 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
0 Comments
 As far as this Sony-verse goes, it's no secret at this point that the only movies in the handful of life-action superhero/supervillain adaptations worth a damn are the 'Venom' movies. While perhaps not necessarily THE story of Venom we all know and love, they did okay with what they had to work with, made it their own concept, and the character of Eddie Brock/Venom is a hell of a lot closer than he was in 'Spidey 3.' So, surely, noted as being the final 'Venom' movie, this should be going out with a bang, right?
I think there's a lot to this that fans will appreciate, but I also think that of the three, this was probably the weakest, when it should have been the strongest. It picks up from the stinger of 'Spider-Man: No Way Home,' in which Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) finds himself in the MCU, chatting with a bartender, only to be sent back to the Sony-verse, leaving behind a trace of Symbiote material (which is in the MCU's hands now). Back home, the pair are on the run after the events of the previous film, which killed off Det. Patrick Mulligan (Stephen Graham), leaves them the primary suspect. In an attempt to start a new life, however, Eddie and Venom decide to head to New York City. On the way, however, the pair are attacked by an alien creature known as a Xenophage, sent by Symbiote creator, Knull (Andy Serkis). Long ago, his Symbiotes overthrew him, and trapped him in a prison to prevent him from taking over the universe with his power. In order to get free of said prison, Knull sends these Xenophages to Earth to retrieve a Codex, which will be able to free him, and allow him to carry out his plans. The Codex is formed is a Symbiote's host dies, and the Symbiote is able to resurrect him, which we saw happen in the first film. As long as Venom is in full form over Eddie, the Codex acts like a beacon for the Xenophages, so throughout the film, Venom does a lot of hiding away. So now, they're not only on the run from a deadly alien creature, but the law as well. It gets even better, when Rex Strickland (Chiwetel Ejiofor) enters the picture, overseeing an operation called "Imperium", at (where else?) Area 51, in which the Symbiotes who have fallen to Earth get studied. While Strickland is very much of the mind that these Symbiotes have landed for some sort of alien invasion, researchers Dr. Teddy Payne (Juno Temple) and Sadie "Christmas" (Clark Backo) have different opinions, and resort to a whole "don't judge a book by its cover" side-plot when it comes to the Symbiotes. And I'm gonna go ahead and suggest that the B story here sort of takes a front seat to things. Everything going on in this lab is far more fascinating than Eddie/Venom just... running and hiding for the most part. Eddie/Venom still delivers when we see them together, although at times it gets a bit too silly. I mean, for the first time since 2007, I feel like we have a Symbiote who literally dances himself into humiliation, and it's pretty cringe-worthy. That said, there are a few just as solid scenes to this, like the Symbiote horse, and the pair finally saying "we are Venom!" before devouring a bunch of thugs like the "Lethal Protector" we all know and love. But it really does feel like they're on the run from a non-threat. While the Xenophages provide some stiff competition, Knull, himself, is one of the laziest-written villains I've eve seen in my life. If you've come to see Knull in all his glory, I'm afraid you're SOL, because he's barely here, and when he is, he's just sitting there with his head down, looking gothic. So just to be clear, first threat, Riot, second threat, Carnage, third threat (though admittedly tough), Xenophage, NOT Knull. Anyway, it's fine for a third film, but I'd say easily the weakest of the three, trying to do too much, and amounting to too little. And what's super curious about this being a supposed "finale" - there's a stinger! 2/5  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  For those who don't know, the Joker character is who I consider my favourite villain of all time. I say "character" because part of what makes him my favourite is how flexible he can be as far as portrayal goes. While there are so many similarities between so many different versions, they're all really quite unique in their own ways. I won't go through each and every one, but my personal favourites include Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, and Mark Hamill. I will admit, however, that Joaquin Phoenix could be added to that list... if it wasn't for this movie.
