 I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to call this one something of a "hidden gem" this summer (at least, not a lot of people are saying anything about it on my end), but I will say that if you're looking for something a bit different for a thriller, this is a pretty good place to look. It's a fine example of a current man vs nature story, Idris Elba is the headliner, and there's plenty of good intensity throughout the film to keep you on the edge of your seat. For me, there was only one thing really holding it back, but I'll get to that soon.
Dr. Nate Samuels (Elba) heads on a safari vacation to the Mopani Reserve in South Africa to reconnect with his old friend, a biologist by the name of Martin Battles (Sharlto Copley). Along with Nate are his two daughters, Meredith (Iyana Halley) and Norah (Leah Jeffries), and the point of the trip is for Nate to reconnect with his daughters, following the tragic passing of his wife/their mother. We find out that she grew up in the area, and that Martin had introduced the pair, initially. Things go pretty well until Nate, Martin and Nate's daughters happen across an entire small village of people who have seemingly been attacked by something vicious and huge or, more specifically, a lion who has gone totally nuts. As for the rest of the film, I might say the best way to think about it is a very 'Jurassic Park'-like situation, but with one terrifying, big lion as opposed to say, a T-Rex, or a velociraptor. Now, some of that 'JP' comparison includes, as I previously mentioned, the one thing really holding the film back. Remember in the original 'JP' when the T-Rex got out, and Lex grabs a flashlight from the back of the jeep, shining it all over the place, practically signalling the Rex to attack said jeep? That type of stupidity is constant with the daughters here. I can't count how many times I shook my head, facepalmed or at least rolled my eyes. Nothing against these two young actresses, but the writers made these characters almost extra stupid, and it didn't help the movie to make them damsels in distress. But what we're really here to see, obviously, is Idris Elba fighting a lion with his bare hands like some kind of badass warrior. Well, no worries, because there's plenty of facing off against this creature. But I have to admit that there are many times you must throw reality out the window because the way this lion plays with its prey isn't entirely believable (as in how uninjured the prey is after being toyed with). With that said, I don't pretend to know a whole bunch about lions and how they work. I just can't imagine being able to pick yourself up and dust yourself off after some of the attacks that take place throughout the film. Although I will say that the attacks in question ARE quite unnerving. A lot of it takes me back to 'The Edge' with the bear attack, or 'Frozen' with the wolf attack (that's the non-Disney version). All in all, other than the two daughters driving me batshit crazy for a lot of it, this is a pretty solid title as far as it being suspenseful and even kinda scary a lot of the time. However, if you're someone who really hates seeing stupidity unfold during a movie - you know, "don't go in there, you just saw the killer go in there!" then I'd honestly recommend avoiding it. It's not JUST these two girls doing it, either. I may be being a little harsh, as I'm sure the director was going for "panic" and "not thinking straight" here, but that can only go so far until it gets tiresome. I don't see the film doing incredibly well this year, but between this, 'Thor', 'Sonic 2' and 'Three Thousand Years of Longing', Elba will definitely be fine. 3/5
0 Comments
 As far as I've been reading so far, this is one of those titles I love reviewing so much because audiences are seemingly split right down the middle on it. A split opinion on a movie like this will always make me look deeper into it for some reason. I have to get where both sides are coming from. I haven't exactly deep-dived on it here, but it's enough to see articles with titles like "Jordan Peele's Worst Movie?" and a healthy Rotten Tomato average of 75.5%. For the record, 'Us' averages at 76.5% and 'Get Out' at 92%.
So... it could still be considered his weakest, but it's still a good movie. In the end, it still works out to have a strong underlying social message to it. Also, it's always important to keep in mind that this is the third in an unofficial trilogy. We'll call it the "Peele Horror Trilogy" (bearing in mind there could be more on the way). I say this because, odds are, by a third movie, no matter what you're making, the magic of that original movie has officially worn a bit thin. There are very few examples of third movies that are the best of a trilogy. They exist, but I'll bet you can only think of a few examples. But the bottom line is, I still really think Peele's fans should give this a shot. Getting to the point now, we open the movie with a very confusing scene involving a chimpanzee attack on the set of an old American sitcom. As with good storytelling, this does come into play later in the film, but I'm also not gonna sit here and spoil what Peele came up with in the end. Then we cut to a ranch where owner Otis Haywood Sr. (Keith David) trains horses for movies. He runs the ranch along with his dedicated son, Otis Jr; better known as "OJ" (Daniel Kaluuya) and not quite as dedicated daughter, Emerald; better known as "Em" (Keke Palmer), who would rather seek fame and fortune in Hollywood. All is well until, inexplicably, debris starts falling from the sky, which really kicks the movie off. Before the Haywoods know it, they discover a UFO in their area that seems to be causing mayhem wherever it goes, sucking up farm animals and messing up all sorts of electricity. It's not long until OJ and Em get themselves a security system to try to track the UFO. But, while they receive the help of techie Angel Torres (Brandon Perea) and the older, more experienced "Antlers" Holst (Michael Wincott) they find out that their UFO hunt is a lot more than they bargained for. I won't say anything specific about the big reveal, but I have to give it up to Jordan Peele for his original concept! But when all said and done, you're probably wondering what the actual underlying social theme of the movie is. For a very brief and simple refresher, 'Get Out' looked at the horrors of slavery, using the "Mad Scientist" storyline ('Human Centipede', 'Tusk'). 'Us' was basically a look at our own human nature and the duality within ourselves, essentially told as a "Home Invasion" story ('The Purge', 'The Strangers'). This one is largely about (as far as I can tell) mankind's obsession with not only technology as it advances - and not necessarily the best parts of it. As far as the type of horror, this is a little looser as it's pretty simply a UFO horror of which there are many examples. But I do find it interesting that the chimp attack scene takes place in 1998; right around the peak of the 90s alien/UFO/'X-Files' obsession. I'm probably overthinking the idea, but it's neat to think that Peele may have made this as a sort of throwback as well. Back to the movie's theme about technology though, without spoiling anything, a lot of the danger throughout the film comes from simply looking at it. That leads me to think that the obvious message here is about how we rely on these advancing technologies so much that they're slowly sucking our lives away. It makes me think of the humans in 'WALL-E' who basically live in floating chairs that can do anything for them. There's also a lot to be said about the respect of living creatures here, which further makes me think that it's not only about our technological obsessions but about respecting said technology as well. Anyway, all that has been my own takeaway from the film, but I'm curious to see if others take quite as much away. For me, it worked really well as straight-up horror as well. I've always had a bit of a thing about UFOs, aliens and the like after watching 'Fire in the Sky' when I was maybe 11 or 12. And while I give Peele major kudos for what he came up with here, a lot of that kudos has to do with the fact that some scenes here made me genuinely squirm. He manages to push you to the edge of your seat here a few times, and as far as I'm concerned, I might personally put this one above 'Us'. Although 'Get Out' definitely still holds that top position, I have been entertained by all three of Jordan Peele's directorial works, and I sincerely hope I get to see more! 4/5  Now, this is an interesting combination of subgenres! I don't know for sure that this will end up on my list of 2022's favourites. But I have to give the filmmakers full credit for this original take on an otherwise, fairly typical kidnapping/hostage movie. There are also supernatural elements to this, and even a bit of coming-of-age, as largely, this is about a young man coming into his own. However, I will say this - the journey is pretty damn brutal.
This could be compared to certain titles in which I compare the brutality of the first two acts of the movie to the vengeance factor of the third act. 'The Hills Have Eyes' and 'The Last House on the Left' are probably the heaviest examples of such a scenario. So fair trigger warning for this one, it does consist of such things as physical abuse towards a young girl and consistent bullying. However, when it comes to the performances of young Mason Thames as Finney and Madeleine McGraw as his sister, Gwen, I'm once again happy to announce that these are two young actors I'm convinced will make a name for themselves - if not for this, then something soon enough down the line. The story here takes place in 1978, where the streets of a Denver suburb are being terrorized by a child abductor who has been dubbed "The Grabber" (Ethan Hawke). In the meantime, we follow Finney and Gwen Blake - the children of an alcoholic, abusive father, Terrence (Jeremy Davies). Finney is constantly bullied at school but does have a friendship with a boy named Robin (Miguel Cazarez Mora), who is there to fend off Finney's bullies. Gwen, like her late mother, experiences psychic dreams in which she can see who the Grabber abducts next, and one of these times happens to be her big brother. Finney awakens in a soundproofed basement, faced with his kidnapper who promises not to harm him and even feeds him. However, on the wall is a black rotary phone, which the Grabber insists doesn't work. Yet when the Grabber is out of the room, Finney gets constant calls from it, from previous victims of the Grabber's kidnappings - from beyond the grave. All who have suffered one way or another before Finney, try to advise him through this black phone as to how the hell to get out of there in one piece. Meanwhile, Gwen tries to use her dreams to help the police catch the Grabber once and for all, as well as locate her brother, hopefully still alive, in the process. I have to give it to the film for having its good share of imagination to give what is, again, an otherwise fairly typical plot scenario. I really liked the supernatural elements of this - especially when you get to see just who Finney is talking to over this phone. Performances were great, all around, and kudos to the movie for managing to keep me on the edge of my seat the whole time. It's one of those titles that I appreciate more and more, the more I give it any thought, and it certainly has the potential to grow on me over time. It may not quite make a Top 10 list by the end of 2022 - but more than likely a Top 20. 4/5  To kick this one off, I should probably mention that my knowledge of Stephen King is still pretty green. Most of my exposure has been from films; many of which are apparently "bad" adaptations of his books. As far as his books go, I'm still just a noob, having polished off a grand total of two. 'Firestarter', however, is one King property that I haven't looked into in any way. Never read the book, and never saw the '84 Drew Barrymore movie. So you'll be getting a pretty honest review for this from yours truly as a big first-timer!
