weirder and more unsettling, with interesting twists and turns topped with disturbing imagery that will stick with you. In both Justine's and Archer's cases, the horrific aspects of the film become all too real. Justine has to deal with a whole town suspecting her and hating her, and Archer copes with the very real and mysterious loss of his son - both terrifying things to deal with, and both very real and possible. The only real problems I had with the movie are few and far between, and probably shouldn't even be addressed as "problems" so much as "things I didn't get." As an example, dreams play a fair-sized part in this, and the imagery within the dreams is unsettling, so for that, the film wins me over. But with that said, I don't entirely get what the dreams meant in the movie. It's also a little slow-moving for some, but as a mystery, it's hard to criticize its pacing, especially when it adds to the eeriness of everything going on. In the end, I don't want to nitpick too much on this. The truth of the matter is that the film stands out very well as a horror film, playing on not just creepy imagery, but the psychological horror I prefer when it comes to a more serious horror movie. I went in overhyped, expecting too much, but in all honesty, it's one of the better modern horror films out there. It could be overly creepy to those with kids, though. Despite anything I've said critically about it, it still comes highly recommended to horror fans looking for a fresh take on an old idea (that idea being something I don't even wanna spoil). 4/5  Much like its predecessors, the third chapter in the 'Paddington' series is an all-around solid, family-friendly execution, making for a trilogy that's good fun for (I've said it before, and it bears repeating) those "bad days." These films are genuinely pure comfort food for the senses, and 'Paddington in Peru' is no exception. However, while still quite good, the film is missing one thing that helped make the first two so incredibly warm: half of the heart was Sally Hawkins as the matriarch of the Brown family, Mary.
Here, Mary is recast with Emily Mortimer. While Mortimer is all well and good in the role, and I have nothing against her, there was something about Hawkins that shined through the screen with such a sunny disposition. Mortimer doesn't quite catch it as well, but again, it's not like she's bad or anything. I missed Hawkins, but unfortunately, she passed on the role, offering it up to someone else, stating that she'd done all she could. So, C'est la vie, sometimes that happens, and I can't blame her. But she will be missed by fans. The rest of the Brown family returns, complete with Patriarch Henry (Hugh Bonneville), his aforementioned wife, Mary, their kids, Judy (Madeleine Harris) and Jonathan (Samuel Joslin), and their housekeeper, Mrs. Bird (Julie Walters). Henry gets a new job that seems to forego everything he learned as a risk analyst and focus more on taking risks than avoiding them, thus pushing him out of his comfort zone. This push comes into play after Paddington (Ben Whishaw) receives a letter from the Home for Retired Bears. In said letter, the Reverend Mother (Olivia Colman) informs Paddington that his Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton) has been acting strangely lately. She pours over old maps, seemingly searching for something she can't find and truly missing him. To step outside his comfort zone, Henry insists the Browns head to Peru to visit Aunt Lucy and see if anything is wrong. Upon their arrival, however, they learn that Aunt Lucy has gone missing, so the family heads out to find her and bring her back while Mrs. Bird stays behind with the Reverend Mother. Based on a map Paddington found in Aunt Lucy's room, the Browns start with the destination of Rumi Rock, believing that that's where Lucy is going. They hire a boat captained by the skilled Hunter Cabot (Antonio Banderas) and his daughter, Gina (Carla Tous). Upon learning where they are going, Hunter suggests that Rumi Rock is typically where the search for the Lost City of El Dorado begins for anyone searching for it. Eventually, greed takes Cabot over, and he becomes the film's villain, using poor Paddington to his advantage. The Browns get separated from Paddington, and in many ways, it's all similar to the previous films, considering a scenario in which Paddington needs rescuing by the Browns. However, they do a good job of changing each scenario. In the first one, he's getting saved from someone who wants to stuff and mount him; in the second, it's a prison; and here, the Browns play the "fish out of water" role and are put to more of a disadvantage, especially with Henry's arachnophobia and giant, purple tarantulas hanging about. While this is a solid third entry into a series, and I still enjoyed it a lot, I still missed Sally Hawkins in her role as Mary, and there's a thing or two to this that might end up irking the more educated or sophisticated viewer. One thing in particular almost got to me. But at the end of the day, it's all straightforward. 'Paddington' is a series that audiences shouldn't take too seriously. One should approach this and its predecessors with an open mind, an open heart, and a reminder that this is supposed to be silly fun with a good message or two behind it. 4/5  In the grand scheme of the horror genre, my big "go-to" movies tend to be slashers from the '80s due to their incredible cheesiness and predictability, much like having a favourite carnival ride you keep going on. My favourite horror subgenre, however, is the vast array of horror comedy out there, which is usually able to poke fun at the overall horror genre while maintaining some proper horror aspect. 'Scream' may be the ultimate set bar for the perfect horror movie to fit my tastes - it has always been a personal favourite.