In the first 'Joker,' I truly appreciated the more dramatic take on it, bringing the mental health situation into play. Essentially, the origin story had a lot to say about the stigmas still attached to mental health problems, and the Joker, himself, ends up being a product of untreated mental health thanks to poor government funding. It was really well done, I appreciated to new take on things, and I enjoyed how they managed to combine his genuine creepiness with a bit of sympathy. It's no fun 'Batman' flick, but it was well executed. A little time unfolded, discussions were had, word of mouth spread, and a lot of people even ended up making Phoenix their new favourite portrayal of the Joker. Then we all received that odd bit of news saying that the sequel would be a musical starring Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn. That was a lot to digest. I was lukewarm to the idea of Gaga being Quinn, and the musical aspect felt odd. But even with all of that, I was still willing to give it a chance, recognizing that he musical aspect of things would tie into the mental health aspect of things, and play out as fantasy. Joker, a.k.a. Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) awaits his trial for his crimes at Arkham State Hospital. His lawyer, Maryanne Stewart (Catherine Keener) plans to use dissociative identity disorder as their defence, hoping to convince the judge that the Joker did the crimes of the previous movie, and not Arthur Fleck. This is pretty much the whole movie - awaiting the trial, and then the trial itself. All in all, at least in my humble opinion, it's kinda boring, and it drags. The only real saving grace could possibly be the arrival of Harleen Quinzel (Gaga), who calls herself "Lee" through the movie. These two meet, not in therapy sessions conducted by Lee as a professional, but in the same hospital. It is mentioned that she has degrees in her field of psychology, but otherwise, here, she's just another patient. She comes to admire the way Arthur pulled off his crimes, and is in love with his destructive and chaotic personality. Real fans of Harley Quinn need not apply,. however, because this is about as far away from Harley as I can imagine, aside from a couple of very basic personality traits, which have already pretty much been mentioned. While the whole trial portion of the film is a bore on its own, the rest of it is just Arthur and Lee putting on some kind of half-assed Broadway show about how much they love each other, and whether or not Lee can be trusted. If you're looking for a dark, violent movie with a dash of dark comedy, you are SOL here. There's a bit of violence, but it's completely crowbarred in, and any supposed jokes fall pretty flat here. And then there's the ending, which seems evidently controversial for fans, but even as a fan, I just plain didn't care either way. I am going to be slightly controversial here, myself, and give the film credit for just one thing. Unfortunately, that one thing happens to be the risks they took with things here in trying something new and different. It flopped on its ass, but at least they were ballsy enough to go for it. In the end, this really ends up being a bit more of an artsy-fartsy film starring the Joker. But the rest of us fans remember Nicholson's art gallery scene from '89, and prefer that more chaotic version of the Joker being artistic. This didn't ruin the character for me or anything, but I can say with full conviction now that Phoenix is NOT my Joker. 1/5  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  Every once in a while, a movie (remake/sequel, or re-imagining) will come along, shows me a trailer, and I'll wonder why the hell I should care. A lot of the time, my hunches about it are correct, and the film ends up being nothing but an easy cash-in for its respective studio. However, while pretty much all such titles are guilty of their cash-in methods, sometimes its done right. Sometimes the film will deliver good and memorable characters, a decent story, and in cases like 'Twisters', a huge leap forward in special effects.
I have always been one to defend 1996's 'Twister' as a fun popcorn action/adventure movie for a time when that kind of thing was what ran the box office - not superheroes. Even though by today's standards 'Twister' may not hold up for some, it was still something I thought didn't need any sort of sequel, as it stood on its own as a disaster classic (that's the genre, not the actual quality of the movie, though some will disagree). The trailer for this had me saying things like "so, they're just making the same movie?" To some degree I was kinda, sorta right about that, but upon seeing this, I decided I liked this chapter just a touch better than the classic disaster movie I had been defending so hard. This takes all the fun of 'Twister' and cranks it to eleven by offering up much, much better twister/storm scenes; most of which I understand were shot by technical consultants, including real-life storm chaser, Sean Casey (who seems to somehow go uncredited here, but his resume speaks for itself). Much like with the original, the opening of the film involves our lead, Kate Carter (Daisy Edgar-Jones) losing people important to her due to a tornado's brutal force. In this case, its during an attempt to launch a Dorothy V doppler (as seen in the original). While in the original it was done to study a tornado and its patterns in an attempt to predict them earlier, this time it involves using sodium polyacrylate beads meant to try to shrink the tornado, and make it less disastrous, and I'm sure this is not scientifically sound, but I'll come back to that. Kate and her friend, Javi (Anthony Ramos) survive the incident, but the experiment was ultimately unsuccessful, and Kate ends up blaming herself for the deaths of her colleagues, seemingly over nothing. She quits storm chasing, but Javi continues, and soon enough comes back into her life to get the plot moving. Now working for a company called Storm Par, Javi invites Kate to join them and try a new tornado scanning system. Of course, she eventually agrees based on the idea that they could be saving lives, especially with her keen senses. The team comes across "The Tornado Wrangler", Tyler Owens (Glen Powell); a wild cowboy type who chases these storms for kicks, and throws them onto YouTube. It's actually with this that the movie starts getting interesting, not only because it gets more fun, but it also dabbles with the concept of different companies and how they profit after a tornado has touched down. It's a good look at both sides of the equation, who's crooked, who's charitable, etc. I have to hand it to the film for giving us a generous combination of both a cash-in with its nostalgic-poking title, and actually delivering a product that was worked on as opposed to just being pushed out, hoping a name will put butts in seats. Much like its predecessor, it's a far from perfect movie, but it is a friendly reminder that sometimes we don't need to take movies like this so seriously. With great lines like "you don't face your fears, you ride 'em," one's clearly meant to have fun with this. 4/5  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  Here we have yet another high-octane, balls-to-the-wall action revenge flick that follows the ideas of 'Monkey Man' fairly close. Therefore, I will probably be making quite a few comparisons between the two, as they each tell almost the same story (what little story there is to tell), but execute them in such different ways. For as enjoyable as 'Monkey Man' was, though, based on personal taste, I have to say that the execution of what we have here is far more up my alley, and I definitely liked this a bit better.
