 Here we have one of those titles that, for me, was far more of a mere curiosity than something I was dying to see. You see, I have a bit of a thing for bottle movies like this, where there's not much going on, but the filmmakers can tell a solid story with what little they have to work with. Granted, they're not for everyone, but I love to see how much they can deliver with as little as they can - so far, I might say the record-holder is 'Buried', which I used as a Screening Suggestion for a phobia-themed month quite some time ago.
Having said that, I finally managed to watch this, but do have one simple regret, and that's that I didn't see it on as big of a screen as I could. You see, I'm a bit weak when it comes to things like heights (and various other things), so my adrenaline fix tends to come from edge-of-your-seat thrillers. I'm safe and secure in my theater seat, but can still feel that certain tingle in my stomach. Sure, it's no roller-coaster as most people can handle, but... it IS why "thriller" is a genre, to begin with. Anyway, this one, in case you couldn't tell, is ALL about playing on the audience's fears of unsafe heights; this was made for someone like me. Plot-wise, this mainly centers on a couple of thrill-seeking climbers; Becky (Grace Caroline Currey) who has recently lost her husband, Dan (Mason Gooding) in a climbing accident, and has since become terrified of her hobby, and her close friend Hunter (Virginia Gardner), who is determined to get Becky over her fears so she can live her life again. The goal Hunter sets for Becky is to, together, climb to the very top of a 2,000 foot radio tower. For reference, that is about a couple hundred feet higher than Toronto's CN Tower. As these movies go, however, once they make it to the top (in an array of dizzying scenes, tracking their climb), the main ladder falls off, stranding them. Now, Becky and Hunter (who is also a social media icon of sorts, and filming this whole climb) have to rely on what little they have to survive, try to get some kind of SOS message out, and battle the dry, arid desert air along with circling vultures, just waiting for the two to give up. Even having seen this on my smaller screen, there was enough here to make my stomach churn just a little bit, meaning that quite honestly, the film did exactly what it should have done. In many ways, this worked out to be the bottle thriller that I wanted, and it even takes a few really dark and somewhat unexpected turns, which I quite enjoyed. A lot of the idea of a movie like this is to portray sheer hopelessness, and I have to say that this covered that well. Make no mistake, however. For as much as I praise the film, it's not without bits and pieces that may not be entirely realistic, and like any bottle movie like this, there's not a whole lot going on. We get to know our characters a little bit in order to route for their survival, but keep in mind that this is a couple of girls on top of a tower for about an hour and forty minutes. So it's definitely one of those acquired taste deals, and if you have no use for bottle movies like this then I can't say I recommend it super highly. However, if you're like me and like to see how creative a film can be by using very little, and/or are a thrill-seeker of film, then it's a decent title altogether. To close, there's a bonus to the film, as well as a pretty genuine complaint. The good news is that I haven't mentioned the name of Jeffery Dean Morgan yet, who plays Becky's father. He's not a big part of the film, but he's a solid name to have on it, and one of those guys everyone seems to collectively enjoy. The complaint though, and this IS kind of a big deal, is that it ends very abruptly. I even ended up rewinding it to see what I happened to miss, and it wasn't much. So if you plan on checking this out, just keep that in mind. Otherwise, this is a solid title for those who can appreciate this type of movie, and can just sort of go on a thrill ride with it. 3/5
0 Comments
 While at this point in time, I might consider 'Maverick' to be my favourite of 2022, I have to admit that 'Bullet Train' gives it some very stiff competition. I may have to do them both back to back by the end of the year just to establish which one I thought was better. Truth be told, on this side of the comparison, 'Bullet Train' was much more an, as I so often put it, "Up My Alley" type of film, made with plenty of style, and substance, and meant for a good time as opposed to something to be taken too seriously.