I enjoy the idea of this. It's that often overlooked concept of taking something like superpowers and giving it a horrific twist. The thing is, even if we look at his books, 'Carrie' predates this, and even King himself has admitted to wondering if 'Firestarter' was too much like 'Carrie'. Speaking for myself, I definitely see the similarities, and would personally claim 'Carrie' to be the better all-around horror story. But the differences between the two stories are enough that I think it's a "pick your poison" situation. 'Carrie' is a great tale of revenge and might make for better horror, but this is something much more along the lines of 'New Mutants' where it has more to do with how scary and dangerous it is to even have such power. It all starts with a flashback to baby Charlene "Charlie" McGee spontaneously setting her bedroom on fire, essentially illustrating what we're dealing with here. Through the opening credits, we learn that Charlie's parents, Andy McGee (Zac Efron) and Vicky Tomlinson (Sydney Lemmon) were a part of an experiment in which they were injected with a drug known as Lot-6. This results in Andy gaining telepathy and Vicky gaining telekinesis. Of course, this, in turn, explains right away what baby Charlie is all about. We then come to the present day where we meet Charlie as an 11-year-old girl (Ryan Kiera Armstrong) who is struggling in school. As Charlie is getting bullied at school, she finds keeping her abilities hidden to be a constant struggle. Eventually, an incident at school does get the ball rolling, however, and we find ourselves in a very similar plot to 'Stranger Things' (and yes, it's confirmed the Duffer Bros. took inspiration from this story). In other words, this is generally about a bunch of bad people trying to get their hands on Charlie for their own personal weapon-making gain. Meanwhile, Andy and Vicky struggle to try to hide her from these people. So, perhaps my recent 'Stranger Things' binge also took a little something away from this. It also sort of suggests that this was a cash-in attempt on the studio's part, dropped right before Season 4 of 'Stranger Things' kicked off. It's a hard task for me to review this one as any sort of comparison, as this has literally been my introduction to this story. However, just speaking objectively, I might suggest this to be mildly entertaining, but still kind of pointless. Of all of the Stephen King titles to relaunch at this point, I wouldn't have thought 'Firestarter' would be on the list of priorities. But being that I'm still a noob, I guess I really don't know what King fans are truly asking for out there. As it stands, it does still feel ill-timed - especially when we kind of know people will be clamouring for 'Stranger Things' a little harder. Hopefully the next attempt at a Stephen King redo will come out a little more thrilling. 3/5  Just to add a whole bunch more confusion as to where things in Marvel are taking place, Sony brings in 'Morbius' while a future 'Blade' movie is slated for the MCU at some point in the near future. We don't particularly know what will happen with Sony's Spider-Man movies either, as Andrew Garfield has quite a lot of fans backing him up for another Sony movie. Time will tell, but before it all comes together, here's the next chapter in Marvel's Multiverse Movie Multitude.
We meet young Michael Morbius (Charlie Shotwell) at the age of 10, where he bonds with his surrogate brother, Lucien (Joseph Esson). The pair share a blood disease in common and reside at a hospital in Greece. After an incident involving Lucien and his medical equipment, it's discovered that Michael is highly intelligent - a regular MacGyver if you will. As a result, Michael and Milo's (by the way, Michael calls Lucien "Milo" in this) adoptive father and hospital director, Nicholas (Jared Harris), makes arrangements for Michael to attend medical school in New York City. After 25 years, Michael (Jared Leto) is up for a Nobel Prize for his work on synthetic blood, which he publicly declines. In the hopes of splicing bat genes with his own, he hopes to cure his blood disease, and has therefore captured a collection of bats to experiment on, as discovered by his colleague, Martine Bancroft (Adria Arjona). His experimentation, however, is illegal, but after confessing his plans to both Nicholas and Milo (Matt Smith), he receives funding to carry out his experiment on international waters. The experiment, as we can all tell by trailers and common sense, transforms Michael into a vampire with seemingly uncontrollable bloodlust. Once his hunger is satisfied, he pretty much goes back to normal. The conclusion is that the cure works, and even enhances his abilities, gaining him things like echolocation, super strength and agility, and even being treated as a fellow bat by his bat buddies. The unfortunate drawback, however, is this thirst problem. His synthetic blood can only feed him for so long. But when Milo is refused help due to the cures unfortunate side effects, Milo takes matters into his own hands, giving us another Marvel non-MCU anti-hero in the form of Morbius, the living vampire. This one clearly didn't do so hot with the critics, and a lot of that has to do with some of this origin story stuff being played out - especially when it's hard to figure out just who was asking for a 'Morbius' movie, as opposed to just having him come in as a villain somewhere in a future 'Spidey' or 'Blade' movie. Nevertheless, perhaps the most intriguing aspects of this movie, to no one's surprise, are the mid-credit sequences which, without saying too much, tie in with the events of the MCU's 'No Way Home'. It paves the way for some future stuff, but it's hard to say exactly what. All in all, I came out of this with similar feelings that I had with the two 'Venom' movies. These films are by no means spectacular, but I'll be damned if I don't have fun with them. I wasn't on the lookout for this, but I can't deny it grabbed my attention, being somewhat familiar with the Marvel villain. I'm glad that I saw it, and didn't come out of it regretting a thing. There are a few rough spots here and there, and I can see where critics are coming from. But if you can view this with the proper lens, I think you can enjoy it for what it is. One thing's for sure - Leto was much better here than he ever was as the Joker (and I stand by that). 3/5  This will undoubtedly be a pretty short review because quite honestly, there isn't a hell of a lot to say about this title. If you go into this expecting something very basic as far as haunting/possession movies go, you pretty much get just that. Nothing about this is surprising, there's no crazy twist ending that comes out of nowhere, and at the end of the day, it's gonna be forgotten and swept under the rug like so many of its kind before it.
Korean immigrants Amanda (Sandra Oh) and her daughter, Chris (Fivel Stewart) live a farm life of raising bees and chickens. They rely on much older technologies due to a trauma Amanda experienced at a young age involving electricity. I imagine this was also done because a lantern looks creepier than a flashlight. Anyway, one day Amanda is visited by her uncle (Tom Yi) who leaves her with the remains of her estranged mother. Amanda is warned not to open the briefcase that contains these remains, but of course, if she didn't, we wouldn't really have a movie. In the meantime, Chris makes a new friend in a girl named River (Odeya Rush) and from that, she becomes a bit more distant from her mother. And since Amanda's mother was so strict, a big part of this is the play on Amanda fearing becoming her mother. Then it plays with the whole spiritual possession thing, and it just kind of coasts along without any really unexpected twists or turns. All in all, it struck me as the kind of under-the-radar title you might find near the bottom of a long list of suggestions Netflix would have to offer based on "ghost movies". You know, at that point in the list you scroll down to where you haven't heard of most of them. I suppose if I was to really give the movie anything it would probably be Sandra Oh's performance. I'm not talking about Oscar-worthy material or anything, but one has to appreciate that she did a good job with what she had to work with. With that said, this is a pretty limited release all the same, so it doesn't seem to be taking itself as any sort of big deal either. So once again, we have a movie that's just kind of "there". The real draw for me was the fact that Sam Raimi's name was attached to it as producer, but it ended up being a good example of why "producer" is a credit to take with a grain of salt. I have no doubt that this will end up on some sort of streaming platform soon enough, so even if you have the means to "big-screen" this experience, I strongly recommend holding off. And even then, I dunno how highly I'd recommend it to anyone. There are worse titles out there, to be sure, but this did feel about as basic as a haunting/possession movie can be, and any symbolism behind it is painfully obvious... but perhaps it's supposed to be since "Umma" translates to "Mother" which, even as a title feels somewhat unoriginal at this point. How many "mom-related" horror/thriller titles are there out there? 2/5  At this point, after yet another Covid lockdown, it appears that theaters are reopening again. So (knock on wood) I'll have access to movies we actually give a damn about, instead of reviewing titles like these, that probably have whoever is reading this asking "what in the hell is this?" There isn't even a summary of the film on its Wiki page (which I often use for help, lest I forget certain details)... I'll uh, do my best.
