 If you were born some time before the year 2000, then chances are (unless you were still a baby), you might remember the whole big stink about the Y2K virus. To keep it real simple, it was the concept that computers, worldwide, would cease to operate properly, because old dating code, using two digits, could only go up to "99." So, when "00" flipped back over, it might be mistaken for 1900, and thus, potentially, things might crash, in more ways than one. It was a big deal that most rational people overlooked, but caused panic in others.
However, when midnight hit here in Southern Ontario, Canada, nothing happened, and it was easy to know nothing would happen, if it didn't happen in Australia several hours earlier. It was one of time's biggest pranks on humanity, and pretty silly to look back on and think about. But 'Y2K' here tries to answer the "what-if" question, had the Y2K virus been real. It does so in a comedic fashion that doesn't take itself seriously, which is great and all, but the overall execution here was honestly pretty brutal. As the film gets going, it plays out a bit more like your average teen comedy of the era, all too complete with call-backs to things from the late 90s that may be off by a year or two. We're introduced to teen best friends, Eli (Jaeden Martell) and Danny (Julian Dennison) who discuss what they wanna do for New Years Eve. At a store, the pair watch as Eli's crush, Laura (Rachel Zegler), and her friends swipe some alcohol for a party they're going to at Laura's boyfriend, "Soccer" Chris' (The Kid Laroi) house. Deciding to crash said party, Eli and Danny go, in the hopes that not only Eli might get his chance to kiss Laura at midnight, and that Danny can gain some popularity, which he somehow manages by dancing and signing along to Sisquo's 'Thong Song,' and it's pretty damn cringey. But just as things are looking up (for Danny, at least), midnight hits, the power goes out, and things go off the rails - not in a cool, badass, horror way, but in a stupid, juvenile, high school project way. Somehow, basically immediately, computers around Chris' house start getting super intelligent and running around killing the party people, panic ensues, and the viewer is left with the question of "how is that supposed to happen?" The film suggests computerized objects latching onto potentially more dangerous objects and assimilating. Think of wires coming out of some place on your PC and grabbing a lighter and a can of hairspray - it's gonna use it as a weapon (and this happens). But I guess one must remember that this is a comedy, too. The problem with this being a comedy is that it kinda just... isn't one. It seems that every time the movie tries to be funny, with the exception of maybe a faint snicker because things get so ridiculous, things just fall flat. The teen comedy side of it is just too typical (It's essentially 'Superbad' in the beginning), the horror isn't at all freaky, and the special effects here feel so much more from the late 80s, they look that cheesy. Oh, and I forgot the best part - Fred Durst shows up to play himself as if to desperately ask us "I still matter, right?" I generally like a good horror comedy, but this just didn't hit at all for me. It may end up being a bit more fun for anyone watching who was born after the turn of the century, but even that's a stretch. It came and went from theatres in the blink of an eye, and it's very easy to see why. This one isn't even really "throw-your-brain-out-the-window" fun, and there's wasted potential here. There are a few competitors for this title, but this might be the worst movie I saw in 2024. 1/5
0 Comments
 I don't know for sure that I see this in the big, bright, shiny light that others seem to be seeing it in. But I do have to give kudos to this film for trying out a bit of a different angle to the horror genre. As an all-around Agnostic, myself, I don't believe this was entirely meant for someone like me. I respect peoples' varying religious beliefs, because that's up to them, and as long as no one is getting hurt, c'est la vie. In watching this film, largely about religious beliefs and the choices we have, I wasn't exactly affected by it in any way.