The comparison I have given this is if Guy Ritchie directed a 'Deadpool' movie, as so much of the style of the film is very Guy Ritchie, and could easily be compared to his films 'Lock, Stock' and 'Snatch'. The 'Deadpool' comparison comes more from its director, David Leitch, who also did 'Deadpool 2', and therefore a LOT of the dialogue is reminiscent of it. Hell, Brad Pitt, himself here is almost a Deadpool-like character with his comedic delivery. Having said all of that, this has also been accused of being a Guy Ritchie ripoff, and it's kind of easy to see why... but the thing is, that style is what I loved so much about it, so it's very hard to be upset about it, personally. In fact, I'd love to see the two collaborate one day. Former assassin, codename "Ladybug" (Pitt), is assigned to a Kyoto-bound bullet train in order to retrieve a briefcase. Also aboard the train are a variety of characters who add all of the charm to the film; A grieving father named Yuichi Kimura (Andrew Koji), who seeks revenge after his son was pushed off a roof; a young lady calling herself the "Prince" (Joey King); two assassin brothers codenamed "Lemon" and "Tangerine" (Brian Tyree Henry and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, respectively) who are the briefcase keepers, so to speak; a mystery man type known as The Elder (Hiroyuki Sanada) another assassin called the "Wolf" (Bad Bunny) and several others that will probably make this paragraph too damn long. It ends up being one of those "everyone is connected to the situation" type of stories, mainly centring on the death of Kimura's son, and the whole briefcase situation. Otherwise, the film is loaded with hilarious moments, great action, and a cast of characters and cameos who keep popping up all throughout that goes further than anyone I've already mentioned - too many of them are pleasant surprises I don't want to spoil. Above anything else, though, is the fact that this is probably the most fun I've had in the theater this year with a movie. It's almost like it's a tide-over for 'Deadpool 3', as you get all of that proper comedic delivery all of us 'Deadpool' fans are craving so much here. Once again, it should be said that I do have a particular bias towards movies that are this stylistic and fun. That's all I wanted to experience with this, and I got all of that and then some. For me, it was such a good time, and it makes me want to explore more of David Leitch's material - as well as writer Zak Olkewicz, to whom I must also give credit. He doesn't have much under his belt aside from 'Fear Street Part Two' (which, incidentally, was probably my favourite of the three), but I hope he keeps going. He's got some potential! Anyway, if you want to just have a lot of fun with a movie this year, I feel like I can recommend this one pretty highly. 5/5  I'll start this one by saying that this wasn't entirely what I thought it would be, judging by what little I had seen of it. I knew that altogether it wasn't exactly on the top of my list of movies to check out, but I hoped for a pleasant surprise for my review. Unfortunately, this is a title that finds itself on that long list of titles I just plain don't care about. I don't want that to take away from anyone's enjoyment of it if you happened to like it. But for some reason, I expected things to be a little more "riveting" than they were.
As per usual, my general disinterest is probably going to make for a somewhat short review. That's not even to say that the film is that bad, but I do admit to succumbing to boredom a few times while watching it. In short - just not for me. Above all that, there is now a whole bunch of controversy that follows this movie involving the original book's author, and her supposed ties to real-life murder, apparently with eerie similarities to plot points within the film. Having said that, I really don't know what's what about all of that, and how much of what I'm reading is true, so I'm not going to dwell. But when controversy follows a movie like that, it makes you wonder about what kind of lifespan the film will even have. Just a quick plot summary - the film involves a young girl named Kya (Daisy Edgar-Jones) who, through a series of events, is abandoned by her whole family to live on her own, raising herself in the harsh marshlands of North Carolina. She does quite well for herself, living off of her gardening, and trading fish and mussels for gas to a couple, Jumpin' (Sterling Macer Jr.) and his wife, Mabel (Michael Hyatt). However, to the rest of the community, she gets that "hermit" status, and is referred to as the "Marsh Girl", which in turn, isolates her - that is until two young men enter her life and we start the whole love triangle thing (by the way, have I ever mentioned I'm not the biggest fan of "love triangle" plots?). The formulaic two men in question are first, Tate Walker (Taylor John Smith); the sweet guy she meets in her childhood who helps