The film opens with the crash-landing of a military cargo plane, during World War II. The crash happens behind enemy lines, within the Black Forest of Germany. The plane carried top secret material, and a team of skilled soldiers are sent by a Maj. Johnson (Mickey Rourke) to retrieve it. Led by Sergeant Brewer (Robert Knepper) and Walsh (Jackson Rathbone), the team search the forest until they discover the bodies of hanged Nazi soldiers among others, all bearing strange markings that turn out to be ancient magical symbols. Before the team knows it, all sorts of strange things start happening to them. Their compasses fail, and they get to questioning their own sanity, as they seem trapped by some kind of strong, supernatural entity. Knowing that Nazis are into the supernatural for uses of power, the team must dig deep, and discover the twisted truth that lies behind whatever it is that seems to be attacking them. So, a lot of this is another horror flick based on Nazi experimentation, of which there are FAR better titles to choose from. But, although it takes a weird direction, i can at least give it credit for a touch of originality. A lot of this dark magic turns out to be witchcraft, and I personally find it to be an original take on the World War II horror genre - which is around, but there's not a whole whack of them. There is something about soldiers facing off against the supernatural that speaks to the haunted mindset some real-world WWII soldiers probably had. A lot of it can be taken metaphorically, be it the soldiers "battling their inner demons", the soldiers "venturing into the very frightening unknown" or hey, sometimes the soldier has to just "fight a monster", either representative of the entire Nazi regime, or Hitler, himself. Having said all that, it's sort of difficult to place this in any of those particular categories. Sometimes a movie is just... being a B movie. So, it's a pretty good example of a movie made for fun, and there's nothing wrong with that. This parallels things like 'Piranha 3D' or 'Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter'. Its not too bad if you're just looking for a cheap thrill. But I will suggest to look elsewhere if you're looking for real substance. It's kinda fun, but it's not what I'd call "worthy of big-screen attention". 3/5  For those who don't know, and to keep it perfectly short, Edgar Wright = favorite director = total bias towards his films. I am generally of the opinion that everything the man is responsible for writing/directing is essentially gold. Of course, this is all personal taste. For some, it's Tarantino, for others, it's Spielberg. But the point is, with anything I review by Edgar Wright, one must be mindful that I'm basically in love with the guy's work.
He has actually released two films this year; this along with a documentary called 'The Sparks Brothers', about the pop/rock duo, "Sparks". This, however, is the more mainstream one of the two, and once again flexes Wright's muscles as a director by being a more serious-toned thriller. You have to hand it to the guy, he likes trying out a variety of things. And yeah, this is me talking, but he succeeds every single damn time. 'Last Night in Soho' is certainly no exception. And interestingly enough, one might suggest this one leans more towards the female crowd based on overall subject matter. While I'm inclined to agree to a degree, I might suggest it's a good watch for the guys, too, if only as a cautionary tale of sorts. The film focuses on Eloise "Ellie" Turner (Thomasin McKenzie); an aspiring fashion designer with a thing for the 60s that about matches my thing for our director, here. She loves the music, she loves the fashion, she loves the setting, and she dreams of one day becoming a fashion designer in the Soho area of London, England. She also has a special gift where she can seemingly see her deceased mother (Aimee Cassettari) in her mirror. This is another case of accepting something without explanation - she has this ability, but we can only really guess where it comes from. What's more important here is how her ability seems to come into play. She one day gets her opportunity to study at the London College of Fashion, and moves from her country home near Redruth, Cornwall to the big city, only to find herself rooming with a snooty girl named Jocasta (Synnove Karlsen). After a night out, and being an emotional punching bag to Jocasta and her jerk friends (you really hate these girls quickly). Luckily, there is one kind student among them; a guy named John (Michael Ajao) Ellie decides to find somewhere new to stay while she goes to school, landing on a charming little room in Goodge Place, owned by a reasonably strict, elderly woman named Ms. Collins (Diana Rigg). Ellie finds herself having a vivid dream that first night about being in the same area of the city in the 60s, and observing a young blonde woman named Sandie (Anya Taylor-Joy) developing a professional relationship with a night club owner named Jack (Matt Smith) in order to get a gig as one of his performers. During the dream, Ellie is basically in the role of Sandie, as we see through a very cool effect using mirrors. These dreams, however, have an 'Elm Street' style to them in as much as what happens in the dream carries over to real life. While Ellie is sort of in love with what she's experienced, she keeps the dreams up only to reveal something much more sinister going on behind the scenes. I will admit that while a lot of Wright's movies do a wonderful job of getting going, this one does feel like it has a bit of a slow set-up. But with that said, I never felt like things were really dragging. For this one, I give Wright a lot of credit for making this a cautionary tale for moth men and women. There's some "woke", #metoo material in here, but what I liked about it was that it didn't feel entirely black and white in the end. It certainly leaned one way, but it's clearly what Wright was going for. Just my opinion, but he did a good job here, right down to the twist ending. I'd probably prefer a good Edgar Wright comedy over this in the end, but I have to give Wright the credit for doing something kind of new with the whole "woke" movement. 4/5  Here we have our next dose of horror from director James Wan; the man who sent chills up our spines with the likes of 'Saw', 'Insidious', 'The Conjuring' and 'Fast & Furious 7' (although those chills were different). This was a title that, at least from my perspective, has been floating under the radar enough that I wasn't fully aware it existed until I was looking for something that would be released this week for review. The determining factor was, of course, Wan, himself. Speaking on a personal level, I am a fan. I feel like he's breathed a little bit of new into horror while maintaining a lot of that classic stuff we all know and love.
'Malignant' is another example of a relatively fresh take on a relatively old idea. One thing I will say right off the bat is that, speaking for myself, I found this to be entirely far too predictable. I wasn't entirely sure what the "Malignant" title was all about, but when things start going down in this, it's so easy to draw a conclusion. The mystery is in how this conclusion will play out - and let me just say, it's campy, and a bit reminiscent of a certain 'Simpsons' Halloween segment with hints of... 'Harry Potter' (you'll see what I mean by the end) and even at one point, kind of 'The Matrix'. I didn't think the film was altogether that great, but I can't deny that it was rather interesting in the way it all played out. Things open back in the early 90s where Dr. Florence Weaver (Jacqueline McKenzie), Dr. Victor Fields (Christian Clemenson) and Dr. John Gregory (Amir AboulEla) treat a psychatric patient named Gabriel who, one day, runs amok, kills a handful of staff, and we discover that this is a kid who should probably be under the care of Professor Xavier. This young man has superpowers, which include manipulation of electricity, and the ability to broadcast his thoughts through speakers. Near the end of this almost 'Jurassic Park'-like opening, we get our first glimpse of Gabriel - some sort of terrible creature who the doctors are trying to subdue. We fast-forward twenty-seven years where we meet a pregnant woman named Madison (Annabelle Wallis) who comes home to an abusive stereotype named Derek (Jake Abel). There's a fight, and he violently throws her head against the wall, prompting Madison to lock herself in the bedroom away from him for any amount of sleep. During sleep, she has a nightmare about a killer in the house, which may or may not have a sort of 'Elm Street'-like attachment to the real world. Without spoiling anything much, we find out soon enough. This eventually leads Madison down some strange rabbit hole where she learns some gritty details about her own past which could lead to solving a murder mystery that currently surrounds her life. Altogether, I wouldn't claim this to be Wan's best film, but I might also suggest that Wan could be an acquired taste for most. 'Saw' for example is a series I find altogether hit or miss, but I personally see the first as a horror classic at this point - and that's the only one Wan did. I might also argue that he did the best of the 'Fast' movies with the seventh, and 'The Conjuring' might be the best "haunted house" series currently running. But this is all my opinion, and if anyone were to debate any of this, I wouldn't try too hard to hit back, because I totally get not liking his style just as well. But I do think if you're like me, and a fan (though admittedly not what you'd call die-hard), it's worth checking out. The twist ending will either make you cringe or smile, but if you're lucky, it could lead to both, as Wan's films tend to do. 3/5  To begin with, this is one of few horror movie series that I never touched on. The curiosity has been there for a while, but I never considered the Candyman to be quite on the same level as someone like Freddy or Jason. Having said that, before checking this film out, I was about 99% clueless as to what 'Candyman' was all about. I knew the line "be my victim", I knew that he was associated with bees, I knew he had a hook for a hand, and I knew he appeared in the mirror after saying his name five times - really just another take on the 'Bloody Mary' game.
