 I haven't been paying close attention to the slasher genre lately, and I have more than bloody likely missed out on some gems I have yet to explore (like most horror movies in my life, it's usually about catching up). But I can say that speaking for myself, this is one of the best slasher flicks I've seen in a long time. There's something about it that feels more of the 80s slasher genre I love so much, as it's complete with a sense of humour, has a cheesy edge to it, and has a 'Scream' feel to it; a movie which parodies 80s horror altogether!
Like with most slasher horror out there, plenty of critics will give it some digs, but if there's one thing I know about director Eli Roth, he's not in it much for critical recognition as opposed to making his fans cringe in all the best ways possible. With that in mind, my overall familiarity with the man was the torture porn bar-raiser, 'Hostel,' the film that ultimately made me realize torture horror was not for me. Although I still say the ending of it was kinda badass. Anyway, I kinda thought I would be getting more of that here. But I was pleasantly surprised! It's not without a bit of the torture that makes me so squeamish, but Roth otherwise does a great job with the variety in his kills here. It's definitely one for the gore hounds! In Plymouth, MA, on Thanksgiving, 2022, a crowd gathers outside a "RightMart" department store, positively rabid for a Black Friday sale. The crowd then notices off to the side that film lead Jessica Wright (Nell Verlaque), daughter of store owner Thomas Wright (Rick Hoffman), lets her boyfriend, Bobby (Jalen Thomas Brooks) and friends Evan (Tomaso Sanelli), Gabby (Addison Rae), Scuba (Gabriel Davenport) and Yulia (Jenna Warren) in through a side door. This invokes a riot, chaos happens, and it's a brutal reminder of why shopping online for Black Friday is a much better idea. It may not be as big a problem now, but I still can't be mad at Roth for putting his horrific spin on the concept. One year later, as RightMart prepares for another sale, ignoring what happened the previous year and ignoring protesters, mostly fuelled by Thomas' new wife, Kathleen (Karen Cliche) and her desire to put money above anything else. Meanwhile, a social media post tags Jessica and her friends, showing a Thanksgiving table with place settings with their names on them. It's soon discovered that this poster is a mysterious man dressed as John Carver, who is seemingly getting some kind of revenge on several people involved in the Black Friday sale of the previous year, according to town sheriff Eric Newlon (Patrick Dempsey). I think that perhaps the biggest standout of this movie is the kills themselves. As morbid as it may sound, this brings some originality and "Hollywood Meat" to the forefront and does a great balance between making you cringe and making you say "Oooh! Damn!" This is just a me thing, but I would say that I haven't seen kills this original since probably 'Final Destination 5', which did an amazing job with its fake-out kills. But again, remember that the horror I've missed over the past few years could probably fill half a video store (for those of you who remember them). But on top of a bunch of crazy kills, it should also be noted that there's a pretty solid comedic aspect to this flick as well. One scene in particular, around the middle of the movie, is almost guaranteed to have a laugh to lighten the mood. I won't say what it is, but you'll know when you see it because it stands out that much. But even with the solid kills and sense of humour, Roth still expands on things with a touch of father/daughter drama that takes nothing away from anything and a climactic scene that allows Roth to turn up the intensity levels. Before wrapping this review up, I have a few things for readers to consider. For starters, this feels like a major callback to the era of 80s slasher, where viewers come to see some kills and not take the film seriously. You're not going to have much fun with this if you're going to try taking anything about it seriously. It's pure horror entertainment at its finest, and one can think of it almost as a 'Scream' movie with the gore factor cranked to eleven. This is definitely one for fans of the slasher horror genre who aren't looking for any kind of seriousness attached to it because, after all, this DID come from a 'Grindhouse' trailer in the first place. 4/5
0 Comments
 This is yet another video game-based movie I know nothing about because I've never actually participated in any of these games. So, once again, I'm watching this objectively and treating it more as a horror movie than a video game adaptation. The bonus there is that I'm not necessarily looking for all of the flaws in the adaptation. But that also doesn't mean they're not there for game fans who rightfully should demand more than just a name slapped onto something to make some cash. 'Five Nights' here strikes me as such a movie.