her with what she needs and eventually forms a romantic relationship with her until he has to leave for some reason - in this case, college. Second, after turning 19, she meets the quarterback of the football team, Chase Andrews (Harris Dickinson) who is the more sleazy type, trying to make advances on her and other things asshole-type men do. Eventually, one of these guys is found dead, making Kya an immediate suspect and it kind of goes from there to about what you might expect. So for me, the whole love triangle plotline and overall predictability as to where things were going through the film, I'm not the biggest fan. However, at best, I might suggest that this could work all right as a half-decent romantic murder mystery one can watch from the comfort of their own couch on a Sunday afternoon. As far as comparison to the book, I really can't say anything, but I'm willing to bet that the book is probably better. However all this controversy goes back to that author, so I don't know what to think about this one altogether. But in short, it's almost sure to be (at least for me) one of the big "forgettable" titles this year. 2/5  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  As with a bunch of Liam Neeson's films at this point, I'm finding myself slowly tapping out of it all with Neeson fatigue. But at the very least, I can give this film the fact that he's not chasing after his kidnapped whoever. So it's not entirely typical. But for some reason, at least for me, there's a part of me that just doesn't feel like any more of it - at least to give the man a break. I've seen him plenty of times before this, acting perfectly well, and know he has more to offer than just being an action hero.
Needless to say, this probably won't be a very long review. I just don't have anything to really say about it. His action flicks feel kind of just "there" now, and it feels like a waste of his skills. Anyway, here, Neeson plays Alex Lewis; a contract killer suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer's. Taking his orders from Davana Sealman (Monica Bellucci), he eventually finds himself tasked to kill off an innocent barely teenage girl named Beatriz (Mia Sanchez); a task he refuses to carry through. In the meantime, Beatriz has been cared for by Special Agent Vincent Serra (Guy Pearce) of the FBI's Child Exploitation Task Force, having rescued her from a sex trafficking job her father forced her into. Sadly, the story gets going when the hit is actually carried out by a heartless hitman named Mauricio (Lee Boardman), sent by Sealman, who will be the subject of Liam Neeson's revenge, today. From there, it's basically Neeson taking the wheel of action while Guy Pearce takes the wheel of detective, trying to piece together everything leading up to Beatriz's death... and yes, odds are I could quite well be a little "off" in my description because, cards on the table, I wasn't paying very close attention to this whole thing. It's not that it's a terrible movie, but it's not exactly riveting. It just feels very standard and belongs on a long list of movies that might have done better in the early 90s. I may not be tired and worn out by Marvel flicks like a lot of people are nowadays, but Neeson action movies are just wearing thin on me. And I have absolutely nothing against him as an actor because, again, I know he can do very well. I think I've said similar things on my last couple of reviews of his films, but sometimes it's just unfortunately what there is to watch that week. I must apologize for delivering something so half-assed, but from the look of it, no one else really gave it much attention either. But while it remains such a standard and basic Neeson action flick, one thing remains - what about the whole Alzheimer's thing? It IS somewhat intriguing to watch Liam Neeson play the same basic action man he has for some time now and finally see something where HE is fallible. However, the execution of it all didn't exactly pull me in with intrigue so much as feel like the Alzheimer's situation is just trying to be a more serious and humanistic version of the memory loss situation we've seen in other famous action flicks - the 'Bourne' movies probably being the stand-out title (although granted, a very different take). Anyway, unfortunately, this is one review I just have very little to say about. What can I say? It's a Liam Neeson action movie, you know how it's all gonna go down, and it's only entertaining on a lazy Sunday afternoon with nothing better to do. 2/5  As far as 2022 titles are going so far, I can pretty much guarantee that this is one I'll forget that I even saw by the end of the year. I'm not saying it's god awful or anything, but it's... a Liam Neeson movie. Ever since 'Taken', they all sort of seem to blend together (at least in my head). The man has become his own cliche so much that people joke about "going full Liam Neeson" if anyone bothered their daughter.