Having said that, I do believe that it works well as a psychological horror movie for those who have some sort of religious tie to their lives. In a nutshell, the film IS the awkward and uncomfortable conversation we all have about religion at some point in our lives, but with the fear of the unknown lurking around every corner the whole time. As a bonus, while the film goes for the questioning of Mormonism, according to some sources, its peek into the Mormon lifestyle is actually pretty well done (although I can't be 100% sure on that), especially now that most of us our used to Trey Parker's version of things ('Book of Mormon'). We actually open things up with a couple of Mormon sisters, Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Paxton (Chloe East) having a casual, friendly chat. Surprisingly enough, it's actually about pornography, suggesting that these girls aren't just a couple of overly-innocent prudes as they may often be portrayed. The pair are doing their rounds of door-to-door, and eventually happen on the home of the reclusive, but seemingly very interested, Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant). Once the girls are invited in to discuss the Church of Latter Day Saints, Heavenly Father and the like, that's when things start getting a bit creepy. Everything starts out seemingly innocent, but soon Reed starts asking the girls some uncomfortable questions about their faith. While Paxton is put off by these questions and immediately ready to leave, Barnes does her best to try to see his perspective, having only recently joined the church with some leftover questions about religion in her own head. In a matter of time, the Sisters find themselves trapped in the house, and subjected to Mr. Reed's mind games, all centred on faith, religion, belief, etc. While there are certainly elements of the type of horror in which someone's trapped somewhere for sadistic experimentation, I have to appreciate that this wasn't, yet again, the same tired formula, possibly made most famous by 'Human Centipede.' Victim enters house, victim is knocked out, victim wakes up in sheer terror after having been experimented on in some way, shape or form. Here, Reed isn't so much a puppeteer as a curious onlooker. He has these girls there against their will, yes, be he allows them some "freedom" of choice. I think the big question on everyone's mind concerning this movie, however, has very little to do with anything religious. The big question here is, how is Hugh Grant as a villain? After all, we mostly know him as a charming ladies man from several romantic comedies of the 90s, or otherwise pretty innocent, even if he is playing a villain ('Paddington 2'). I'm glad to say that as a more serious villain, the man does a great job! He's not at all over the top, somewhat unsuspecting (even if you know his role here), and he's very convincing as a sort of "every-man," which truly adds to the real-life horror of some strangers out there. As a horror fan, I can definitely appreciate the change of pace and direction this movie went, putting the aspect of horror into the questioning of one's faith. It acts far more psychologically than physically, but it also does a good job at keeping things suspenseful all the way through. That said, and also as a horror fan, this isn't scary for someone like me. It comes across as more of a philosophical conversation about faith with consequences. So, I can appreciate it for what it is, but it doesn't end up at the top of any lists for me, either. 3/5  I'm gonna start this review off by saying you shouldn't continue reading anything beyond this first paragraph if you haven't seen the first 'Smile' yet. This picks up six days after the events of its predecessor, and really hits the ground running, assuming that the viewer has seen the first movie, and knows exactly what's going on. I will keep things relatively spoiler-free, but I'm gonna have to spoil a lot of the first film in order to explain this one. Also, 'Smile' ends in such an awesome and unexpected way, so I still highly recommend checking it out first.
So, with known spoilers ahead, let's just quickly break down the "smile curse," itself. Basically, a demonic entity, which can take on other forms (think 'The Thing'), terrorizes one person at a time, causing them to commit grizzly acts of suicide in front of a witness, who will then inherit the curse for about a week before things repeat themselves (think 'The Ring'). The only way to shake the curse is to take a life, again, in front of a witness, as the entity seems to need a host at any given time. Lastly, upon taking on other forms or possessing its victim, the entity will show off a ghastly, haunting smile. This time around, the focus is on a pop star named Skye Riley (Naomi Scott), who makes a comeback appearance on the Drew Barrymore show in which we learn about a dark past with drug abuse, and a horrible car crash she was in, along with her actor boyfriend, Paul Hudson (Ray Nicholson), who died in the crash. She's taken care of by her mother/manager, Elizabeth (Rosemarie DeWitt), and her assistant Joshua (Miles Gutierrez-Riley), even if they are a little overbearing at times, adding to piling up stress before her comeback tour. During rehearsals one night, Skye throws her back out, and sneaks away to her old dealer, Lewis (Lukas Gage) for some Vicodin. While there, Lewis begins acting erratic and panicky, and seemingly chokes to death on the ground. This is where we realize he's possessed by the Smile demon, and without giving away so many details, this is also where the Smile demon gets transferred to Skye, and before she knows it, she's terrorized by crazy, smiley people, and visions of her accident, as the entity seems to feed off its victim reliving past trauma. The rest of the film unfolds more or less basically as one would expect, but there are little additions here and there to make it more interesting. For example the concept of potentially stopping Skye's heart to make the entity think she's dead before she's revived - using a freezer, by the way, and lifting the entire concept (and I honestly think even some of the dialogue, reworded just slightly) from 'The Frighteners,' which is irksome, but the idea admittedly does make sense for trying to beat this thing. I like the idea here that even though a lot of things unfold similarly to the first 'Smile' movie, the leads are very different people with very different occupations. I liked how the first one had a professional therapist questioning her own reality, and here, I liked how they used the stress of being a pop star to its advantage, along with a drug problem that makes others think shes using again when in reality, she's perfectly clean. So much of what makes these movies scary is the way this demon plays with your worst trauma, much like Freddy Krueger. All in all, this is a very worthy sequel to its predecessor, and I'm gonna go ahead and say this series is two for two now. It even manages to add a twist to its ending that a lot of people will probably see coming, but it's an intriguing twist nonetheless. I have to say, I feel like more was taken from other properties here, and it doesn't have the same "oomph" as the first one with its out-of-the-blue reveals near the end. But if one gives these a back-to-back viewing it'll flow nicely. I'm hoping to see more! 4/5  I haven't really been giving the horror genre much credit for what has been released this year, save for one or two titles. But then, this movie comes along that isn't even really full-fledged horror, yet I have to credit it for having the ability to make me feel genuinely uncomfortable throughout most of it. The thing about movies like these is their realism and potential for happening in real life. Movies like these provide fine examples of cautionary tales, use nothing supernatural, and are frankly more scary than most actual horror nowadays.