From what I understand, almost half of this movie actually unfolds reasonably well. The opening sequence is nice and creepy, giving 'Saw' vibes to the viewer, but without showing any real gore. This will definitely be complained about, but I'm generally of the mind that often less is more. No blood is fine as long as your imagination can fill in the blanks with something even more potentially gruesome. That's something this film did well, and upon doing some homework, I've read that the games forego the blood and gore in exchange for atmosphere. You get this treatment throughout the film, so if you're here for the gore, this is not for you. We meet mall security guard Mike Schmidt (Josh Hutcherson), who one day gets fired for beating some kid's father half to death in the middle of the day and out in the open. Needless to say, he's fired. However, he does have to take care of his little sister, Abby (Piper Rubio), whom social services are threatening to hand over to who might as well be her over-the-top Disney-style evil aunt Jane (Mary Stuart Masterson); in it more for the custody monthly payments. As a result, Mike, willing to do anything, takes a security job at the now abandoned "Freddy Fazbears," a "Chuck E. Cheese"-style pizza restaurant that kids still often come around to vandalize. Mike often falls asleep on the job and has bad dreams about his little brother, Garrett (Lucas Grant), who was one day kidnapped when they were young. Without spoiling too much, this has a deeper connection to the overall story. But at one point, Jane sends some goons to rough up "Fazbears," and this, as far as I'm concerned, is the best part of the movie. The animatronic characters start coming to life and protecting their restaurant in some pretty badass and brutal ways. Again, there is no blood, but the effect is creepy, and I wondered quite honestly why so many people came out of this hating it. If the whole movie was gonna be like that, I was in for the ride. Mike meets this cop who seems to do routine checks at the restaurant, Vanessa (Elizabeth Lail), who gives him a tour of the place and its dark history. And I'm just gonna say that one night, Mike brings his little sister there. She befriends these animatronic terrors, and for some reason, the movie almost goes into "fun mode." As soon as it hits that point, you wonder what the hell happened. The film does explain a lot more, but if I'm gonna be perfectly honest, I don't entirely understand why it went the way it went, which was totally cliche. I immediately compared what became the film's central plot with the 'The Shining,' and it just didn't need to go there. With something like this (and please, fans, correct me if I'm wrong), one could have just as easily made these animatronics the vengeful spirits they're supposed to be and made a Jason or Michael Myers-like slasher flick out of this and make it about Mike having to survive the night while these things go amok but aren't necessarily seen by Mike doing it. Victims could be anything from criminals to risk-taking teenagers. While probably still not the best, it could have been a good "body count" horror movie that worked its creepy factor to the max. If the movie was like the scene here with the vandals, I feel that would have been fine. It's my understanding that when it comes to this film, however, it's meant to be a good toe-dip for younger audiences into the horror genre. To this, I can't honestly say I disagree, and it IS about time another one of these came along. However, there's a heavy kidnapping plot to this that probably would have traumatized me as a kid, and it's hard to know if this really knows what it wants to be. The right age for this is basically "puberty," I suppose. But this film couldn't quite pick a lane, and it is the first really big dip I've seen in video game adaptation quality in a while (debatable, yes, but it's just my opinion). 2/5  Right off the bat, I have to mention that this is one of those movies where, if you don't know that there's a follow-up movie in the works, the way things end (without spoiling anything) is nothing short of brutal. After watching this movie, I had to do some Googling to learn of 'Exorcist: Deceiver,' due out in a couple more years. So, with that, I can be much more forgiving. That said, the film is still getting pretty rough reviews on the whole, but I have to say that I'm in the camp of people who aren't all that mad at this movie.
Having said that, I can't say I hold out much hope for the direction things seem to be going, as this film seems to negate all of the original 'Exorcist' sequels and be directly linked to the original, creating a different universe and timeline altogether. If this sounds familiar, it's because the same directing/writing team-up of David Gordon Green and Danny McBride did this with the 'Halloween' franchise, only to eventually drive it into the ground in a different way (in my humble opinion, anyway). But, for now, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't at least a little impressed, and I'm not sure I totally understand the hate... although I do get some of it. Victor Fielding (Leslie Odom Jr.) and his pregnant wife, Sorenne (Tracey Graves), while on their honeymoon in Haiti, are struck by a massive earthquake that traps Sorenne and leads Victor to have to choose who lives between Sorenne and their unborn child, Angela. Faced with the impossible, Sorenne insists that Angela be born and raised, and so the choice is made. Thirteen years pass, Angela (Lidya Jewett) grows up, and one fateful day at school is given permission from her Dad to hang out with her good friend, Katherine (Olivia O'Neill), after school, but to be home by dinner. Their after-school activity, however, unbeknownst to their parents, is to conduct a séance, attempting to reach Angela's mother. Dinnertime comes and goes, and as the hours wear thin, Victor gets more concerned and contacts Katherine's parents, Tony and Miranda (Norbert Leo Butz and Jennifer Nettles, respectively); soon enough, the three begin a three-day manhunt to look for the girls who are eventually found but have been, shall we say, changed. It starts pretty subtly, where skepticism can still rule out a thing or two, but it's not long before the supernatural stuff starts happening between both Angela and Katherine, who seem to be attached to the same demon who offers the parents the choice of which daughter gets to live, and which has to die. Honestly, the trailer does give away quite a bit. While that's the main story, I think people wonder more about what happens with our legacy character, Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn). Well, friends, this is where the real disappointment of the film comes into play. If you've come to see Chris kick some ass in the same way we saw Jamie Lee Curtis do it in the new 'Halloween' movies, you're probably not gonna be happy with the results. Her screen time here is nothing short of a joke, and she's only really brought in for one reason: the very end of the movie, which I can't spoil for anyone here. It's a shame because she was such a big draw for audiences, and they barely use her. Having said that, however, I'm not straying from my mention of not being that mad at this movie. Besides a lack of Ellen Burstyn and a few things the demon seems to be able to do that I'm not completely sure I accept, I do have to hand it to the movie that the two girls they got to act possessed here do a fantastic and terrifying job, and the underlying message of choice feels like it's pretty well done, if perhaps a little heavy-handed, showing that we are faced with life-altering choices that we can either be smart about, or very ignorant about, based on our emotions. This isn't exactly "Horror Movie of the Year," but I do feel like if you can go into this with the understanding of what I've mentioned, including Ellen Burstyn not being used to the film's advantage and the fact that there IS another movie on its way, it's not as bad a movie as people are letting it on to be, if you're looking for something scary to watch on the big screen right now. To me, this felt pretty reminiscent of the original in many ways, and these two girls really sell it with their possession acting skills. It's a film that isn't without its problems. But I think I see it as getting more criticism than it may deserve. 3/5 NOTE: The following review will eventually be moved to a special 'Saw' page.  When it comes to my familiarity with the 'Saw' franchise, it goes a little something like this. I've seen parts 1-3, missed parts 4-7, and seen 'Jigsaw' and 'Spiral.' I quoted the last two as "just another 'Saw' movie" and "Fine if you're into that kind of thing." Speaking personally, I felt it lost its overall quality during the third one, in which *SPOILER ALERT* John Kramer (Tobin Bell) passed away due to his brain cancer. From there, I just kind of wondered why they bothered to keep going other than the obvious "cash-in."