Taking that lightly, however, I went into this expecting exactly what I got (more or less). It's just a formula, and it's bothersome to know how incredibly good an actor Neeson is when he's so typecast like this. His best role in the last decade, for myself, was probably his cameo in 'Ted 2' just because of it. Anyway, while I'm beating this into the ground, it would appear quite clear that Neeson fans are pretty hardcore when it comes down to it. The 'Rotten Tomato' average for this (currently) is about 45%. And the only reason that's so "high" is that the audience was generous enough to give it a solid 81%. So what's Liam up to this time? Well, his name is Travis Block. He's a war vet, and he works for the FBI under director, Gabriel Robinson (Aidan Quinn). His role is to bring in agents who have found themselves in sticky situations, and he's really quite good at it. However, he really wishes to retire in order to spend more time with his family; namely his daughter, Amanda (Claire van der Boom) and granddaughter, Natalie (Gabriella Sengos). Robinson sends him on one last mission; to collect Dusty Crane (Taylor John Smith). However, Crane has some really revealing information about what the Feds are doing behind everyone's back. Caught up in the middle of everything is journalist, Mira Jones (Emmy Raver-Lampman), who is covering a story on the death of female activist, Sofia Flores (Mel Jarnson). She is first contacted about the murder by Crane, who claims he has information about it. It's not long before Mira and Block both find themselves in a sort of rabbit hole in which the feds are running a project that may or may not involve the killing of a whole whack of innocent civilians, and it may be up to them to put a stop to it. It's... interesting to say the least. Really and truly, there isn't much to this movie. It's a whole bunch of action-thriller cliches rolled into a quick buck of a movie. It's the perfect example of what I like to call a "paycheck movie". Typically, this entails a great actor going with a not-so-great script because, hell, this is their job. Pretty much any actor you can think of has a few of these, and Liam Neeson is no exception. In fairness, it seems like he's pretty happy where he is with everything, and enjoys living out this repetitive role. Going back to his cameo in 'Ted 2', not taking himself too seriously is pretty evident. As far as the film goes, it's just forgettable for yours truly. I really would like to see Liam flex his acting muscles more than he does with these roles because I know he can do well. Otherwise, he just keeps giving us the same thing over and over again, and nothing is ever a surprise anymore. That said, maybe I'm just not there with his adoring fans who can't get enough of this. This is one I lean more on with the critics and would suggest that it's just not that great - even as a mindless action movie. This one's more for the hardcore Neeson fans than anyone else, because it's just more of the same. And in case you were wondering at all, yes, spoiler alert, his family does find themselves in danger... are you at all surprised? 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  The 'Bond' films are another really strange property for yours truly. If I could use one word to describe it, it might be "disconnect". I came into things during the Brosnan era with 'Goldeneye', but didn't see all of his films. Add to that the fact that I never saw anything prior, and the Craig era is the only era I ever paid any real attention to. Craig is, therefore, my Bond, and retiring from here on out. Between 'Casino Royale' to here, I have seen them all in theaters, and they've all been a real treat (except maybe 'Quantum of Solace'). This one was no exception.