For me, the idea of a revenge film that tries to reach the bar 'John Wick' has set is a bit of a tired concept. I do tend to have fun with them, but at the same time, its understandable that people might be getting sick of them. Hell, even seeing this movie almost paralleling 'Monkey Man' upon its release, even I said "another revenge film?" However, upon seeing the trailer for this, it added a couple of little details that managed to draw me in. It was clearly made for fun as opposed to heavy drama, it seemed to be influenced mostly by video games, and the narration of H. Jon Benjamin added a cherry to this revenge sundae of a movie. An unnamed city is run by the corrupt Van Der Koy family; artistic wannabe, Gideon (Brett Gelman), the harsh and heartless Melanie (Michelle Dockery), her equally heartless husband, Glen (Sharlto Copley) and head of the family, Hilda (Famke Janssen). An annual event the family hosts known as "The Culling" chooses twelve seemingly random victims to be murdered on live television for entertainment, suggesting the ideas we have of what the Colosseum in Rome once was have resurfaced in this dystopian future. One might also compare the ideas here to 'The Hunger Games' for a more modern take. One day, a boy we only ever know as "Boy" (Cameron & Nicholas Crovetti), his little sister and best friend, Mina (Quinn Copeland) and their mother (Rolanda Marais) are brought to the town square, and Hilda executes both Mina and her mother in preparation for The Culling, leaving Boy for death, deaf and mute. Eventually, Boy is found by an unnamed Shaman (Yayan Ruhian), and to make a long story short, the Shaman trains Boy through the years so that he can follow through with his revenge on the Van Der Koys for killing his family in cold blood. As a result of Boy's inability to speak or hear, he has created his own inner monologue (H. Jon Benjamin) whose voice he took from his favourite arcade game he used to play with Mina. He has also learned to read lips, which yields some pretty hilarious results when he can't see the lips moving clearly. There are a few moments here when nonsense is uttered because of improper lip reading, and with my love of random humour, it really just adds to things for me with a fun and, in my opinion, creative idea. Boy also constantly hallucinates Mina, who seems to be trying to help with on his mission, offering advice and perhaps a bit of a conscience. As mentioned earlier, there's a lot here that could be compared to 'Monkey Man'. Aside from the basic revenge plot, 'Monkey Man' has a similar lead name with "Kid," they both feature a funny sidekick type, here being Andrew Koji as Basho, and Sharlto Copley shows up in both as a despicable character. As far as which is better, it will all be a matter of taste, and it feels like it reflects the time of disaster movies in the late 90s when there was two of something a lot of the time, like 'Volcano'/'Dante's Peak' or 'Armageddon'/'Deep Impact'. Despite quality of either, you'll end up picking one that speaks to you a bit more. In the case of 'Monkey Man' vs 'Boy Kills World,' the big selling points for me on 'Boy' being "better" include much better fight choreography, much less shaky cam and the fact that it takes itself less seriously and almost feels like parody. It makes its heavily game-influenced execution known from the get-go, and reminds me of other non-video-game-based movies that make for good video game movies, like 'Scott Pilgrim.' To top things off, the blood is nice and over-the-top, almost adding to the absurdity of it all. While 'Monkey Man' may be preferred by some, I can say honestly that I had more fun with this one. 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 |
RSS Feed