The franchise carries on from there, and to be fair, I didn't really bother with it at all, and a lot of that was because John died - a character who, by the way, I strongly considered the next big thing in horror after Part 2. I figured the rest were pretty much more of the same thing - torturous traps that the victim has to put themselves through to survive with an underlying message of appreciating the life that one is given and not wasting it on whatever crimes or wrongdoings John has you trapped for. I can appreciate the tactic these traps use in which the victim CAN ultimately survive; they just have to sacrifice something big to do so. 'Saw X,' thankfully for yours truly, presses the rewind button and gives us back the somewhat brilliant mind of John Kramer with a story taking place between Parts 2 and 3. This movie is far less about Jigsaw's traps (even though there's plenty here for those who have come to see some new inventions) and more about the man himself. Until now, I always found the first two to be my favourites (out of the five I saw), and the second is high on the list for allowing us to see John Kramer, aka "The Jigsaw Killer," and the way his mind works. This aspect returns in this film but humanizes the man even further. In the film's beginning, Kramer is told that he only has a few months to live. Later, at a cancer support meeting, he meets a man named Henry Kessler (Michael Beach), who is also evidently terminal. A short time later, John and Henry cross paths, and Henry tells him of a miracle cure he had done to him conducted at a research facility so secluded that we find out they basically have to stage a kidnapping just to bring you there. Interested, John calls Dr. Cecelia Pederson (Synnøve Macody Lund) and is scheduled to travel to Mexico City to complete the procedure. Without major spoilers, however, let's just say things don't go as planned. Now, I should probably forewarn the people here who come to see the torture porn that, even though the traps come, it is a bit of a slow burn for the viewer to get there. This is frankly something I admire, but not everyone will be into it, and I totally get that. But I will say that it makes room for some kind of empathy towards John Kramer, someone we know as a really twisted sicko at this point. But we see him engage in casual conversations about hope; he befriends and helps out a child with his bicycle, and we get more of his human, relatable side. And when you really give that some thought, that's scarier than any trap. To expand on that a little bit, this movie drives home the point any true crime podcaster has officially absorbed: the typical psycho killer usually wears a friendly face, and they're not the physical monsters movies make them out to be. Remember, even Ted Bundy had an insane amount of charm. So, for me, the film's true quality shines with the study of John Kramer's character instead of the creativity of some of his traps. While the horror aspect is most definitely still here, I daresay that this might be the only 'Saw' movie that adds a good dramatic edge to it. I might suggest that this isn't exactly your typical 'Saw' movie, and the viewers will have to decide for themselves whether they appreciate the fact that there's depth to this chapter. As far as I'm concerned, these movies have a weird connection with me in that Jigsaw is one of my all-time favourite movie villains, but the 'Saw' franchise is far from my favourite horror franchise. Jigsaw is one of those villains, like Thanos, in that you understand what he's doing. You might disagree with him, but you get why he's doing it. There's a "point" to it all. And this movie reinforced my appreciation for this particular villain for the first time in years! 4/5  I must admit that when I first saw the trailer for this movie, I pretty well rolled my eyes at it as yet another haunting movie that would be the same as most others. I tend to view them as a typical novelty haunted house in that you go into it, and you're along for a thrill ride using things like jump scares to fulfill your adrenaline needs. It's typically a fun time instead of a traumatizing one, though, with hints of mystery and intrigue accompanying the ride. I tend to enjoy them in their own ways and prefer them to torture porn.