The film opens in the past where we meet a young Madeleine Swann (Coline Defaud), who we'll remember from 'Spectre', and her mother (Mathilde Bourbin). A mysterious man in a mask enters, who is after Madeleine's father, Mr. White (portrayed by Jesper Christensen in previous Craig films). White is gone, however, so he sets his sights on his family to hurt him even worse. In the process, Madeleine's life is spared, but she tragically loses her mother. We then fast-forward to present day where we see Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) with Bond (Daniel Craig), after the capture of Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) as they head for Matera where Bond will be able to say his final farewells to Vesper (previously played by Eva Green). Bond is suddenly ambushed by Spectre assassins, which leads Bond to believe that he's been double-crossed by Madeleine. They escape together, but he puts her on a train and parts ways with her, and the credits begin with Billie Eilish's 'No Time to Die' theme. Personally, not my favourite, and as far as the Craig films are concerned, 'Skyfall' is very hard to top. But graphically, it looked pretty amazing. This might be a good time to mention that, though you don't necessarily need to, it might be good to brush up on some of the history of 'Bond' before moving forward. I've already referenced a few things from previous films, but just in case I miss something, I might suggest taking a look a this. Anyway, five years pass, and we find MI6 scientist, Valdo Obruchev (David Dencik) kidnapped from his lab. He had developed a nanobot bioweapon able to infect upon touch, coded to an individual's DNA. The weapon is known as Project Heracles, and it was approved by M (Ralph Fiennes). Bond is contacted by Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright) and his acquaintance, Logan Ash (Billy Magnussen) in their attempt to locate and retrieve Obruchev. At first he declines, but he soon realizes that a lady named Nomi (Lashana Lynch) has since taken his place as "007" since his retirement. He informs Bond about Haracles, kicking Bond into action, and that's about al of the plot I'm gonna roll out here. Being that this is the last of the Craig films, there's actually quite a bit that attaches itself to his previous films. I may even recommend a bit of a marathon before checking this one out, just to keep up to date. Truth be told, there were a few moments here and there when I had to try to remember who some of these characters were. It's not essential that you see the previous films beforehand, but I really think it would help a lot. There's four to go through, and 'Quantum' is actually pretty short, so it's not that bad of an undertaking. Also bear in mind that I'm not what one would call a 'Bond' fan. I don't have that attachment so many others do, so it's very likely that I miss a lot of the obvious to fans. When all said and done, this is just like any other 'Bond' movie I end up seeing. Although it's not necessarily meant for me and my mindset, I can still see 'Bond' fans really liking this. I also had to admire the way the film ended, in that it really does seem to come to a close. The only real questions on my mind at this point though are "Who will be the next James Bond?" and "Will I like them better than I liked Daniel Craig?" Time will tell, but until then, I would claim this as a property that has my utmost respect, even though it's not altogether up my alley. I still have a fun time watching these movies though, and I hope they keep coming with or without Craig, just because if nothing else, they are fun action adventure flicks made for the big screen experience. 4/5  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  Here we have the latest film from director, Guy Ritchie; the man responsible for a couple of titles I consider classics - 'Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels' and 'Snatch' as well as Robert Downey Jr's 'Sherlock Holmes' movies (the first of which was far superior). He's a bit of a hit and miss director in my eyes, a lot of the time I tend to meet his films in the middle, and this is such a good example of one of his most middle-ground movies to me.
The film flows a bit like 'Pulp Fiction' in as much as it's divided into four parts, all surrounding one particular event - the armed robbery of an armoured truck, killing two guards and a civilian. Five months later, we meet our mystery man lead, Patrick Hill, or more commonly, "H" (Jason Statham), who applies for a guard job at Fortico Security (the company we see get robbed in the beginning). His superior, Terry (Eddie Marsan) mentions the robbery, and warns him of the conditions of the job while the age-old cliche of H's new co-workers ripping on the new guy plays on. Among them, "Bullet" (Holt McCallany), who's responsible for showing him the new guy the ropes; the cocky guy who decidedly hates the new guy, "Boy Sweat" Dave (Josh Hartnett), and Dana (Niamh Algar) the token woman whose sole purpose is to emasculate all of the men. In the midst of a training pickup, Bullet is taken hostage, but H manages to rescue him showing phenomenal skill that suggests he held back during his training. As the film unfolds, we get to learn about just why H has become a part of the armoured trucks team when he's clearly overqualified. The result is basically a revenge film that offers a twist here, a turn there, and leaves you guessing about things along the way. The overall execution can get a bit confusing at points, however, and while the idea is pretty cool, it's still another revenge film, and I feel like I've seen better - even this year with 'Nobody'. I still enjoyed myself, but this is another case where I feel there's simply better material out there. I think if you're a Statham fan, this is a good time, especially since he's back to playing a strong silent type. Speaking for myself, this felt like a good example of another video game movie that isn't officially a video game movie. A