I went into this thinking it was an all-out reboot, or even soft reboot, but it turns out that it's a direct sequel to the first film. Whether or not it excludes the second and third films in the original series and does an all out 'Halloween', I'm not sure. But from a noob's perspective, it seems to only tie in with the first film, as this has to do with little Anthony McCoy, about thirty years after the events of the original when we see him as a baby. For someone like me, something I had to admire about this movie was how it recalled the story of the original movie, with some paper cut-out animation that turns the first movie into a bit more of a campfire legend, which I thought was actually a pretty awesome idea. In the years that have passed, Anthony (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) has become a well-received visual artist, living with his girlfriend, Brianna Cartwright (Teyonah Parris), who also happens to be an art gallery director. One day, they are told the story of Helen Lyle (aka 'Candyman' '92) by Bianna's brother, Troy (Nathan Stewart-Jarrett). The story inspires Anthony to travel to Cabrini-Green (where the Helen story took place), looking for more inspiration to further his artwork. This soon leads him to laundromat owner, William Burke (Colman Domingo) who tells him the story of the Candyman, who once lived in his neighbourhood, and of course the big conclusion is the whole urban legend of saying his name in the mirror five times, only to have it result in your bloody demise. Inspiration hits Anthony like lightning, and he develops an exhibit based on the Candyman legend called "Say My Name" (and yes, 'Breaking Bad' still uses that phrase better). The audience's reaction to the exhibit isn't entirely positive, and before he knows it, people start playing the "Candyman" game, and lives are claimed, while he experiences a bee sting that isn't exactly average. What does it mean? Well, no spoilers. Anyway, as I expected from the film, I found it to be somewhat average, but somewhat admirable at the same time. The way it presented the events of the '92 film was one of the more admirable parts of this, and when I eventually do get around to watching it, it will feel a bit more like a prequel fans of this movie want to see. We've established that I really enjoy the animation, but on top of that, I liked the way this movie tackled the psychological aspect of horror while blending it with just enough gross gore and body horror that it's something that seems to cover all grounds. When you think of different horror elements, this is something that pretty much has it all. And, having seen bits a pieces of the original, it also seems to keep the aesthetic going. There's something cold and almost abandoned feeling about these movies. It's a hard thing to describe, but we can just land on psychological for now. It does a pretty good job of playing with the brain, and I couldn't help but like the way it ended - it's been done before, but the way it goes down is something I'm a sucker for. My only real criticism of this one is that there were parts that felt a bit slow. But even that is a pretty desperate nitpick, considering it's only an average hour and a half long flick. Jordan Peele is behind a lot of the writing here, along with BlacKKKlansman producer, Win Rosenfeld, and upcoming 'The Marvels' director (and director of this), Nia DaCosta - an up and coming African American woman who I look forward to seeing more from. My criticisms on this one are, if anything, very nitpicky, and this is altogether a pretty great modern horror movie. Between this and 'Quiet Place II', it's nice to see some horror that isn't just more ghosts and demons and exorcisms. I have missed the urban legend slasher, and even though this is more psychological, it counts as a breath of fresh air. 4/5  Let me start this one out by saying that, as one might very well expect, this is really just another 'Saw' movie. You've got your gruesome, torturous traps, you've got your detective who finds himself at the ass-end of it all, and you've got your twist. I will forever consider the first 'Saw' movie the best of the bunch, followed very closely by the second - but from '3' on, it seems to become much more about the traps and how brutally they can make the audience wince.
With that said, I can respect the 'Saw' franchise to a degree in that they were the big new franchise to become an annual Halloween flick after 'Halloween'. Also, like 'Halloween', the franchise went from the proper Fall release to a Summer release, because box office. 'Halloween' did it with 'H20', and 'Saw' did it with... well, this. So kudos to 'Saw for at least outlasting a series like 'Halloween' in tradition. Anyway, after checking this one out, all I can say is that nothing at all is surprising, and you get what you get from the average 'Saw' movie. That's a franchise I dropped after '3', and still haven't seen anything else leading up to 'Jigsaw', which I managed to review somewhat half-assedly. Anyway, plot-wise, this one brings in Detective Ezekiel "Zeke" Banks (Chris Rock); he gets the "renegade cop" role here, overshadowed by his father, Detective Marcus Banks (Samuel L. Jackson). He gets partnered with a rookie named William Schenk (Max Minghella) and the pair are sent to investigate a grizzly murder. Upon inspecting the scene of the crime, they find out that they are dealing with a Jigsaw copycat killer... again. This one seems to be out for cops, and is seeking some sort of twisted justice. The more Zeke goes down the rabbit hole, the closer he finds himself to the killer, thus potentially putting himself and people around him in danger. Honestly - it's just another 'Saw' movie, tackling a hot button issue in the only way 'Saw' can. There are a few things to appreciate about this, but not very many. For one, the traps still do their jobs at making us wince, cringe, etc. so, if that's your deal, it works out pretty well - but there are also only a few of them. Of course, Chris Rock being Chris Rock, there are a few laughs here as well. The problem is, I just find Chris Rock really hard to take seriously as far as a role like this goes. I enjoy the guy, but I'm too used to him as a comedian at this point. I hear he does pretty good in 'Fargo', so maybe I should try that. But here, it's pretty much Chris Rock with an attitude, and he gives us a character that's kind of a tough one to route for. As far as horror goes, this is a franchise I can respect, but it's not entirely for me. The whole torture porn thing just gets under my skin (no pun intended), and I tend to see it as a pretty cheap way to make audiences flinch. But at the very least, things can get creative in 'Saw', and I've always found it interesting that the kills are set-ups for the victim to either suffer horribly and live, or die because they failed their trap. The "killer" never actually does the killing. I've always found that to be the most intriguing twist to the Jigsaw killer, plus when Tobin Bell is on-screen, you can't help but like him as the next big deal in horror villainy. For as intriguing as things could get (bearing in mind I still haven't seen 4-7), this just made me think of 'Jigsaw' a few years back in that it simply feels too little too late. For me, this is a matter of outdated material, and something that makes you wonder who was asking for it. That said, I've stumbled on the fact that this seems to be Part 9 of a 10-part series, so I guess this just has its handful of dedicated fans, and maybe it's something I don't entirely get. You've got to give it to them for lasting the way they have though, no matter how you feel. Thinking about the apparent, upcoming 'Saw X', it ought to be released in late October, 2024, giving the franchise a solid 20-year run and going back to its roots. Who knows? It could go back to being as good as the first two. But it definitely needs to be better than the last two. 2/5  Consider the following review a "bookmark" of sorts. In part protest/part not wanting to pay a whole bunch per month, I have gotten rid of Crave and therefore HBO Max. My reasoning; the WB titles streaming on HBO Max as well as theaters are only available in America, thus we Canucks kind of just get screwed. It's irritating to me that WB has what I think is a great idea, but they aren't making it available elsewhere. Last I checked, our theaters were closed as well, so this means missing out on a lot of cool up-and-coming material.
In fairness, the odd rental still might pop up here and there, like 'Wonder Woman '84' did. On a personal level, I'm okay with renting as long as the cost is relatively fair to my wallet ($20 for 'Onward' as opposed to $30 for 'Mulan'). For the time being, however, a lot of these "Now Playing" titles may be either late to the party (perhaps being released in Canada later than the US, like the last 'Spongebob' flick) or quite "Under the Radar" (as many of these have been lately). So, instead of reviewing the Oscar-Buzzing Frances McDormand movie that is 'Nomadland' this week, instead, it's movie that you've probably never heard of until now. But hey, it's "available"! Diving right in, after some time passes from a tragic incident involving a nurse named Katie and her patient, she becomes a devout Roman Catholic, and starts referring to herself as Maud. She now works as a palliative care nurse somewhere in England, and her next assignment is to Amanda; a minor celebrity in the world of dance choreography. Terminally ill with stage four lymphoma, she confesses her fears of death to Maud, who confesses back that she often feels God's response to her prayers. We see this as Maud responding to things in an almost orgasmic fashion. As time passes, Amanda is visited by Carol, who acts as a sex worker for her. As a result of this and Maud's devout faith to God, Maud becomes obsessive with the protection of Amanda, and wants nothing more than to save her soul from eternal damnation. Soon enough, the obsession turns sour and, through a series of events, Maud eventually has to question who it is that really needs saving; Amanda or herself. If the opening scene involving Katie/Maud locked up in an asylum is any indication, we certainly know that nothing will end up in Katie/Maud's favor, but it's mildly interesting to watch the events that unfold that got her there... very mildly. Just by reading the review here, your probable thoughts on the film being a little too religiously heavy are 100% accurate. All in all, it's your standard, run of the mill, supernatural, psychological religious thriller. It doesn't have a lot of the typical imagery, and a lot more of is is psychological than physically supernatural. The film gets you trapped in Maud's life and personal thoughts, all the while delivering some pretty uncomfortable imagery, but nothing so over the top as to truly call this "horror". I'd probably just say it's more uncomfortable than anything, and it really doesn't feel like it has much more of a point than Maud's confusion on what's really right and wrong - again, speaking in the biblical sense more than anything. It seems to combine the issues of mental health with religion, and that's always an iffy area for me as it is. So, as I expected, there's nothing particularly special here, and I wouldn't really recommend it to anyone in particular. It's not scary, it's not horrifically fun in any way, and it's just too heavy-handed with its religious aspect. I suppose it works out as a sort of hidden gem for some (considering its praise on Rotten Tomatoes with an average of 81%), but this is just one of those cases where if you told me I "just didn't get it", you'd probably be right. I guess it's ot without its moments of discomfort, and therefore doing its job, but I can tell that this will be a "forgotten title" for yours truly when 2021 comes to an end. 2/5  Ah the early winte months of the year, combined with a pandemic. It is what it is, but when it comes to my "Now Playing" reviews, some weeks involve tracking down something not so well known - like this particularly under-the-radar flick that's just kind of floating among the New Releases list on Google Play Movies (this is pretty much how I do things now). With titles like these, I always go in expecting it not to be very memorable, but I have to admit, this had some cool things about it I appreciated.