However, as I watched the trailer, Detective Hercule Poirot popped up, and I was immediately sold. The idea of giving us a detective horror (and I use the term very loosely) film seemed right up my alley. Many don't realize it, but one old Sherlock film I watched and thoroughly enjoyed was 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'. That would be the 1939 version of the story featuring Basil Rathbone as Holmes. It made for one of those great atmospheric classics. And since I enjoyed the last two Poirot films as their own fun "thrill rides", I found something about bringing back this horror detective story idea super intriguing. This chapter opens up in post-war Venice, Italy, which they made look incredibly inviting, as though it had this rustic quality, like some sort of fancy, beautiful antique. The sort of thing that looks a little homely on the outside, even, dare I say, haunted? There dwells a retired Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) and his bodyguard, ex-police officer Vitale Portfoglio (Riccardo Scamarcio). On Halloween, Poirot is approached by novelist Ariadne Oliver (Tina Fey) and asked to attend a séance with her to expose a medium named Joyce Reynolds (Michelle Yeoh) as a fraud. Poirot reluctantly agrees to join her to make short work of this. Opera singer Rowena Drake (Kelly Reilly) meets with them at her Palazzo, and it's explained that she has hired Mrs. Reynolds as a means to communicate with her deceased daughter, Alicia (Rowan Robinson), who apparently committed suicide after a romance went south. Also in the séance's attendance are Rowena's housekeeper, Olga Seminoff (Camille Cottin), Drake's family physician, Leslie Ferrier (Jamie Dornan) and his son, Leopold (Jude Hill), and Reynolds' assistants, Desdemona Holland (Emma Laird) and an American guy named Maxime Gerard (Kyle Allen) who happens to be Alicia's Father, but not in the best of places with Rowena. Poirot is ready to leave after the séance, in which admittedly bizarre and spooky stuff happens. But when one of the group is brutally murdered, the séance turns into a crime scene, and Poirot finds himself on the case once again. However, Poirot has to deal with the ins and outs of reality itself this time and may even have to call his own skepticism into question regarding whether there is a ghostly realm beyond. And I'm just going to go ahead and say it: this is, perhaps obviously for those who know my tastes, probably my favourite of the bunch so far (I don't know how many of these Branagh plans to do). While 'Murder on the Orient Express' and 'Death on the Nile' were entertaining in their own rights, there was no sense of "perfection" from either of them. That may not be the right word, but I'm talking about when something seemingly lines up perfectly for the viewer, as long as we count "perfection" as relative. This provided yours truly with a pretty wonderful balance to what I like to call "toe-dip horror", which is usually the concept of horror translated into a PG-rated or PG-13-rated movie. There's actually a decent jump scare or two here, but it's still a mystery first. Add a sprinkle of good humour and some solid acting and it's a good time, especially for the Spooky Season. I think I can safely recommend this to anyone looking for a Halloween watch this year that's more or less family-friendly. It's a murder mystery, a ghost story, a haunted house movie, and the rustic setting of Venice makes for some really creepy but perfectly natural set pieces. Story-wise, it's also fun to wonder along the way from Poirot's point of view - that of a complete and total skeptic. I also have my skeptical side, but let's be honest here - where's the fun in that? It's just kind of fun seeing a skeptic's point of view get tarnished with something they can't explain. But one thing I can explain is that if you enjoyed the last couple of these, you're in for a real treat with this one! 4/5  I'm not entirely sure where it all started, but when it comes to the whole "bad shark movie" trend (shark-related movies that are made purposefully to be "so bad they're good"), I never really fell into it, with a couple of exceptions here and there. We all have some trend, or several, that we don't fall into along with everyone else. Sharks have always been one of those that applied to me. So when a movie comes along like this, it can be a challenge to review, as it's OK for those who are into it. But for me, it's mildly fun at best.
To briefly recap the first film, we first met Jonas Taylor (Jason Statham), a pro rescue diver who is hired by Zhang (Winston Chao) and Mac (Cliff Curtis), a couple of oceanographers, studying the deeper levels of the Marianas Trench, to perform a rescue mission for a submersible that was attacked by a Megalodon (a giant shark), and the only part anyone cares about is the fun concept of Jason Statham fighting a massive shark, despite a surprising lack of shark imagery within the film. It was okay, at best, and spoiler alert, this isn't better. Jonas is now helping the underwater research facility "Mana One," exploring the Mariana Trench further and providing the muscle behind fighting various environmental crimes. He also takes on the responsibility of looking after Meiying (Shuya Sophia Cai), the daughter of one of the previous film's casualties. Meanwhile, Meiying's uncle, Jiuming Zhang (Jing Wu), who has since acquired his father's company, studies a female Meg named Haiqi, whom he found and trained as a pup, and this is where we get the idea that maybe it's "misunderstood." There's a sort of "Free Willy"-like connection there. Jonas feels pretty iffy about this supposed "connection," unable to trust the Megoladon for obvious reasons, especially when she starts acting erratically. Jonas and Jiuming take a submersible (with Meiying stowing away) into the trench to see what may be bothering Haiqi. As it turns out, Haigi's bothered by an illegal underwater mining operation being led by one of Jonas' old perpetrators (who he imprisoned earlier), a mercenary named Montes (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), who is there to mine rare underwater minerals to make a fortune. His mining, however, allows Haigi to escape. Plot-wise, this turns into a man vs man story as opposed to the man vs nature story we probably expected, and for me, that was a bummer since my biggest complaint about the last film was the lack of sharks. There's still some material here that will fulfill the needs of those looking for a cheesy, corny