lot of that isn't even about the action of it all so much as the way the characters interact. The whole opening locker room scene made me think of any game where you play the silent rookie, interacting with various people in the main hub before going on your mission. A lot of that is the dialogue, which I have to admit, I found pretty corny. I don't know if my description does it justice, but check it out, and you'll probably grasp what I'm trying to get across. This just happened to be an action flick that didn't entirely succeed on having my on the edge of my seat. This isn't like watching 'John Wick' where you watch the fighting with wide eyes and are somewhat blown away. This one's a touch more real-world about things, but it doesn't really do it with the same dose of comedy Ritchie's other films do. The comedy action is the real draw for me, but this was much more serious. While there's nothing wrong with that, I have to say I expected something else I didn't quite get. Still, it's not bad, and I wouldn't recommend avoiding it or anything either. If you wants some serious shoot-'em-up action with Statham behind the wheel, I say go for it. But I'll stick with Ritchie's other material. 3/5  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  Right off the bat, I'm going to have to confess that this review may not turn out to be my best. The fact of the matter is, this was not a movie that sucked me in, its ideas have been done before, but better, and it's just plain too long and boring for what it's trying to be. That's something I hate to admit to when Denzel is involved, as I consider him one of the finest actors in Hollywood, but it's sadly true. There is just nothing particularly special about this one.
It all opens in 1990 where we see a girl being chased. She manages to run towards an oncoming transport truck and flag it down, thus rescuing her from her pursuer. So we get that there's some creepy guy on the loose and our first victim isn't even a mood-setting victim. Fast-forward a bit to Kern County, LA, where deputy sheriff Joe "Deke" Deacon (Denzel Washington) is called to collect evidence for a recent murder. Deacon soon accompanies new lead detective Jim Baxter (Rami Malek) to a fresh murder scene, where he finds similarities between this murder and one he was unable to solve during his time as a former LA sheriff's detective. Before long, the pair end up questioning one Albert Sparma (Jared Leto), a prime suspect in the murders who works at a repair shop. As the FBI starts to take things over, the detectives find themselves up against the clock even more so. Further to that, will they be able to solve these grizzly murder cases and find their killer without it affecting Deacon's performance? Or indeed, is Deacon the one we have to be worried about to begin with? The film is fairly reminiscent of 'Seven' and/or 'The Bone Collector' from my perspective - but also, from my perspective, both of those movies offer a lot more than this. While the aforementioned films consist of great suspense and disturbing imagery, this one tries, but manages it to a much lesser extent. My final impressions of this one were simply that it felt too long for what it needed to do, I've seen better movies within the genre, and this is a lot more talking than anything else. There's not a whole lot here that gives you an "edge-of-your-seat" perspective, and I would say it would be worth waiting out the current rental cost so as to stream it for free. If you're into the whole dark and disturbing detective thing, it works okay, but I'd liken it more to a 3-part TV miniseries than a movie made for big screen appreciation. Though it has shadows of movies like 'Seven', there's nothing that stands out about it apart from perhaps the performances. That actually brings me to my next point, because I don't necessarily mean that in a good way. In a movie with a cast that consists of Denzel Washington, Rami Malek and Jared Leto, the only one who really stands out is Rami Malek. Denzel seems to have taken a voluntary step down, and it feels like this might be a "paycheck" movie for the man. He's still charming as ever, but the writing has him sleepwalking through most of this. As for Leto, I think there's still too many shades of his Joker here, and that just turns me away altogether. He's always been incredibly hit-or-miss for me, and never truly a personal favorite. Malek, on the other hand, really seems to have come into his own after his portrayal of Freddie Mercury, and it's almost as if we're seeing Denzel pass the torch from solid A-lister to rookie A-lister. It's interesting, but you do kind of wonder how a movie starring Denzel does not have Denzel carrying it on his shoulders. So, if you're super curious about this one, I'm not gonna sit here and try to steer you away from watching it. I would, however, encourage you to wait it out so that at the very least it might be less costly. In the days of the video store, this would be the equivalent of me suggesting renting it from the video store when it comes out, as opposed to paying to see it on the big screen. There's just nothing special about it that stands out, and despite its best efforts, it's just a bit of a snooze-fest. It may manage to capture someone else's attention better than mine, but this one is reserved for those who get a kick out of detective movies where the conversation takes a front seat, leaving the action and overall suspense in the back. It does hurt to give a Denzel Washington movie a poor rating, but I suppose these things are eventually bound to happen. 2/5  As if specifying the year shouldn't be enough, I actually feel like I should probably specify which 2019 'Dreamland' movie this is. Believe it or not, another film of the same title was released in the same year, but with a very different story. To put it simply, this is the Margot Robbie one, recently released on VOD, directed by Miles Joris-Peyrafitte of upcoming 'Tank Girl' fame (or infame, the movie isn't made yet).