The film opens with a girl running through the woods from a mysterious, hooded figure, chasing and attempting to kill her. The girl, Rain Burroughs (Madison Iseman) suddenly wakes up in a hospital, overhearing the voices of her mother Michelle (Katherine Heigl) and father John (Harry Connick Jr), and is taken to a therapy room for recovery. Upon a therapist visit and her coming back home, we quickly realize that Rain seemingly wasn't chased by anyone, but hallucinated the whole thing due to taking herself off whatever meds she was supposed to be on. The next day, Rain goes back to school where she seemingly loses a friend to a group of stuck up little brats who presume Rain is out for attention. However, along come Caleb (Israel Broussard) who manages to brighten her day with a card trick, and asking her out. But just as things are looking up for her, Rain starts to have more visions. While coming home from school, she sees a child get snatched, but suddenly the child and the kidnapper vanish. Then, one night, she has a nightmare involving her teacher and neighbor, Mrs. McConnell (Eugenie Bondurant) harboring a child. The next day, John and Rain go to check out Mrs. McConnell's house, but find no evidence of anything. However, Rain is still pretty certain of there being something fishy going on. She the recruits Caleb to help her out, as he seems to be the only one who will listen to her. Soon enough, however, she and the viewing audience begin to question what's real and what's in her head - namely, the situation involving Mrs. McConnell, and Caleb, himself. Can Rain rescue the little girl trapped next door, or is there even anyone in danger? All in all, I meet this one in the middle. Sometimes when movies show the dark side of mental health, and the people who react around the victim, I can have a hard time of it. I find myself looking for something to appreciate about it, and in fairness, this does a decent job of showing us the every day horror Rain has to go through on a daily basis. This poor girl suffers from both auditory and visual hallucinations, so things can get pretty uncomfortable to watch. In that case, the film does its job. She hears voices, sees things, and even has inner battles with herself. One thing I really appreciated about this was its cinematography. Rain's hallucinations are all portrayed visually quite well, utilizing some pretty cool effects, and text that jumps across the screen representing her "list" (things she has to question in order to snap out of her hallucinations). This all ends in an interesting twist, as one probably expects, but when it's all said and done you might consider it pretty predictable. Personally, I knew A twist was bound to happen, but when the big reveal shows itself, you just think "I shouldn't have missed that". All in all, this was pretty cool for what it was, but I can't imagine that it will stick out as a "favorite" by the end of 2021. 3/5  This week's last-minute VOD selection (this is just gonna be a thing now) is a bit of a Halloween leftover. This is a bit like taking 'Serpent and the Rainbow', 'Misery', 'Get Out' and maybe a touch of 'The Hills Have Eyes' and throwing it all into a blender. Coming to us from director Mark Tonderai, we probably best recognize his film work from the long-forgotten Jennifer Lawrence thriller, 'The House at the End of the Street'. He otherwise dabbles in a lot of TV, and it sort of shows with his quality of film that he may be better off. These movies aren't terrible, but if they were AMC originals, you wouldn't be surprised.
The film opens up with a disturbing black screen, accompanied by the sound of the beating of a child, presumably with a belt. This turns out to be our lead, Marquis Woods (Omari Hardwick) as a kid, and his recently deceased father (Ri-Karlo Handy). In present day, Marquis receives word of his father's death, and his wife, Veora (Lorraine Burroughs) insists that they go to the funeral in rural Appalachia. Along with their two children, Samsara and Tyden (Hannah Gonera and Kalifa Burton, respectively), they begin to fly out using Marquis' private plane. The family does have to land to fuel up, but during this we get our harbinger scene where a couple of creepy dudes let the audience know that this family is headed towards danger. Sure enough, eventually the plane is caught in a terrible storm, crashes, and Marquis awakens all alone in a strange room. Here, Ms. Eloise (Loretta Devine) and her husband, Earl (John Beasley) have him trapped, keeping him from the rest of his family. As Marquis attempts several escapes while nearly getting caught, he slowly unravels a disturbing web of dark voodoo magic, and must attempt to find and rescue his family before they become part of a ritual during next blood moon. Right off the bat, I'm gonna go ahead and say that if you're an animal lover, you're probably gonna want to avoid this movie. They kill plenty of animals here, and use their parts for the magic involved in the plot. So it's not really unnecessarily crowbarred in, but it might show you more than you wish to see without being up close and personal about it - that's saved for other scenes involving a spike in a foot, which is also very cringe-worthy. So it's not for those who don't like torture porn either. Between those two elements alone, I'm surprised I managed to sit through it. But to the film's credit, it was disturbing even without the gory stuff, and I found it fairly reminiscent of 'The Serpent and the Rainbow' in some respects. This is a fairly different twist on the typical "held-captive" movie, using black magic and not really holding back with it. But before you watch it and simply say "Voodoo is bad" after seeing all of this horror, please do your homework on it. More than anything, the horror from this comes from how it's used and who is using it. It's the difference between handing a machete to Jason Voorhees or Martha Stewart. All in all, I didn't mind the film, but it's still something I wouldn't recommend as anything more than a cheap rental. It does its job at being disturbing and creepy, and the villain performances are spot on, especially by Loretta Devine. But the fact of the matter is, it's just a different take on a very familiar formula, and it involves dissecting animals and looking at Voodoo as "evil". One might get more than me from it, but it's a once-only watch for this guy. 2/5  In 1996, 'The Craft' became a sort of phenomenon among all sorts of teenagers. I brought it up earlier this month in my Screening Suggestions, recommending it as a sort of Halloween favorite for the season. It's a neat time capsule to use in order to see the late 90s when certain gothic trends were taking over, and even the overall story is pretty well timeless. It didn't really need a reimagining, but just out of curiosity, I figured I'd see how well this turned out as a sort of nostalgic reach.
The film opens with three girls; Frankie (Gideon Adlon), Tabby (Lovie Simone) and Lourdes (Zoey Luna) attempting a spell, but things don't work, as they need a fourth member for their Coven. Enter Lily Schechner (Cailee Spaeny), who moves into town with her mother, Helen (Michelle Monaghan) to live with Helen's boyfriend, Adam Harrison (David Duchovny) and his three sons, Abe (Julian Grey), jacob (Charles Vandervaart) and Isiah (Donald MacLean Jr.). After an incident at school, the girls befriend Lily, and find out that she makes a perfect fourth member due to her ability to communicate with them telepathically. Throughout the film, the coven uses their newfound powers in various ways, very similar to the spells used in the original film - namely a spell to make a bully into a nice guy. The powers are much more superhero-like here, however, and to me that sort of ruins things. 'The Craft' was much more subtle with their magic, where here they have things like flames coming from fingers. They don't overdo it necessarily, but it's still kind of distracting. Either way, these powers are generally used to get back at their bullies, as they're the odd ones out in their school. They even repeat the "Light as a Feather, Stiff as a Board" scene in a montage. It may be part of the love letter to the original film this is, but it does feel redundant. Right around the half-way point, however, things do get a bit more interesting and original. For example a spell makes one character reveal his sexuality, and it's honestly pretty touching. It's a neat idea to show that circumstance of using magic, and it adds an original twist to the otherwise seemingly repetitive story. So there is a balance here between cheesy-looking magic that makes bathwater sparkle and magic that can reveal the deepest side of someone, showing us that they may not be who we think they are. You may already know it by now, but there's a very interesting twist at the end you don't fully see coming. That said, even looking for the movie to watch, Google spoiled it for me pretty well immediately. I won't say anything here, but if you're at all interested, I might recommend not Googling any info on it. Just find it on Google Play or whatever you may have, and check it out. hat said, missing this one is sort of no harm no foul, as the original still does stand very well on its own. This was all around unnecessary, but it really wasn't bad at all, either. It provides a rather easy-to-access big title for the Halloween season, and does manage to strike that chord just well enough. So, if you're looking for something not totally horrific, but something to watch for October 31st, and you're a big fan of the original film, this isn't a bad place to look. It's certainly not without a few issues, like redundancy from the original and some tacky visual effects, but I was still entertained, and really did enjoy the surprise ending. Even if you can predict the ending, it's still a neat note to go out on. I also think this doesn't quite have the dark fun of the original, and its notes are quite a bit more serious. But depending on who you are, that could also be a good thing. So check it out for yourself - it may just stroke your nostalgia just right. 3/5  Coming to us from acclaimed producers of hit horror movies, 'Get Out' and 'Us', here we have 'Antebellum', which basically means taking place before the Civil War. However, the entire film does not take place within that time period, and that may very well be the film's biggest problem. It does something interesting, but when it's all said and done, it doesn't turn out too well.