adventure under the sea, but it's not the simple "Statham vs Shark" film I hoped for. But we get some never-before-seen critters known as "Snappers" and, eventually, a giant octopus, which is hilariously fun once it shows up; the kind of fun that is trying to look very serious, but one can't possibly take it seriously. For those wondering about who else may have returned from the previous film, there's an essential tag team here made up of survivors Mac and DJ (Page Kennedy), who's meant to be the comedy relief but just about all of his lines feel awkward or forced. He's a touch more annoying than funny. But God bless him. He had what he had to work with, so full blame goes on the writers for trying to make a fast-talking, shall we say, stereotype. That could be an overthought, but that's how I took it. If you're looking for an awful movie that you can still enjoy somewhat ironically, 'Meg 2' isn't a bad place to look. I fully understand that this is made for people looking for that cheese factor in their lives, and I can't discredit it for delivering that on some level. It is mildly entertaining in all the wrong ways, especially regarding the creatures. But as I said at the top of this review, the shark thing was never my bag. So, while it has a fun factor to it that I can understand for others, this one wasn't necessarily for me, just like its predecessor. 2/5  So, right off the bat, people may wonder where this fits with any sort of 'Evil Dead' canon. Well, I don't entirely know what's what when it comes to 'Evil Dead' canon, timelines, etc. But I also know that 'Evil Dead' is a certain breed of horror where each individual film in the franchise is its own ride. In my opinion, it works similarly to something like 'Friday the 13th', in that a fluid timeline doesn't really matter because we're here to have fun. We come to these movies to treat them as something similar to a gimmicky haunted house tour.
With 'Evil Dead', it's about gallons of blood, extreme gore, hellish entities, and the lengths the hero will go to survive. Well, I'm happy to say that even though this chapter takes us out of that old cabin in the woods and into the city of LA, all the right components are still there. The film DOES open back in a cabin/cottage-like environment where the movie lets you know really fast that it's not here to mess around. I'm not going into any further detail about that, but I will say that it's a treat for fans of this stuff. It gives us what we came for immediately, and then our story gets going. This time, the story revolves around a family of five. First, we meet guitar technician, Beth (Lily Sullivan), who's fairly upset about a new pregnancy. This leads her to drop in on her sister, Ellie (Alyssa Sutherland), a single mother of three. At one point during the visit, the three kids, Danny (Morgan Davies), Bridget (Gabrielle Echols) and Kassie (Nell Fisher) head out for a few odds and ends, and upon their return, the apartment complex is shaken by an earthquake. This opens up a concealed space in the parking lot which Danny explores, finding three phonograph records from the 20s, and one of three volumes of the Naturom Demonto (or Necronomicon: The Book of the Dead). Everyone gets back safely, but Danny uses his turntables to listen to the phonograph records (I dunno that this would actually work, but why not?) and as these things go, an incantation is said out loud, those good old Deadites are summoned, and we're in for a fun, gore-filled ride as per usual. This time, however, there's a bit of a twist on the usual. Here, it's not a bunch of friends, but a family being tormented by these dark forces, potentially making "doing the right thing" that much harder. Just to raise the stakes, we also bring in a pregnant woman and a preteen girl, which cause the imagination to run wild, wondering how safe they could be in a movie this intense. With that, I have to give this chapter full credit for balancing the psychological horror with the gore we all came to see. Although on the surface there's so much similarity to the previous films, there really is an added layer of tension to this one when you stop to consider some of its aspects. One of the best parts of this movie is actually little Kassie, in that she is a little girl faced with absolute nightmare fuel, and we manage to feel her fear as it happens to involve the family she depends on. It adds a whole new level of helplessness to the horror and it's such a good move to give the audience the right feeling. The 'Evil Dead' franchise is what I'd consider an acquired taste, however. Much like those aforementioned haunted house tours, they aren't necessarily for everyone. I even consider my relationship with them to be somewhat strange. I don't like torture porn, but there's a lot of stuff throughout these movies that still do a good job of making me squirm. But I appreciate the "squirms" these ones give me. For example, the original's "pencil through the ankle" scene provided us with an excruciating visual that was actually quite quick, but due to the reaction of the victim, it really sticks with you. I'm glad to say that this one is no exception with those creepy, messed up, intense visuals. I wasn't entirely sure what to think about this when it first came out. It almost felt like the concept of 'Evil Dead' was starting to run its course with the finale of 'Ash vs Evil Dead' back in 2018. It all sort of seemed that it would reach that point of "more of the same". Yet somehow, some way, 'Evil Dead Rise' managed to give us some new stakes, change up the roles of the main characters, change the location of where things were going down, and STILL give us fans what we came to see. The blood and gore still come in buckets, it makes the viewer uncomfortable by using both visuals and dialogue and above all else, it's a fun, if perhaps sick and twisted time! Just remember not to take things too seriously here - it's a funhouse ride, not a bloody Oscar contender. 4/5  Throughout the decades, there has been version upon version of Count Dracula. So many have played him, ranging from the classically trained, like Christopher Lee to modern(ish) comedians like Leslie Nielson. And even though I certainly haven't seen all of them, I think that this was the first time I saw someone playing him where I said "Okay, I'm in" just from the very suggestion of Nicolas Cage as the Prince of Darkness himself, which can only really mean he's gonna have a LOT of fun playing such a fictionally historical character.