Here we have a depression-era 'Bonnie & Clyde' wannabe with a story you've basically seen about a million times. This is that story where the renegade character hides out in a barn while someone tends to (in this case) her, all the while hiding her from family and authorities. In this case, a fugitive bank robber named Allison Welles (Robbie) finds herself crossing paths with the son of a bounty hunter named Eugene Evans (Finn Cole). Eugene dreams of a fantasy life of being rebellious, going against authority, and reads action comics to escape. For the time being, about as rebellious as he gets is going so far as to steal these comics. The family being in dire straits makes him "have to" steel them, but he is soon caught. Meanwhile, on the run from the law, Allison finds an abandoned barn that belongs to the Evans family, but unused due to the drought. Here, Eugene finds her and eventually finds himself torn between two decisions; does he turn her in and get a piece of the bounty, saving his family? Or does he side with her and live the renegade life he's always fantasized about? Truth be told, the decision they go with here is something I have to give credit to. I won't spoil what happens, but I will say that when it's all said and done, there's something very real and believable about the story here. I enjoyed the path it took, but I will admit that not everyone is going to agree on it. One thing about this I find interesting is that it's narrated by the grown-up voice (Lola Kirke) of Eugene's little sister, Phoebe (Darby Camp). It tells her account of what happened between her brother and Allison, so it ends up being a love story from another person's perspective which I don't think is all that common. You'd think that such a setup predictably spoils the fates of our heroes, but you just might be thinking wrong. I didn't entirely love this movie, but I had to give it up to the way it all ended. Let's just say it's pretty open, but it's also not the kind of ending that's gonna blow your mind. The performances here are pretty solid, but it's Robbie who really shines through. I suppose that shouldn't come as much of a surprise, but it's cool to see how far she's come. If it weren't for her performance in this, I daresay the movie would have been pretty boring. For a 'Bonnie & Clyde' wannabe, there's not a whole hell of a lot going on. There's just mid-level suspense when it comes to whether or not they're going to get caught. But you end up liking Robbie's character, and even empathizing with her a little despite what she's been through. The end of the film, once again, brings it all to light. I'm gonna be a bit generous with this one, perhaps, but there was enough to hold my attention based on Robbie's performance, certain visual sequences and once again, just how real the story felt. For a work of fiction, it's more believable than some movies based on true stories - so I really have to give it credit for that. Finn Cole was nothing to sneeze at either, but he is a bit jittery and often not altogether likeable. But that's also part of what makes things make sense in the end, so I can't be too mad at that. It's a redundant storyline, but the execution is good enough that I got something from it more than I have in a while now with recent releases. 4/5  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  For this week, we take a look at a whole different type of horror that's far more serious than that of our regular ghouls and goblins of Halloween. This one is about the horrors of World War II, what it meant to be held prisoner in a concentration camp, and the after effects on one's mind. Things don't get too graphic, thankfully, but it's not without a little bit of that torture porn I hate so much. This time much of it is psychological, but we cut off a finger or two here just as well.