I'm gonna spoil the ending eventually, but you will be forewarned not to read on when I get to that point. Just zoom down to my rating and call it a day, if you don't want any spoilers. The ending ends up being one of those things that tries to be so strong of a twist, but when you think about it, it doesn't make any damn sense. This feels very much like a Shyamalan movie, but it comes to us from directing/writing team of Gerard Bush and Christopher Renz in their directorial debut. It shows that they definitely have strong potential; this movie actually wasn't all bad. But they need to work on execution a little better. The film opens in a very harsh Civil War setting; that of a plantation, run by Confederate Army soldiers. Here, slaves are treated so badly that we see where the film gets its horror aspect. They cannot speak without permission, get beaten, get sexually abused, and live in a tragic nightmare that we know, deep down, was once the case in reality. This is like looking back on a racial equivalent of the Black Plague; the viral "horror movie" of the real world. It's something that happened, and when you know the details, it's scary stuff. Plantation owner, Elizabeth (Jena Malone) brings in one new pregnant slave, names her Julia (Kiersey Clemons), and brings her to Eden (Janelle Monáe); another slave, and captive of a Confederate General known only as "him" (Eric Lange). It's a really dark setting, and is honest to God effective as a borderline torture porn horror movie (if you're into that kind of thing. I am not.). Anyway, Eden falls asleep only to wake up in modern times where the movie just stops to show that Eden is now a sociologist named Veronica Henley. She has a loving husband, Nick (Marque Richardson) and daughter, Kennedi (London Boyce). Right around here you wonder what the hell just happened. If you've seen any of the trailers, you know that somehow there's a tie between the antebellum era and present day, but you don't quite know what it is. But while the film has you guessing, all aspects of horror are stripped away for a while as we just watch her work and hang out with her friends, namely Dawn (Gabourey Sidibe). It seems that we can just pass all the slave stuff off as a bad dream, and that may or may not be meant as a metaphor, we don't know. Eventually everything does come around and it makes sense in context, but it's extremely predictable, even if the twist at the end still makes you question what you just watched. So, as mentioned before, spoilers ahead! We come to discover that our jolt into the present day is, in actuality, a flashback. After theseladies go party, Veronica takes an Uber to head home, but is knocked out and kidnapped. She awakens again as Eden, following the real timeline from when Eden first fell asleep. So the order of the movie is 2nd act, 1st act, 3rd act. Here we see through the use of cell phones that she's not on a real plantation at all. She seems to have clearly been kidnapped and forced into some really sick roleplay by a group of messed up people. She plans an escape; a chaotic and deadly one, only to find out that the whole time, she was at a Civil War reenactment camp. So, evidently, she killed a bunch of innocent people, and it's supposed to be a downer ending? As the viewer, you still saw all that brutal stuff happen though, so it's not like she plows through a bunch of truly innocent people. It makes no sense that they could have all gotten away with what they did with so much of the public coming in and out of the camp. With all that said, it seems likely that I could have missed something. But imagine you're at something like a haunted house where some of the scares end up being real murder victims. There must be someone who comes through who says "holy shit, this is real". It's a good attempt at a twist, there just needed to be some adjusting to it. There needed to be a reason why no one ever noticed these crimes, and the cell phones really give away the whole twist of it being modern times. In the beginning, we get that there's a connection, but we don't know what that is. I still don't even full know if Veronica was under the impression that she was Eden, through some hallucinogenic drug they use. It's not exactly a mess, it's just a puzzle missing a few pieces. The bottom line is that I hope to see more from this writing/directing duo, because they really have something... they just need to tighten it up. 2/5  The 'X-Men' movies, much like my reviews, are very hit-or-miss (hey, I can own up to it). 'New Mutants', despite a damn near three year wait, is no exception. Yes, it was really that long. Just look at the post date on this 'New Mutants' teaser trailer. After all that, and all my looking forward to what could have been a really cool horror movie with superpowers, I'm sad to say that what we got was actually pretty underwhelming. I expected it to become a new favorite, but I'd generally lump it in with the 'X-Men' titles that are just "okay".
If you want me to rank all 12 of the previous, I'd probably say, from top to bottom: 'First Class', 'Deadpool', 'Logan', 'X-Men United', 'Deadpool 2, 'X-Men', 'Days of Future Past', 'The Wolverine', 'The Last Stand' 'Dark Phoenix', 'Apocalypse', 'Origins: Wolverine'. 'New Mutants', I'm gonna sandwich somewhere between 'Days of Future Past' and 'The Wolverine' - so just one down from right smack-dab in the middle of everything. I still really like the concept of what this could have been as opposed to what it ended up being, so it's a little bit of a let-down. What could have shown the side of kids who are terrified of their mutant ability turned into something... well, similar, but not quite what I'd hoped for. We are introduced to Dani Moonstar, as her Native American village is being attacked by some force her father claims to be a tornado. She becomes the soul survivor of the incident, but after being knocked out by something unseen, she awakens in a horror movie set of a hospital, run by a Dr. Cecelia Reyes. Reyes requests that Dani stay at the hospital to keep her safe, so they can study her and figure out what her mutant abilities are. As it turns out, the facility is there to house new mutants (boom, title drop) who may be a danger to not only others, but themselves, and the idea is to gain control over what could be lethal abilities before being sent out into the world. I really like that concept, and it's even mentioned in the movie that sometimes most unfortunately, killing or hurting people is just a part of having these uncanny abilities. Chances are, as one is discovering one's Mutant ability, someone will get in harms way. Within the hospital, she meets a handful of other mutants, and together they form the Mutant Breakfast Club. Sam Guthrie ("Cannonball" - Charlie Heaton) who can fly at jet speed, Roberto da Costa ("Sunspot" - Henry Zaga) with the ability to manipulate solar power, Illyana Rasputin ("Magik" - Anya Taylor-Joy) has inter-dimensional sorcery abilities, and Rahne Sinclair ("Wolfsbane" - Maisie Williams) who can plain and simply transform into a wolf, and has a keen interest in befriending the new girl. They learn together that they are all there for being associated with some sort of tragedy in their past, having something to do with their powers - but I won't say much more, as that's some of what adds to the horror aspect of the film - some of it, admittedly rather disturbing. While the team, other than maybe Illyana, believe they are there to get their powers focused and under control so they can one day join the X-Men, but the big question the film dangles above your head is, are they? This is, after all, considered a kind of horror movie. Right away, one has a hard time imagining that it's gonna end happily, and I'll just get it out of the way, as soon as you see the set-up of everything, it's relatively obvious what the twist is gonna be. This causes the movie to lose some points. Hell, you can probably tell what's gonna happen just based on the trailers. However, I will give it some credit for having a very cool climax, and a whole other twist I didn't quite see coming. So there IS a balance, of sorts. It covers some intriguing ground for an 'X-Men' movie, having less to do with being viewed as "different" in society, but more to do with how these powers have left a mental scar. It shows that not every power can be viewed as an "awesome gift", when indeed, it's more of a nightmare to manage it. Truth be told, I may manage to enjoy this a touch more than others who are actually fans of the comic series. I went to see it with one such friend, and sure enough, he did point out some flaws and changes that were made. I knew nothing about this 'X-Men' team going in, only that they existed, and even to me the movie was just okay. I might just recommend waiting for home release to check it out, if you're curious, because there's not a whole lot of it that begs to be seen on a big screen. 3/5  Sometimes it's fun to dabble in international horror styles, as so many other cultures have their own horrors that we may not even think about. The typical young girl specter with black hair covering her face came over here from Japan and gave us a whole new level of supernatural horror that has been used so often, it eventually became an American horror trope. When it comes to Russian horror, unfortunately, I don't really know what's "typical", but it doesn't appear to be sci-fi horror so much as supernatural thrillers. So really, this is a bit of an odd one out. It's also not at all scary.
Set in 1983, two Russian cosmonauts are on an orbital research mission when they experience something horrible they can't explain, on their way back to Earth. The spacecraft malfunctions on its re-entry, and in the process of everything, one of the cosmonauts is violently killed while the other, Konstantin (Pyotr Fyodorov) remains alive, but in some strange condition. He is taken to a military facility where a young psychiatrist named Dr. Tatyana Kilmova (Oksana Akinshina) is brought in to chat with him about his experiences. Little does she know just what is in store. Kilmova was brought in under review for her unorthodox approaches to psychiatry. The officer in charge, Colonel Semiradov (Fedor Bondarchuk) recruits her, but doesn't tell her anything about the alien life form that hides within Konstantin, and relies on him as a sort of suit. With that symbiotic relationship, Semiradov wants to find a way to detach the creature from the cosmonaut. But what begins as a scientific study on alien life eventually turns into a horror show when Kilmova learns that most of what she's being told is a lie, and the creature feeds on just a little more than whatever Konstantin gives it. The film is not without a few moments of genuine discomfort, like watching the alien come out of Konstantin, and there's some pretty decent implied gore (like seeing blood splatter in night vision). But for the life of me, there was nothing that made it a horror movie to me. It's like beating a dead horse, at this point, but once again, a lot is taken from the Alien franchise - namely the alien inhabiting a human body idea. Although I can admit that this one separates itself just enough, as being a research film more than a straight up scare-fest - but that might also be the problem. Although it has its place, and I wouldn't necessarily direct sci-fi horror fans away from it, I do have to point out that it's largely quite boring. It's a lot of talk, and as soon as something interesting happens, it goes back to that talking. All in all, the chatter greatly outweighs anything of horrific stature, and not once did I feel that morbid excitement I get from other films like it. There's that little part of all of us horror fans who kinda route for the villain. We don't watch 'Friday the 13th' for the characters, we just wanna see what Jason's gonna do to them. This does not come with that. I felt nothing for this alien either way - it could have come or gone, and I genuinely feel the same about the movie as a whole. At the end of the day, it's a forgettable one... even if the creature effects were kinda cool. 2/5  When it comes to some of the more easy and convenient vacation choices nowadays, it seems interesting to me that there's not a whole lot of horror based around some kind of "catch" to said convenience. The 'Hostel' films did it, sure, but as far as I can tell, convenient, low-cost vacationing has been fairly untapped since then. This time around, we look at the potentially creepy dangers of renting an unfamiliar, but beautiful house for a weekend getaway.