So, I'm happy to say that 'Heart Eyes' here, in several ways, reminds me of 'Scream,' or at least movies like it. I'd suggest 'Heart Eyes' is a touch more comedic-leaning, but for yours truly, that's usually a good thing. I love horror movies that I can laugh at and be impressed by with how creative some of the kills are, and this film delivers on both counts. While the film isn't exactly perfect, I had a really good time with it, and despite so many cliches throughout the film (most of which I'd claim are pretty self-aware), it's right up my alley. The film opens by letting you know exactly what you're in for, as couple Patrick (Alex Walker) and Adeline (Lauren O'Hara) get engaged in what is meant to be the perfect setting for her. They have the "right" song playing on a small speaker; flowers are all around, and you even see her mouth along with the proposal speech he gives her that it's clear she wrote for him. These two make for the first of the film's victims, and we are thus introduced to the Heart Eyes Killer, or "HEK," whose spree continues for several years, every Valentine's Day, always in a different American city. Bringing the story into the present day, HEK is now running amok in Seattle, WA, where our heroine, Ally (Olivia Holt), resides, recently single and working for a jewellery company for which she has just run a hazardous ad campaign involving tragic romances, which is problematic, considering the killer on the loose. After the debacle, Ally's boss, Crystal (Michaela Watkins), forces her to work with pro advertiser Jay Simmons (Mason Gooding), a handsome young man whom she encounters earlier in the film, and her best friend, Monica (Gigi Zumbado), pressures her to pursue. When Ally and Jay meet to discuss a new ad campaign, HEK notices them and mistakes them for a couple (his MO is to take out couples), and the hunt is on from there. In the meantime, not-so-hot on the heels of HEK are detectives Jeanine (Jordana Brewster) and Zeke (Devon Sawa), whose last names I will not mention here, as it makes for one of the film's funnier if a bit cringy in-jokes. But even in saying that, the cringe factor here is supposed to be part of the fun, as illustrated in the film's aforementioned opening scene. As I mentioned earlier, the film reminds me quite a bit of something like 'Scream,' and I stick to that, especially when it comes down to the big reveal, which was a part of the film that irked me due to its overall predictability. I sincerely don't want to say too much, but I wish the film ended on a particular spot that, in my opinion, would have been perfect and able to push the horror genre forward ever so slightly. That said, I could see what I wanted to see pissing everyone else off, so I'll bite my tongue, at least for now. I love horror comedy, and Heart Eyes is no exception. I have my nitpicks about it, but all in all, I appreciated being able to see a horror movie that's a little more in my wheelhouse. Even a portion of that predictability I mentioned is part of the charm of slasher movies like this, and its self-awareness allows for a bit of levity to the cliche. It's a fun romp of a horror comedy that doesn't ask you to take it seriously, and as a result of that, I had a good time with it. This one's corny but in all the right ways. 4/5  When I first saw the trailer for this one, I got excited about it. When Universal Studios tried to follow up on the "Marvel Hype Train" with what they called the "Dark Universe" and released just one movie starring Tom Cruise, trying to be 'The Mummy,' it failed miserably. I always believed that while part of that was that it failed to be anything like the '99 movie, it also failed to be the classic. That's where they could have had something: bring in that story, taking place in that era and punch it up just a little to modernize it.
When I saw this trailer, I thought, "THIS is what 'The Mummy' should have done!" But this was also a valuable reminder that sometimes I'm not quite on the money with my ideas. 'Nosferatu' here is stylistically beautiful, holds the spirit of the original film, and, just like I wanted, is punched up to be a little more modernized. And while the movie was pretty good, I can't say that this is something for just anyone. This film is trying to be more of a work of art than just some half-assed reboot, which is admirable, but it's not a vampire movie I would ever dub "exciting." We open in the 1830s as a girl named Ellen Hutter (Lily-Rose Depp) pleads to unseen forces to ease her loneliness. This summons what will soon be unveiled as the film's namesake, the Nosferatu, which, according to this film, is a kind of plague-ridden vampire. He hypnotizes her and makes her pledge herself to him eternally. This is where you get one of my favourite visuals in the film, which can be seen in the trailer, of the vampire's shadow behind a floating curtain, but he's otherwise invisible. Several years pass, and Ellen marries real estate agent Thomas Hutter (Nicholas Hoult) and now resides in Germany. One day, Thomas' boss commissions him to sell the eyesore of Grünewald Manor to a reclusive and eccentric individual named Count Orlok (Bill Skarsgård), which he accepts, as it will ensure financial security for his and his wife's future. As Thomas leaves for Transylvania, he leaves Ellen in the care of a trusted friend, Friedrich Harding (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), and his family. Meanwhile, Ellen remains disturbed by nightmares of marrying Death. Eventually, Thomas meets with Orlok at his dark and spooky castle; for my money, this is the most well-done scene in the film. When Thomas eventually gets underway toward Orlok's castle, he's met with supernatural elements, like an unmanned carriage which takes him to said castle. The castle is full of a creepy atmosphere, reminiscent of the classic film with its gothic style and a foreboding emptiness within its walls. Add to that Skarsgård's performance as a completely in-the-shadows Orlok with a deep, booming voice, and that's a recipe for a great horror atmosphere. From here, the film takes off into an odd supernatural love triangle between Ellen, Orlok and Thomas, presenting Ellen's case for her love for her husband, Thomas' helplessness against Orlok's powers, and Orlok's influence on Ellen. It's a dark and gothic way to present concepts of love, jealousy, sacrifice and even control. They throw in some exorcism elements with Ellen here, and that's where Willem Dafoe comes into play as a character very loosely based on Van Helsing, Professor Albin Eberhart von Franz. This one isn't recommended to any horror fan so much as I'd recommend it to those searching for something that may help them appreciate classic films more. While this is undoubtedly good, one can't remake the 1922 version and make it as good. The 1922 version is a staple of horror that no remake could outdo. One may have to take this movie with a grain of salt. However, I appreciated that they didn't go all out in trying to make this modern. It's still not what the Dark Universe went for, like this or hate this, failing miserably! 3/5 |
RSS Feed