This was one whee the trailer truly worked its magic on me, and made me want to check it out based on James McAvoy coming back to play some kind of psychopathic character, which he nailed in 'Split.' He's one of the best at it today, especially when a LOT of us know him first as the genuinely good-natures Professor Xavier from the later 'X-Men' flicks. And I can tell you, what you see in the trailer of his performance is what you get from him in the movie, including a creepy scene or two that we don't get in said trailer. American couple, Louise (Mackenzie Davis) and Ben Dalton (Scoot McNairy) open the film in Italy, along with their 12-year-old daughter, Agnes (Alix West Lefler). They meet and befriend another British family there, Paddy (McAvoy), Ciara (Aisling Franciosi), and their mute son, Ant (Dan Hough). Immediately, we get "iffy" vibes from them, being an out-of-town family, and having their own free-spirited ways. It was good to see that tiny bit of tention from the get-go, as the movie simply asks the audience "what would you do in this situation?" While back home in London, the Daltons receive a letter from Paddy and Ciara, inviting them to visit their countryside farmhouse for a few nights. Between Louise being a bit unfaithful, Ben being unemployed, and Agnes having anxiety enough to require a stuffed bunny (much to Ben's dismay), they decide a positive change of scenery would be good for them, and take the road trip to said farmhouse to let loose with a family that seems to really know how to do so. Upon their arrival, they feel a bit unsure about their accommodations, but ultimately decide a bit of roughing it would be good for them. Before long, the Daltons start to feel appropriately uncomfortable by their hosts passive-aggressive behaviour, and a bunch of weird situations branch from that. The kids end up left with a strange babysitter, Paddy and Ciara kinda treat Ant like crap, and they seemingly like to push boundaries as far as they can possibly go. As the trailer clearly shows, and I'm glad that it didn't try making it a surprise, the Daltons actually end up stuck with a couple of crazy people who ultimately become the serial killing villains of the film, but I won't say much more. This one was made for anyone who has ever, or does, tend to befriend strangers while vacationing. Films have been made like it before, but I have never been able to give them much more credit than I do this one for some reason or another. I came to appreciate how simplistic this story was, and how unnerving it could get, especially with McAvoy's performance, and just knowing that most of us have been in an uncomfortable situation, wanted to leave, and maybe even found themselves stuck. It's interesting to think that I liked this movie more because the trailer showed me what to expect. Usually, it would be a criticism that the trailer showed too much, but in this case, the filmmakers understood how quickly we'd predict the scenario to go down. It likes to play with our emotions, too, often actually wondering if there was any possible way we're misunderstanding this British couple. 'The Visit' was probably the last time I was impressed by a similar situation. So while this isn't terrifying, it's still suspenseful and creepy, and does its job very well, reminding us all that sometimes simplicity can be the scariest thing. 4/5  When it comes to a variety of sub-genres, I tend to usually take things for what they are, and try to have fun with things while keeping an eye out for any sort of original ideas and/or concepts. It can be fun no matter how many times its repeated, like zombie horror, but it can also get really lame, really fast, and that (at least speaking for myself) is where the AI horror sub-genre fits for me these days. Films about how artificial intelligence will one day ultimately reveal the folly of mankind by becoming self-aware and, therefore, dangerous.