Two brothers, Charlie (Dan Stevens) and Josh (Jeremy Allen White) and their respective girlfriends, Michelle (Allison Brie) and Mina (Sheila Vand) end up renting a beautiful ocean view house for a weekend getaway. The couples arrive and meet the property owner, Taylor (Toby Huss) who comes off as pretty creepy, and the gang collectively agrees to avoid him whilst enjoying their trip. Throughout the film, they grow more and more suspicious of him, especially when certain things are revealed, such as camera, implanted in the shower head. Soon, the film becomes a really solid blend of others, while somehow it ends up looking so typical on the surface. This one comes to us from first-time director, Dave Franco, who is mostly known nowadays for his acting, but constantly doing it under his older brother, James' shadow. Not in any sort of negative way, mind, as the two collaborated on 'The Disaster Artist'. But I must admit that after seeing this, Dave is definitely set to come forward, and I'd love to see more from him, especially as a horror/thriller director. The man knows how to creep out with subtlety - a low, droning musical score, lighting, and overall setting are things he gets, and I'm truly hoping to see him work on more, and continue the wonderfully successful comedian-horror trend, which also features Jordan Peele ('Get Out'), John Krasinski ('A Quiet Place'), and Danny McBride ('Halloween' 2018). To me, this is the new era of horror, and has so much potential. The film is a mixture of a few different things; the typical parts including a group of friends, who enjoy drugs, going to a remote location, and facing something inherently "evil". It further blends with a home invasion horror, as we clearly see various invasions of privacy, and yes, one way or another, there IS a masked serial killer behind it all. As mentioned before, on the surface, it's very typical and without a lot of surprise. But with that said, the film does take some interesting enough turns to make it not as typical as it seems. A lot of the movie is about who you can trust, much like 'The Thing'. Only instead of not knowing who the monster is, it's a bit more about these four close friends having to look at each other in a whole new light. Beyond that, the identity of the killer... I won't spoil anything, but I will say that it's not what you might expect, AND, we may very well have a new slasher on our hands. This has the solid potential to be a first reveal of something that can easily continue, and could make for a great series that keeps its killer, but every situation changes. It's a short, easy-to-watch cautionary thriller that relies much more on atmosphere than any kind of blood or gore, and for me, that has always been a solid preference when it comes to showing me "scary". I'd rather be tensed up, waiting for something through a thick fog and never jumping that a random gut tear-out that says "look how shocking I am!" For me, atmosphere always wins me over first, and this was a movie where it ran very solid. It's just really creepy with its music and setting, and it's just enough to make you look at a gorgeous lake-side house and second guess renting it for a weekend. 4/5  Last week's lineup of VOD releases lead me to 'Ghosts of War', as quite honestly, nothing else particularly interested me. But on top of that, I was sold on the concept of a supernatural World War II movie, and the fact that it comes from writer/director Erc Bress, who also did 'The Butterfly Effect' (which I love) and 'The Final Destination' (perhaps my favorite of the series).
Taking place in 1944, Nazi occupied France, Five American soldiers; Chris (Brenton Thwaites), Kirk (Theo Rossi), Tappert (Kyle Gallner), Eugene (Skylar Astin) and Butchie (Alan Ritchson), get assigned to hold a French Chateau, formerly occupied by the Nazi high command. Upon their arrival as a relief squad, the relieved soldiers have fear in their eyes for unknown reasons. The reasons present themselves within the first night, in the form of supernatural entities, providing some pretty disturbing imagery. Soon, what's real and what isn't starts to become twisted, and these five battle-experienced soldiers find themselves facing something, the likes of which they can't imagine. Will these guys reluctantly accept their place and hold the fort down, despite these haunting images? Or will they take the easy way out, and risk getting court marshaled for abandoning their post? I'm not gonna say, but I will hint that this is one of those twist ending movies where the twist will either make or break the film for you. Personally speaking, consider the film broken for yours truly, through said twist. The film kinda takes this leap and changes completely, and it just makes you ask what the hell just happened. Up until that particular point, I was rather with it. It was an interesting idea they had going - a spookhouse horror movie that was ballsy enough to show the ghostly, vengeful victims of a French family the Nazis tortured and murdered. It does play with a lot of the tropes we know so well nowadays, but it's also a DirectTV Original, so one can't be too harsh on tropes. It's honestly just the ending that kills it for me. But one might alternatively find it an interesting idea... even if it does feel like a cop out. While I think the ending is something that more or less ruins an otherwise perfectly enjoyable horror movie, there's still a lot to like if you enjoy a good haunting flick. A lot of the imagery is pretty creepy, and while there's the odd jump scare, it doesn't overdo it. The movie's real feature is that it provides a great, ghostly, haunting, dreamy atmosphere for its setting. The mood for this is just right, and for a while, it's pretty much what you'd expect - not great, but passable for what it's trying to do. For a while, I was considering it for a decent Halloween watch... but that ending. Check it out for yourself if you have access to it, and judge for yourself though. As I mentioned, some may think the ending is something cool. For me, though, it's not something at the top of my recommendation list, even if you're a horror fan. Aside from the atmosphere, there's nothing much that stands out here, but being a DirectTV Original, I'm not gonna dig into it too hard for being unoriginal. It's a minor curiosity, at best, and even then, basically forgettable. 2/5  If you're currently on the lookout for a new scary movie, and this title pops up, you should probably be forewarned that this is just another example sample of more of the same. If you think of the typical haunting movie nowadays, certain marks are met over and over again, and it's frankly just getting old. I don't know why I thought this would be anything particularly different. Perhaps it had to do with that Blumhouse logo, or the two big stars involved, but one thing is for sure; this is just repeating things from other movies.
We start by meeting an age-gapped couple, Theo (61-year-old Kevin Bacon) and Susanna (34-year-old Amanda Seyfried) and their daughter, Ella (Avery Essex). Theo is haunted by horrible nightmares, often involving Ella and a strange shadow of a creepy man. Matters are made even worse with his jealousy, as Susanna is an actress who often engages in sex scenes (though it's not clear whether or not it's pornographic). Regardless of all that, the family moves into a new vacation house in Wales, found online, to get away from everything. While staying at the house, secrets are revealed about Theo's past, explaining why people around him don't like him at all, and eventually the whole thing becomes incredibly predictable. He's often asked about the house, and whether or not he's spoken to a mysterious man named Stetler, a man who once lived there. With that said, I urge you not to check out the IMDb page for this, as the film's big reveal is spoiled very clearly there. Anyway, much of the film has to do with the overall lingering dysfunction of the family, once Susanna reveals to Ella what her Dad's big secret is. If I say much more on the subject, it might as well be a spoiler, as there's a formula I've seen here in other movies. It borrows from so much, and I could see hints of movies like '1408', 'What Lies Beneath', 'The Others' and any number of current horror movies featuring a black-haired ghoul girl (honestly, once America got hold of the idea from Japan, it just hasn't stopped). This one comes to us from writer/director David Koepp, who has penned a very hit or miss lineup of screenplays. On the bright side, 'Jurassic Park' and 'Spider-Man' (2002); on the dark side, 'Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' and 'The Mummy' (2017) - the film that both launched and annihilated the "Dark Universe" (what were they thinking?) So it's not entirely surprising that this film turned out to be very average at best. The film is ultimately predictable, and it goes through the motions of your standard haunting/spook house film. None of the three leads were particularly interesting to me, either, save perhaps Ella who is somewhere before the age of 7 and knows what a trial is, among several other adult words and terms. She's never painted as a book smart girl or anything, just an average little girl who wants to go back home. Maybe it's personal, but I found it hard to buy into. I'm not a parent, so for all I know 5 or 6-year-olds understand the concept of a judge, jury, courtroom etc. I mean, I was playing with my Ghostbusters and He-Man action figures, myself, but I'm just nitpicking. It honestly surprises me that I haven't seen a lower rating on this one from critics. It's a low-rated film, but if you pop over to the tomatoes, you see the audience a little more disappointed with it. This fascinates me, because as I was watching it, I kept thinking to myself "okay, now it's stealing from this movie" or "that movie", and it's very clearly unoriginal and uninspired with an ending that actually confused me quite a bit. I may not be difficult to confuse, but honesty, check it out for yourself and see if you can tell me what happened. Again, this is just another example of a movie that, while on its own isn't terrible by any means, takes from better titles. It makes me wonder, had this had a theatrical release as originally intended, would people have more to say about it? To me, this would have worked much better if it was meant to be a straight to DVD, TV, or streaming project. One can get more out of similar titles, but if you feel so inclined to indulge your horror desires, it's a quick and easy watch, but not at all scary. The worst nightmares you may experience from it already belong to Theo. 2/5  In a horror-twisted re-imagining of the 1970-80 TV drama, current horror tycoon Blumhouse really drops the ball. I don't think I necessarily minded the idea of the film, but its execution is an absolutely confusing mess. Also, taking a fan favorite that lasted 5 or 6 years and rebooting it as a horror-based prequel probably won't sit well with fans of the show. I'll tell you right now, if you were ever a fan, I wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole.