As the film starts off, we meet Robert Montague Renfield (Nicholas Hoult) in the midst of a 12-step self-help group for people in co-dependent relationships. Here we learn his quick history for those unfamiliar with the original Dracula story. About 90 years prior to this film, Renfield visits Dracula in the hopes to broker a deal for some land, and in the process, ends up being Drac's "familiar", which grants him superhuman abilities upon consumption of bugs, and immortal life, but with the curse of having to be Dracula's servant, bringing him his "dinner" whenever he needs it, among other things. Part of Renfield's involvement in the 12-step program includes him being able to seek out the abusers in these relationships and deliver them to Dracula as sustenance. This way, he doesn't need to feel remorse. He follows one to a warehouse of stolen drugs, where he makes some meat out of a few guys with his abilities, but one, Teddy Lobo (Ben Schwartz) manages to escape, only to run into a sobriety checkpoint run by Officer Rebecca Quincy (Awkwafina) who does manage to bring him in, but he gets released due to the police station's overall corruptness, and the only person she can seem to trust is her sister, Kate (Camille Chen), who happens to be an FBI agent as well. When Renfield brings Dracula the bodies from the scene, Drac mentions how inefficient these corpses are, as he needs the blood of innocents, not the blood of the corrupt. This eventually leads Renfield to a restaurant where he happens to cross paths with Rebecca as well as several members of the Lobo crime family, including Teddy, who ambush her. She stands up to them, which Renfield admires, and the two fight their way out of the situation and become friends. This also starts to inspire Renfield to stand up for himself against Dracula, which proves to be a nearly impossible task. But really, it all turns into a rather fun, if perhaps a little predictable take about standing up for one's self, using the silver screen's ultimate horror movie villain as the main antagonist. Although the story doesn't entirely stick out, I do appreciate who they used for the subject matter of this movie. What's more, is that the film shows us that essentially, these two are current incarnations of the classic characters from 1931's 'Dracula', which I thought was interesting. We see a black-and-white flashback at the beginning here that's quite honestly very well done, seeing both Nic Cage and Nic Hoult fill in the shoes of Bela Lugosi and Dwight Frye, respectively (although I think Renfield's original first name actually changed, that's just a technicality I feel almost no one is looking at here). The interesting thing I found with this was that it was actually a reworking of a story that landed in development hell after the dismal failure of 2017's 'The Mummy'. It then became a choice to bring this concept back, leaning into the more comedic aspects of the story. There was some back-and-forth, but really, all I think they needed to put butts in seats from the get-go was the casting of Nic Cage as Dracula. It just seems like one of those suggestions the common man would simply flock to just to see. Imagine it along the lines of casting Christopher Walken as the Wolfman. It's something you don't think of immediately, but damn it sounds like fun. And, if I'm honest, Cage definitely delivers here. I had fun with this one, but I also have a bit of a bias toward a good, gory horror comedy that leans into the comedy. My only real criticism is of the character of Rebecca. Generally speaking, I enjoy Awkwafina in what I see her in. But Rebecca's character can be a lot at times. Although we are supposed to relate to her overall situation of frustration, there are often times when you just wanna tell her to calm the hell down. But that's really about all I can say about it negatively. It may be a familiar moral in the end, but if you're anything like me and wanna see this just for the good time it simply suggests you'll have, I doubt you'll be very disappointed. 4/5  When it comes to the twist-fetish director, M. Night Shyamalan, I have a very "hit-or-miss" opinion of him. I quite like a handful of his movies, a few are decent, but some are just bad. Because of this, I tend to go into any one of his movies with the expectation that it could be just as bad as 'Lady in the Water' (which I consider his weakest work), and I don't look for the next 'Sixth Sense' (which I consider his strongest work). Speaking personally, Shyamalan has established himself as the epitome of a "middle-ground" director.