Interestingly enough, it probably should mean more to people now than ever before, but the sad, cold, hard truth of the matter is that a lot of this cautionary stuff is just too late. We use new tech to make our lives more convenient, including a fancy computer that was once used for actual phone calls, ironically called a "phone," plus our home computers, all with algorithms that are keeping track of our interests, so it can cater all those irritating ads we complain about to us. The real moral of any of these is to stay protected and safe, so please, Google how to do these things... using Firefox! This is a tale that's really no different, and therefore, lacks in any real scares or shocks. We all pretty much know how things will go down, we just don't know what the body count will be (if any). Here, a full home installation of an AI called "AIA" (Havana Rose Liu) comes to a family of five through the father/husband, Curtis' (John Cho) computer engineering company for testing, and as one would probably predict, things run pretty solid for the family until the AI gets a little out of hand. Among the problems the family faces that they ask AIA for include teenage Iris (Lukita Maxwell) having boyfriend problems; the younger Preston (Wyatt Lindner), who has an anxiety disorder, and bully trouble; and the youngest, Cal (Isaac Bae), who has a medical condition with his breathing. As it always goes with these movies, AIA basically ends up becoming a family hero, but soon begins to overwhelm them with how far "she" will go in order to help. When you get right down to things, almost anyone reading this has seen this same movie before in some way, shape or form. It's all just old news, and it's no real surprise that its theatrical run was barely even a thing, debuting and bombing hard at #9. Granted, all of the advertising wasn't there for this, but it kinda goes to show where peoples' invested interests aren't. Yours truly included. This also didn't exactly do well, critically, and it's one case in which I can mostly agree with them. About the only real thing I can give this movie is the idea of different AIs being helpful to their owners, ultimately resulting in a sort of accidental war between people. I might also venture to say that the film dares the viewer with the thought of having such a powerful AI working just for you. Would you use it to keep your house clean and study a new skill? Or would you use it to your full advantage, get all dark-side with it and smite your enemies?... well, not smite, but at least exact revenge of some sort. It's right up there with asking "what superpower do you want?" Other than a few interesting ideas and updates to the concept, there's not a whole hell of a lot else to say about it. The best way to describe the movie is a word like "fine." It's kinda bland, we've seen scarier AI movies, and it's yet another step in warning us about the dangers of AI that we're most definitely gonna ignore because, again, we're kinda too late. It's not quite at movie level yet, but make no mistake, it's there. I guess it's just a "me" thing, but it's just the kind of thing that doesn't freak me out... I mean, unless there's a real Terminator war one day. 2/5  This one ended up being advertised this year as what would probably be the next big title in horror, with ads reminiscent of things like 'Blair Witch' or 'Paranormal Activity', touting promises of scares that could potentially change the game in the genre. But, as usual, this too ended up being not entirely bad, but just kind of underwhelming. The whole genre has to stop advertising in such ways just to get butts in seats. In this one, the big tease is Nicolas Cage playing a new horror villain, and that would have been better for them to run with.
Nicolas Cage has kind of been his own meme for ages now, so when the trailers tried to advertise this movie with his apparent made-up appearance in mind, they kind of dropped the ball. I'm telling you right now, it is NOT a scary makeup job, and Cage's performance, while very good, still comes across as Nicholas Cage being Nicholas Cage. It's a performance I meet in the middle. It could very well be more effective for anyone unfamiliar with Cage, but all I end up seeing here is Cage doing the best with what he has to work with. Potentially clairvoyant FBI agent Lee Harker (Maika Monroe) gets assigned by her supervisor, William Carter (Blair Underwood) to investigate a case of family-related murder-suicides occurring recently in Oregon. Each case involves a series of overwhelming coincidences involving the family members, their daughter's ninth birthdays, all occurring on the 14th of their birth months, and letters left at the crime scene, waiting to be decoded (much like the Zodiac Killer), all signed at the bottom with the name "Longlegs." More or less on her own, Lee digs deeper and deeper into the case, eventually revealing some pretty nasty stuff. But it's not long before her success in the case starts to backfire on her, as Longlegs begins to threaten those close to Lee is she gets too close to him. It's all pretty par for the course when it comes to serial killer horror, and this is a movie that reflects the (in my opinion) much better 'Silence of the Lambs' - so if you're into the genre, and also into true crime, like myself, you're not gonna see a whole hell of a lot here that will blow your mind. While probably to no one's surprise, this is a movie I meet very much in the middle. But I can say with all honesty that if I wasn't into true crime stories or the horror genre in general, this does a pretty good job at providing the audience not only with some decent horror