Mr. Rourke (Michael Peña) runs a mysterious island that a group of maybe twenty-somethings (typical horror fodder) win a trip to. Apparently, upon visiting this island, you can live out a personal fantasy. Various theories are formed as to how it works including holograms, live action role playing, or even the idea of Rourke drugging their drinks with some sort of hallucinogen. One by one, the group is introduced to their "fantasy", but there's always more to the fantasy than meets the eye. Giving way to the old adage "be careful what you wish for", the film attempts to show us that we're more than our fantasies... then it ends in such a hurricane of twists and turns it kinda leaves you wondering what the hell you just watched. Character-wise, Gwen (Maggie Q) wants the chance to say "yes" to a missed opportunity of a marriage proposal; Patrick (Austin Stowell) wants the chance to enlist in the Army, following in his father's footsteps; JD and Brax (Ryan Hansen and Jimmy O. Yang, respectively) are two step brothers who want to experience the ultimate party; and Melanie (Lucy Hale) wants a shot at revenge on her high school bully. It saddens me to say that as the movie tries to make its point, it does a pretty decent job at first. But there's a point in the film where everything starts to blend together, and as soon as paths cross, things get confusing as all hell, and it ruins the whole experience. On top of the confusion, these characters aren't entirely likable except maybe Patrick. Gwen is somewhat likable, but a lot of the confusion of the film starts with her and up to that point, things are pretty boring. Michael Rourke shows up out of nowhere, too. It's kinda funny 'cause he has a reason for being on the island, but his role is mostly unnecessary, and the film could have easily been done without him. Perhaps the biggest middle finger this gives to its audience is the fact that the "be careful what you wish for" lesson already lives in the original series. Many, many episodes would end with some sort of morality lesson. While this does that too, it does it to the extreme of a supernatural horror movie. That's not a terrible idea, but at the same time, if you're gonna do it, do it. There was nothing scary in this whatsoever. It wears the mask of a horror movie, but it ultimately doesn't really know what it wants to be. I keep coming back to this, but all it gave me was confusion, and I don't recommend it. Think of the ultimate lesson this is trying to teach, and you can find it better elsewhere. I didn't think it was bad at first, but that second half or so needs a serious adjustment. 1/5  There was a movie rapidly released to VOD on April 10th, skipping theaters by, and making history as the first, absolute "skip-the-line" movie. This means that it's the first movie that was supposed to come out in theaters, and the producers said "nuts to that, let's give the kids what they want for Easter weekend, and release it for families to watch while their stuck in their houses because of some asshole virus. We WILL get paid!"
That movie, of course, is 'Trolls: Wold Tour', which I had no interest in, but it gets my respect for hopefully starting a whole thing now where MAYBE we can finally just start paying to watch theatrical releases at home instead of suffering through yet another horrendous popcorn muncher, chatterbox, or cell phone jerk. But while 'Trolls 2' is no doubt entertaining families across the globe this weekend, a little Indie film has been lurking in the background, and I figured it would entertain me much more. The film, in question, is 'We Summon the Darkness'. It features three young women on a road trip to a heavy metal concert; Alexis (Alexandra Daddarrio) is the lead, Val (Maddie Hasson) is the overtly sexual one, and Bev (Amy Forsyth) is the hesitant one, but still has a rough exterior and seems to enjoy Ring Pops. They meet three guys at the concert, after an incident involving the ladies crashing into a milkshake that the guys toss at them, unknowingly - Mark, Kovacs and Ivan (Keean Johnson, Logan Miller and Austin Swift, respectively) After this, the film takes on a sort of role-reversal technique that you actually kinda see coming from a mile away. Of course, the trailer does kind of give it away, but nevertheless, the film takes some pretty predictable turns. But kudos to it for being a cuationary tale, of sorts, that suggests that women can be just as dangerous as men. The only problem is that the film sort of relishes in its darkness, thinking it's more fun that it actually is. For me, it ends up being a bit of a blend between 'The Craft' (which is actually good) and 'Spring Breakers' (which was something I walked out of). On top of that, it gets pretty preachy, and you can tell from the get-go who's gonna make it, and who isn't. But barring all of the bad, and getting into what's good about it, I can say that it's still kinda fun for what it is, and for the slasher hounds out there, this does have some pretty nifty gore here and there - although the kills aren't entirely creative, either. For the most part, this just felt like an important message wrapped up in a cautionary tale. But even with that said, those movies do exist, so this doesn't get many points in the way of originality. You want your mind blown in really weird ways with the same message, try 'Teeth'. Or, if you like the classics, 'Fatal Attraction'. 90's fan? 'The Crush'. Something in this realm? 'The Craft'. Anyway, it's watchable for the average horror fan, but I still think there are better titles out there with similar messages. I feel like this could have been a lot more fun than it ended up being, and could have done without the complicated backdrop of a Satanic cult 'cause the twist to all of this is kinda weird and confusing to me... but maybe that's just me. 2/5  Alright, so, cards on the table, the damn footage cut out half-way through. When I get a chance, I'm gonna come and revisit this review to edit it further. But I can give you my impressions so far, which are mostly positive.
Here we have a fine example of someone who just plain got things kinda right. Bearing in mind that I didn't get to probably more than the last half of the movie, this is clearly set in a fairy tale land, and is clearly trying not to be some kind of action horror like the other 'Hansel & Gretel' movie, starring Jeremy Renner as just another Hawkeye. Director, Oz Perkins' vision brings an older Gretel (Sophia Lillis) to the table, taking care of her ever-hungry little brother, Hansel (Samuel Leakey). After being cast out of their own home, which sets a super dark premise into motion, Gretel leads Hansel through the woods, looking for food and shelter. Of course, this eventually leads to the old hag's house, here named Holda (Alice Krige) where she acts like a perfectly kind host, but only Gretel seems to be suspicious of why she's so nice... especially with weird, creepy, long, black fingertips. So, from what I did get to see (which was only a short way into their arrival at the cottage), this is basically a horrific look on the actual Grimm's fairy tale. You know, the dark and scary original one, as opposed to the one you may have bee told as a kid. Having said that, I have no idea how close the adaptation is, but it does seem clear that this was more about paying homage to the fairy tale rather than just trying something different - which, by the way, they sadly are. How odd is that? As I said before, I'll be coming back to tweak this review upon getting to finish the movie (shit happens). But I can tell you that from what I've seen, this is a great example of how to make a PG-13 horror movie. Make the fear come from the overall atmosphere. It might sound odd, but this felt much creepier than a lot of modern horror. The cinematography is hauntingly beautiful, and I've heard it best described as each shot looking like a painting come to life. I, for one, am looking forward to getting through it. For the time being, I'll give it a fair rating, and finishing it might nudge it backward or forward - maybe even by two. 3/5  It was as if one day, a group of people got together and said "we all love James Cameron so much, we need to take 'Aliens', 'The Abyss' and the whole idea of the Mariana Trench, throw them in a blender and see what happens. It takes from more than just those films, but Cameron kept coming to mind throughout my viewing of this, pretty much blatant 'Aliens' ripoff. Of course, we know this isn't a first, but some things here are just plain lifted from the first and second 'Alien' films.
The story takes place, incredibly deep, with plans for a big industrial company called Tian to drill seven miles deep for resources. However, a big quake damages the underwater drilling station, where a mechanical engineer named Norah Price (Kristen Stewart) and her colleague, Rodriguo (Mamoudou Athie), manage a narrow escape. As the story progresses, they eventually run into crew members Paul (T.J. Miller), Captain Lucien (Vincent Cassel), biologist, Emily Haversham (Jessica Henwick), and engineer, Liam Smith (John Gallagher Jr.). The group finds themselves on the ocean floor, racing to survive the harsh, pressurized, underwater elements. However, before they know it, they realize that their drilling has unleashed some old and forgotten deep sea, very alien-like monsters, and soon they are up against more than just the crushing depths of the ocean, as one by one, the supporting cast falls victim to them. Now, right away, this movie loses a bunch of point from me for borrowing from too much. The 'Alien' movies, and 'The Abyss' are obvious, but I've also seen comparisons to 'Godilla', 'The Rift', 'Sphere', the list just keeps going. It is your typical bottle movie where a monster is taking out a crew, and the survivor girl ends up running around in her underwear. Come to think of it, this is much more of a 'Alien' ripoff than an 'Aliens' ripoff, right down to specific scenes like that. Hell, there's even a scene with the crew sitting around a glowing table, strategizing - those who have seen both know what I'm talking about. This wasn't, however, bad enough to earn a terribly low rating on my scale. If you can go into this, a little blind (having not seen so many sci-fi, adventure, action, horror films), or go in expecting the worst, it can still be a good time. I did manage to appreciate the creature effects in this, and the overall claustrophobia of the deep, dark bottom of the ocean. It manages to be just uncomfortable enough in its execution (in a good way) to win me over, at least a little. And hey, Kristen Stewart wasn't bad in it either, even though she's never really been a go-to for me. But she comes through in this, not blowing me away, but I could appreciate her all-around heroic role here for what it was. I'd say that this is one that you could easily skip in theaters, as you're not gonna miss a whole lot. But if you want the full effect of all that underwater mystery discomfort, head to an afternoon matinee and enjoy. My only real warning is that you need to know how much that this borrows from. You have, in some way, shape or form, seen this one before. It pretty much is just 'Alien' underwater. I get the feeling that It'll be forgotten about by the end of the year. Oh, I forgot to mention, this was announced in February of 2017, damn near four years ago. It does feel a bit slapped together and rushed out just to put a stop to people talking about it... but who was talking about it? Anyway, it's watchable, just not that good. 2/5 |
RSS Feed