With that in mind, 'Knock at the Cabin' is the epitome of one of Shyamalan's middle-ground movies. For one, I'm admittedly not usually that good at calling movie twists, but this was one I managed to call from the get-go to some degree, and the actual twist isn't all that shocking. It's also a fairly basic plot, and I have to admit that the way it ended kind of left me wanting much more detail about what the hell just happened. The silly thing is, there are explanations for everything, but the explanations don't feel like enough or are even kind of cheap. Eric (Jonathan Groff) and Andrew (Ben Aldridge), dual fathers to their adopted daughter, Wen (Kristen Cui) are vacationing at a remote cabin in the woods. While Wen is outside catching grasshoppers, she is met by a man named Leonard (Dave Bautista). Although a threatening presence, Leonard actually comes across as quite friendly, and soon explains that he needs her and her parents' help to save the world. But when three others start approaching with what look like weapons, Wen runs back into the cabin to warn her parents about the creepy strangers. However, it's all for not, and eventually, the surefire home invasion aspect comes into play. Leonard, along with three others, Sabrina (Nikki Amuka-Bird), Adriane (Abby Quinn) and Redmond (Rupert Grint) explain that in the last week, the four of them have been having rather specific visions of a forthcoming apocalypse, and some unknown force has led them to this cabin to find this family. They further explain that in order to save all of humanity, the family must sacrifice someone. If they don't, the three family members can continue to live, but the rest of the world falls apart and leaves them alone to walk the earth. With each failure to say "yes" to this sacrifice, one member of the invading group has to make their own sacrifice, and a part of humanity is judged, leading to some kind of horrible global disaster. In the end, this really just felt like a movie's take on one of those impossible questions; in this case, if it meant saving the world, would you kill a family member? And of course with that are all of the questions that come with it, which are pretty well answered throughout the film. But one should know that it's a very basic premise with not a whole hell of a lot of depth to it. The film goes by pretty quickly and gets to its final point, and even when it gets there and it's all one saying what it needs to say, somehow it feels like there's something still missing. It's the type of movie that ends and you say "oh, is that it?" even though when you think about it, they've actually covered everything. I think if I was to say that anything stood out in the movie, it would probably be the acting involved. We're not talking about Oscar-worthy performances, necessarily, but it is a film that allows us to see a bit of range on some of the bigger names like Bautista and Grint. But beyond that, I sort of admired the acting chops of young Kristen Cui, who gives us a pretty damn convincing performance. I've done this a couple of times before and been right about it, but I do predict big things for this girl's future, just as I did with Hailee Steinfeld after seeing 'True Grit', and Saoirse Ronan after seeing 'The Lovely Bones'. Now, Saoirse has four Oscar nominations under her belt and Hailee is a part of the MCU AND 'Transformers' universes. Anyway, the film is by no means what I'd consider "bad", but it's an extremely middle-ground movie for Shyamalan. I took it as a bit of a cocktail of some of his other films. I saw some of 'Devil' here (with the extremely predictable twist), some of 'The Village' (with a world of unseen and unknown surrounding them), and some of 'The Visit' to some degree (questioning who you can trust). In the end, it's by no means a great movie, but it's definitely not the worst thing Shyamalan has come up with either. Quality-wise, I might suggest this is one of the most middle-ground films he's ever made. The ideas are cool, the acting is well-done, and I daresay it does make one think. Worth checking out of you're a Shyamalan fan, but it may be for the more dedicated fans than the merely curious. 3/5  This one comes to us from writer/director Brandon Cronenberg; son of David Cronenberg, the undisputed king of visceral horror, holding such titles under his belt as 'The Fly', 'Scanners', 'eXistenZ' and 'Naked Lunch' just to name a few. With that comes the knowledge that this is probably going to be a weird and messed up kind of movie with that Cronenberg name, and sure enough, this doesn't fail in its delivery. And while there's a fair share of body horror, most of the horror here is psychological. It's good for those seeking the next "WTF did I just watch?" title.
Taking place in the bizarre seaside country of Li Tolqa (fictional), writer James Foster (Alexander Skarsgård) and his wife, Em (Cleopatra Coleman) are enjoying a getaway, but do face a few marital problems during their stay. One night, Gabi Bauer (Mia Goth), a fan of James' work, invites the couple to hang out with her and her husband, Alban (Jalil Lespert). Despite fair warnings to stay on the resort in such a place, the four eventually travel the countryside and have a good time (some more than others). However, on their way back, James ends up hitting a local with the car, killing him. Being in a rather corrupt country, this essentially means facing execution. The next day, James is arrested and sentenced to death, which, in this country, means the first-born son of the victim gets to carry out the sentence. As luck would have it, though, James married into money and is able to afford a certain procedure that will allow him to live. Said procedure involves paying to have a clone made of yourself to be executed instead, while you get to live on. And this is where the movie takes a crazy turn. James pays for the procedure and, along with Em, actually sits to watch the execution. But while Em is understandably horrified by the spectacle, James is kind of into it, presumably realizing the power he's been given. While Em is convinced to go back to America, James extends his stay by a week and hangs out with Gabi and Alban a little more. Here is where James and Gabi meet a group of similar tourists who have undergone the same procedure. Without going into spoiler territory, things really take off from here, as the group has this realization of invincibility, as long as they can keep substituting clones for their crimes. Soon, they go after the very people who sentenced them in the first place with thoughts of revenge. But certain questions come into play with all of this, such as obvious morality, but also questioning whether one of these death-row-worthy crimes ever lead to the death of the original person, knowing the clones still retain memories. It should probably be noted that I'm