elements, but a story that one might not be surprised to hear on a true crime podcast. It dabbles very lightly in supernatural elements, mostly involving Lee's possibly clairvoyance, and Longlegs' Satan worship. But it does it all on a grounded level, and nothing goes overboard. The film also uses things to its advantage, such as a damn-near complete absence of music, having it all occur in a quaint, rural "every town" (looking like a place where it seems fine to keep your doors unlocked), and making sure our eyes wander to the background with a chance glimpse of something that may or may not be sinister. I mean, atmospherically, between all of that and Cage's performance, they really hit the nail on the head as far as the whole creep factor of the movie goes. Despite how effective it is at being unsettling, however, I still can't get past Nicolas Cage, even if he IS putting on a solid performance. If you know him well, and have seen him in everything, this won't be as good, as all you'll see is Cage being Cagey. BUT, if you're more unfamiliar with his work, the film will be far more effective at what it's trying to do. I liked a lot about this movie, but disliked a chunk of it too, concerning a lot of wooden performances, and a whole weird thing involving dolls that look like victims that didn't feel like it needed to be there. It's one I can hardly recommend one way or another, but still perfectly passable. 3/5  I liked this entry to the series, but I do feel like 'A Quiet Place' is another name in movies in which nothing can quite live up to the original - a trait similarly held by series like 'Jurassic Park' and 'The Matrix'. That first film can totally stand on its own as a modern classic, and may even be historical in its own way, but from then on, it's largely a collection of cash-in projects. Thankfully, sometimes there's a bit more heart put into some, and it applies here (for me) as at least being better than the second, which felt almost too 'Walking Dead' at times.
It's also another movie that seems to have audiences incredibly split, which are the types of movies I love to review as, admittedly, nothing sways me one way or the other. In other words, I go into the film with neither high, nor low expectations, can (hopefully) enjoy the film for what it is, and, in my reviews, not sound like I'm picking a side to sound like either a "one-percenter" or the latest passenger of a popular bandwagon. So, without further adieu, let's get into this 'Quiet Place' prequel. Our protagonist here is Samira (Lupita Nyong'o), who kicks off the film with her understandable pessimism, as she's living in a hospice, stricken with terminal cancer, and her only joy in life is her service cat, Frodo (Nico... that's right, animals get credited too). Despite the way her life is, however, they make her pretty hard to like in the beginning. She's not terrible or anything, just a bit of a brat about things. That said, that's also part of what I liked about this movie; her development throughout. One day, one of the nurses, Reuben (Alex Wolff) convinces her to attend a marionette show in Manhattan, which was, in my opinion, a very well done scene that not only shows that Sam's not such a rough person to deal with, but if you really dig into it, it could be seen as largely symbolic for what's about to happen, be it to her with her terminal cancer or the more grounded fact that they're all about to be invaded by those sound-seeking alien creatures we've come to know from the last couple of movies. The film then picks up, and carries us through a lot of intensity as this invasion is going on. She soon meets Henri (Djimon Hounsou) who comes across as the guy in charge of a group who are meant to be hidden and quiet until someone can rescue them. Eventually this, of course, leads the now cooped up Sam to set out on her own for Harlem, along with her cat, and it's all survival horror/thriller/action from there. By the way, cat-lovers, just to be a jerk, I will not spoil Frodo's fate. It truly adds to the intensity of things, and that's what these films do best. I think if I have to end up giving one thing to all three of these movies across the board, it's that they provide a really good atmosphere of intensity and suspense. We never know when something's gonna happen, and when it's unexpected it's more satisfying for us horror fans. The whole concept of these movies, about having to stay quiet in order to survive is kind of a stroke of genius. Sure, the idea of surviving by being silent is nothing new, but I'm hard-pressed to think of that concept as a full-length feature before the first of these. My final thoughts on the film are nothing short of it adding to a solid series of good, suspenseful horror. Although I have my nitpicks about the second film, I'd say this is a solid series all the way through for the average viewer. I stick to my guns on the first one being more of a modern classic, and nothing that follows in the series will probably top it. But at least this didn't just get worse and worse as it went on. If you liked the first tqo, definitely give this one a shot as well. 4/5  I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems to me that over the past while, horror movies have actually been getting quite a bit better than they once were. They sprinkle a bit more humour into things, and subject matter is finally stepping away from haunting, possession and a whole lot of grief symbolism. Filmmakers have been doing a good job about putting their new spins onto old ideas, be they sequels like 'Saw X' or re-imaginings like this, which is a loose, modern take of 1936's 'Dracula's Daughter.'
Admittedly, I wasn't entirely sure what to think of things judging by the trailer, but was ultimately sold on one of my favourite actors of villainy, Giancarlo Esposito, and looked forward to seeing what he would be a part of throughout the film. As it turns out, however, if you're like me and go to see what's up with Mr. Esposito, you might be disappointed to know that he's really not a big part of things here. Having said that, though, I was nevertheless pleasantly surprised by how the film turned out, and still had a lot of fun with things. It all starts as we see a young ballet dancer named Abigail (Alisha Weir), dancing her little heart out on stage in an abandoned theatre. In the meantime, six unnamed criminals are setting up at Abigail's home, awaiting her arrival. The six criminals have been sent to kidnap this girl by their informant, Lambert (Esposito), who intends on holding her for ransom, as Abigail's father is said to be a powerful man. The six are told they will each receive their payment of 7 million in 24 hours as long as Abigail is left safe and unharmed. The six in question are all given nicknames derived from the original Rat Pack. Joey (Melissa Barrera) is the all-around lead, a recovering drug-addict and former Army medic; Frank (Dan Stevens) is a former NYPD detective; Sammy (Kathryn Newton) is a bit of a ditsy hacker born into money; Dean (Angus Cloud) is the wheel man, and seemingly the stoner of the group; Rickles (William Catlett) is a Marine sniper, and Peter (Kevin Durand) is a mob enforcer, a fellow Canadian, and the all-around "dummy" of the group. But like, what can ya do, eh? He's still a big part of the humour here, bud. Eventually, the group does figure out who Abigail's father actually is (and no, thank God, it's not just Dracula), which sends a wave of fear through the group when it comes to the stories some of them have heard about the man. We can think of it as the equivalent of what kidnapping Tony Soprano's daughter might entail. The catch here, however, is that eventually it's also revealed that not only are they holding the daughter of someone important, but they're also holding a vicious little vampire who isn't afraid to defend herself by any means necessary. I have to admit, I kind of wish that I knew absolutely nothing about this movie going in, because it would have been more fun to have things revealed to me as they're revealed to the group here. Still, though, that doesn't take away from how fun the film is. It's perhaps a little slow-moving at first, but it's filled with light humour to fill the time. Once things do get going, things get nice and bloody, and even at time are a touch reminiscent of the 'Evil Dead' movies as far as amounts of blood. It's messy, but the messiness is part of the thrill of it all, as sick and twisted as that may seem to some. I think what stood out the most to me, personally, was Alisha Weir's performance as Abigail. I'd even say it was the highlight of the movie. With her range, this performance alone could act as a sort of resume for her down the line. While that is probably the most impressive part of the movie, audiences will still get their laughs, their jumps and their gore. I could equate this to more of a thrill ride than anything in the same genre that tries to dig deeper. It's a friendly reminder that sometimes when it comes to horror, we just wanna have fun with it. 4/5  It's hard to know what to feel about this one, altogether. If one refers to a lot of reviews and criticisms about the film, they'll see that it's not going all too well. And while I completely understand where these criticisms are coming from, as I have quite a few, myself, I can't deny that there were bits and pieces about this that I DID enjoy, even if it's on a level of "guilty pleasure." Looking at the overall spirit of things, it feels like they were trying to tip their hat to such 80s horror titles as 'Nightmare on Elm Street' to some degree.