personally not the biggest fan of body/visceral horror, but as I mentioned before, this feels much more psychological. Things most definitely get 'Game of Thrones' level messed up in this movie, and that goes beyond this idea of cloning yourself and then watching a version of yourself get killed in front of your eyes. Like, if that's not truly messed up, I dunno what is. But having said that, I really did feel a sense of symbolism about this idea. I didn't take it as a way to commit suicide and keep living, which I think is what some took away from it. In that case, yeah, it's a WTF kind of flick. But bear with me on this one. My takeaway was that every version of James he saw killed was some part of his personality that he wanted to do away with. When you pay close attention, each one is very different in the way they act, and once killed off, James seems to get some sort of satisfaction from it (usually). I see it as a cautionary tale, in that if we do away with those versions of ourselves that we hate, it doesn't really make us "us" anymore. Even the way it ends sort of lends itself to this idea (I think). But of course, that's a simple interpretation of someone's work of art. Whether that's what Cronenberg meant by it or not, only he knows for sure. I just got the feeling that there was something much deeper to this than met the eye. This belongs to a subgenre of films that make you feel dirty enough to need a shower after watching it, and there's no rush to re-watch it. While I admired some of the concepts behind this, it's still not something I would consider up my alley, despite my whole takeaway from it. I think this one's made for a particular audience I'm not necessarily a part of, but if you like a good "WTF did I just watch" movie, it's not a bad rabbit hole to head down for a good, twisted mind. It's an unusual mixture of intriguing and creepy with haunting aspects to it and the way it plays with the viewer's brain. I really do think that if this is your kind of thing, it's very well worth checking out. But for yours truly, it's a bit too much. 3/5  Throughout the years, there has been no shortage of "killer doll" stories. It's probably safe to say that most people in the world know of at least one, whether it be movies like 'Child's Play', books like RL Stine's 'Night of the Living Dummy' or even made for TV movies like 'Trilogy of Terror', whose final short about a terrifying doll traumatized children everywhere at the time. But with so many examples out there (far more than what's been listed), why does 'M3GAN' feel so... right?
First and foremost, the story comes to us from the one and only James Wan, who just plain understands what "creepy" means. Further titles of his, be it screenplay or story include some of the 'Saw', the 'Conjuring' movies and, perhaps to a lesser extent, 'Insidious 2' and 'Dead Silence'. The screenplay writer Akela Cooper and Director Gerard Johnstone are a bit less familiar, but certainly, show promise for future films. Together, they provide the perfect atmosphere for something like this. At times, it can be pleasant and happy, and at others, it can be really quite creepy. On top of it all, however, lies a sense of humour, and some aspects of the film not taking itself too seriously. A girl named Cady (Violet McGraw) experiences childhood trauma when her parents are killed in a car crash. She is sent to live with her Aunt Gemma (Allison Williams), who works for a robotic toy company called "Funki". In this fictional world, these guys would have cranked out Furbies, and the film parodies the concept of the "must-have" toy immediately. Anyway, Gemma's latest project is M3GAN (standing for Model 3 Generative ANdroid) A test of it, however, fails, and she's ordered to drop the project by her boss, David (Ronny Chieng). Meanwhile, Gemma's new relationship with Cady is a little rocky back home. That is until Cady discovers a mocap robot named Bruce, and upon interacting with it, expresses a wish that she could have a toy like that. This prompts Gemma to bring a completed M3GAN (Amie Donald's mocap/Jenna Davis' voice) home behind her boss's back. However, M3GAN is excelling at everything she should be doing properly - not the least of which includes becoming a companion for Cady. Her caretaking responsibilities and ability to learn and divulge knowledge are nothing short of extraordinary. David soon becomes convinced that the project should go forward, but it's what people aren't seeing firsthand that becomes the problem. M3GAN is learning very quickly, generally using the internet to her advantage, but she also has a protocol to protect and care for Cady. This leads to some rather overprotective methods on her part, and soon enough, she becomes more than she can handle as she slowly becomes more and more independent. So going back to what I asked before, about this feeling "right", another way to put it would be to say that this is what the 'Child's Play' reboot should have been. I think 'Child's Play' had the right idea, but the execution took itself too seriously, AND, still... why does that teenager want that Chucky doll? The concept, however, revolved around the ever-popular cautionary tale of technology going awry and becoming self-aware, which could ultimately lead to some kind of catastrophe. But I couldn't help but think of the 'Child's Play' reboot the whole time watching this, and how it could have been so much better. For me, this was a movie that got the concept a little more down. It should be said that this also isn't just another movie about a killer doll combined with the aforementioned cautionary tale. This one sort of turns things around by having Cady be more and more reliant on M3GAN, taking her to be very real. It makes sense to make such a connection at such a tender age if your parents were in a fatal accident. At times, you're not sure who's scarier - Cady or M3GAN. I liked how Cady never quite got how M3GAN could be any sort of threat, whereas, in most "killer doll" movies, the kid (or whoever is involved) does eventually figure it out and become scared. Cady's actually a little more unsure of her new guardian, Gemma than she is of her new best friend. I think Gemma is also a well-written character, as she shows two very human sides to herself. She tries to be kind and sweet to Cady and gives her what she needs. But she also needs Cady to help show what M3GAN she can do. She's a good balance of the guardian who walks the fine line between career and parenthood. There are times you don't really like her, but you still get the impression that she's trying - she just doesn't really know what she's doing. With characters a little more fleshed out, the film not taking things too seriously, and even giving us some pretty cool kill scenes, I get the feeling that M3GAN could become a new face for horror. 4/5 |
RSS Feed