Having said that, one should "bear" in mind that there are aspects of this movie that I have a certain bias towards, but that doesn't mean these things were necessarily executed well, either. This is one of those movies that feels like it's one thing for about half of it, and then it switches into something completely different, not quite feeling like the same movie. The first half is reminiscent of movies like 'Child's Play' or 'Annabelle' in which this teddy bear known as Chauncey just kinda sits there, and it's up to the kid who has befriended him to freak the audience out. The film centres on a new stepmom/children's author named Jessica (DeWanda Wise) who is trying her best in her role. But while the young Alice (Pyper Braun) is friendly with her, the typical (and annoyingly bratty) teenager, Taylor isn't a fan. After a series of horrible nightmares involving her own creations, keeping her and her husband, Max (Tom Payne) awake at ungodly hours, they decide to move the family into Jessica's childhood home in an attempt to calm things down. To no one's real surprise, Taylor isn't entirely on-board, but Alice keeps things civil. It's not long before Alice discovers a teddy bear (Chauncey) in the house's basement and forms a bond with him. According to her, Chauncey makes up a scavenger hunt for Alice to complete, which actually consists of a pretty controversial list, and long story short, like any film like this, things go off the rails fairly quickly with a concerned adult/parent, a kid who doesn't understand or know any better, and the kid's imaginary friend/doll/toy who is secretly pulling all of the seemingly supernatural strings. So yeah, this is something we've seen done before, done better, and becomes altogether pretty predictable. In my opinion, what kind of adds to it is when their neighbour, Gloria (Betty Buckley) comes into the picture with memories of babysitting Jessica, and a whole big conspiracy theory about imaginary friends and the world they come from. I really don't wanna spoil much here, but I will say that this is where I get reflections of concepts from 'Nightmare on Elm Street', and I have to give the film at least a little credit for creativity. The problem is that it's too much too fast, changing the film's tone, completely. and just because I thought they made some creative choices doesn't make it altogether good. Critically, I'm not a fan of how the film handled the kids' real mother (Alix Angelis) who in some ways felt kind of crow-barred in to add some level of horror to things while not entirely adding anything to the plot. If I'm honest, a lot of the writing is kinda rough too, and they seem to go a little too far with Taylor's mouthiness sometimes. I get that she's supposed to be a bratty teenager, but it's also evident that she cares a great deal for Alice and will do anything to help her, so they could have done better with giving us a reason to route for her. I do, however, like some of the concepts they put into the second half of the movie, and I have to say, I am fan of some of the creature design here once things do get going. It's a tricky one to navigate. On one hand, it's creative and even sometimes kinda fun. But on the other hand, I'd be hard-pressed to call this a "good" movie. It's one I can't really recommend one way or the other, and I'd say it'd probably be better to await streaming. But I'd still argue it's passable for someone dipping their toes into the horror genre, especially when, at times, it delivers some corny laughs. At best, it's probably just a guilty pleasure. 2/5  Well, this was an interesting experiment, to say the least. The thing is, I can't imagine upon seeing this that it was ever gonna really pull people in. The only audience this could really be aimed at is the same audience that liked the '93 film 'My Boyfriend's Back' and are aiming to find a little nostalgia from the era. Even though this is a film that plays more on 80's nostalgia, let's not forget that for a while there, the 80s bled over into the 90s, and 'My Boyfriend's Back' is a good indicator of that. Regardless, it's no surprise at all to me that this bombed.
Another potential draw to the film would be writer Diablo Cody, who certainly has her own cult audience in the palm of her hand (just like I'm in Edgar Wright's hand, to be perfectly fair), but I'd argue that they will be the ones to really take something away from this as opposed to someone like me, who's admittedly indifferent to Cody. I think this was a weird route to take in order to create something fresh for our nostalgia, much like 'Stranger Things' has managed to do, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't make me remember some of those oddball one-off dark comedy films from the late 80s/early 90s. The film centres on introverted "weirdo", Lisa Swallows (Kathryn Newton) whose mother was violently murdered some time prior to the film's events, and she's still got it on her mind. Her father, Dale (Joe Chrest) remarries a "wicked stepmother" type named Janet (Carla Gugino) who's terrible towards Lisa, but she brings her daughter, Taffy (Liza Soberano) into the mix who befriends Lisa as her new stepsister, and makes attempts to get her out of the house, including going to a house party where everything sort of kicks off involving, fair warning, a scene of her drink being spiked with something pretty heavy. In the process of tripping balls, Lisa heads to a cemetery that she frequently visits in her own time, speaking one-on-one with the grave of a young Victorian era man whose name we never get. In her depressed and drugged state, she wishes she "was with him" (as in dead), but the magic wish comes true in a different way, in which the young man comes back in a zombie state (Cole Sprouse) and seeks Lisa out, eventually resulting in the classic scenario of hiding a person or thing from the rest of the family and society, which has been done time and time again, but I will say this does a few different things with it. Bearing in mind that this is, in part, a horror movie, a lot of that comes from this idea that other people's body parts can be sewn onto the zombie guy, then, by way of a broken tanning bed, the body part in question merges with him making him more and more fully human every time. It's a cool idea, but as one can imagine, some of it manages to get kinda low-brow and is likely to make one's eyes roll. With that said, and without spoilers, I'll offer fair warning right now that the film gets incredibly weird and creepy, and one will have to look past some things to appreciate the ending. My thoughts on the film as a whole are a bit convoluted. On the negative end of things, I can't imagine who was asking for such a project, the film gets suggestively weird, even for me, who generally embraces weird, and in all honesty, this isn't gonna be something I remember much of by the end of the year. But some positives include some humorous dialogue and performances, a touch of renewed nostalgia, and the acting makes it feel like a film lost in time. If this was shown back in the early 90s, it would probably fit in pretty well. I would say to a general audience that one is gonna have to accept what the film is trying to call back to in order to fully appreciate it. You're also gonna have to be able to open your mind quite a bit to accept a few things here and there. I came out of this with a certain appreciation for what it did, but at the same time, it's really nothing special. At best, it's a decent call-back to an era. At worst, it's something predictable we've seen again and again. It's nothing I'd say is terrible, or even that bad, but it's pretty out there, so proceed with an open mind if you wanna enjoy it at all. 3/5  I tend to usually have faith in Blumhouse Studio's ability to deliver a decent horror flick, but I can also say that they're not always home runs. One such example is this year's otherwise intriguing (to me, anyway) 'Night Swim,' coming to us from writer/director Bryce McGuire, who presented this concept originally as a better, much creepier short, running just about four minutes long and, while still not wondrous, having a better effect than this film as a whole. So I'm just gonna say that off the bat - the short is more entertaining for me.
What drew me in with this was the idea that I'm not sure I've ever seen a horror movie use a swimming pool as its "monster," so to speak. I'm sure it has happened somewhere, but short of Freddy Krueger using a public pool in 'Dream Child,' I'm hard-pressed to think of anything to use as their main source of whatever curse or haunting this is. I'm still unsure, as the film does a lame job explaining things. Either way, I saw some originality and considered it a cool idea to scare those swimmers who could still feel safe from "Jaws" in a swimming pool. It was a new thing for people to fear, and I wanted to see how things played out. So we open in 1992 with what is essentially the film trying to be 'It,' when a little girl named Rebecca (Ayazhan Dalabayeva) tries to get her sick brother's toy boat out of the family pool when a mysterious force yanks her in. Fast-forward to the present day, and we get to the Waller family, looking for a more permanent place to live after the father, Ray (Wyatt Russell) is forced to retire from professional baseball due to multiple sclerosis. When water therapy is recommended as part of his therapy, Ray expresses a desire to move into a specific house the family checked out with a pool - the same pool in which Rebecca drowned in 1992. While the water therapy seems to do wonders for Ray, his wife, Eve (Kerry Condon), begins to get concerned over her husband's often odd behaviour, and their kids, Izzy (Amélie Hoeferle) and Elliot (Gavin Warren), begin seeing and experiencing weird things in the pool when they go swimming. As far as anything else goes, one can just take this as a much weaker version of 'The Shining' or 'Amityville Horror' in which the father is empowered by bad things, and the family has to survive to the end. Yeah... without meaning to spoil anything, we've just seen this done before and done better. As far as the pool and its weird haunts go, it is eventually half-explained. While Rebecca's drowning takes a bit of a front seat, there's also something more seemingly demonic going on there, and the best answer we get is that the pool was built over a natural spring. It goes from that to something like, "Who knows what things were built over?" and that's what we get. It's cool to use one's imagination to fill in the blanks, and I don't always wanna be spoon-fed, but the explanation here felt incredibly lazy. We just get what the pool does instead of why it does it. I will be fair and say that I could have missed a subtle detail that suggests something like "ancient burial ground." But even if so, it's subtle enough to easily be missed. It ends up being a movie about choice and sacrifice. But, again, it's been done before and better. The one thing I'd say this movie has going for it is that I do find the concept of a cursed and/or haunted swimming pool original enough to give it just a little tiny bit of credit. The thing is, they failed to execute it very well, having about 90% of the suspense involve reaching for something in the pool from poolside, creating such predictability it's ridiculous. It's hard to get hyped for movies of this type when they're released in January or February, but as I said, Blumhouse often does a good job, so it's always a roll of the dice for them. For example, I really enjoyed last year's 'M3GAN', but at the same time, 'Five Nights at Freddy's' was quite lame. You never know with this studio, but unfortunately, this was one time they didn't exactly blow the competition out of the water. It may have a moment or two of mild horror, but I wouldn't highly recommend it until you check out the short first. Then if you don't like the short, simply do not bother! 1/5 |
RSS Feed