Some time after the war, couple Maja (Noomi Rapace) and Lewis (Chris Messina) are trying to get their lives back on track after years of difficulty with Maja having a big set of personal problems. Things are going swimmingly, and the couple is happy along with their son, Patrick (Jackson Dean Vincent) until one day, Maja becomes distracted by someone. Their neighbor, Thomas (Joel Kinnaman), as far as Maja's memory serves her, is supposedly a Nazi who once tortured her and family among several others during the war. Upon recognizing Thomas, Maja knocks out and kidnaps him while pretending to have car trouble. She then brings him to their house in the trunk of their car, and brings up her brutal history to Lewis that she's kept all these years. It turns out Lewis knew about her fears and nightmares that lead to her personal problems, but never quite the full truth about the source. Together, they bound and gag the suspect, and keep him in the basement while trying to maintain a seemingly ordinary life for their son. Although I must say, it's hard for me to believe the kid doesn't clue in to what's going on. That part of the movie is actually somewhat ridiculous. The concept of keeping someone bound and gagged in the basement isn't entirely original. However, I will say that I enjoyed the details involved. It begs the question of how you would deal with someone who you suspect once made your life a living hell, using a Nazi as the person in question; perhaps the easiest group of people for the general public to hate. The film keeps you guessing as to whether or not Thomas is who he says he is, and that's enough. But things get even more complex when we learn about Thomas' family who, even potentially associated with a Nazi, are trying to start a new, post-war life - just like Maja and Lewis. I don't think that this was a title ever meant for theaters, so with that said, it's pretty forgivable for its overall unoriginality. When you boil it all down, things do become somewhat predictable, and although the film doesn't exactly insult its audience, it asks us to buy into some pretty stupid stuff. For me, once again, I can't get over the son of the household just going about his business while some guy is being held in the basement. Even taking the neighborhood into consideration, you'd think things like the sound of gunfire from a local house just might trigger something. I think through the whole move there's about one half-assed search of the house. This is another one of those titles that I'm not really sure how to feel about. I enjoy the concept well enough, and how the film keeps you guessing as to Thomas' real identity, but I can guarantee that it's gonna be more predictable for others than myself, and there's a lot of tropes here that have been used time and time again. It asks quite a bit of the audience to buy into certain things, but the atmosphere is fairly chilling and I have to admit that the ending is actually pretty interesting and dark and is actually in the way of how I wanted to see things go down, so I'm not really dissatisfied. But I am still just mildly entertained. It's nothing mind-blowing, just an interesting take on a kidnapping movie. 3/5  It took a little planning, but I did manage to get a Halloween themed month going for my Now Playing page, and I'm pretty excited about it. For my first review of the month, I take a look at the VOD title, 'Death of Me'; a cautionary tale about travelling internationally, and another film to add to the new potential trend of "travel horror", with which I took a look at 'The Rental' and 'Fantasy Island' earlier this year. It could be the next step with things like Air B&B. Even though it's not entirely original, it's scary stuff to think about when travelling to an unfamiliar land.
The film opens with vacationing couple, Christine (Maggie Q) and Neil (Luke Hemsworth) waking up after a heavy night of drinking, in a hotel room on a remote island in Thailand. They have no memory of the night before, but the real problem is that their passports have gone missing. In an attempt to recall the previous night, Neil takes a look at his phone, only to find a video of him brutally murdering Christine, and burying her, giving at least some explanation to the dirt in the bed Christine wakes up in... but not really. Before this nightmarishly mysterious clip, however, we also see footage of a waitress giving them something, which may have the answers to what's happening. Although often brushed off as collective hallucinations, there's something very real and almost otherworldly that the couple is experiencing. The most unfortunate thing about it though, is that it does get somewhat confusing, as the viewer keeps questioning what's real and what's not; not in a good way, in an irritating way. I suppose to summarize, it's basically 'The Hangover' if it were a horror movie. It's a cool concept, but it could have been executed a little more simply than just feeding us gross imagery that we're not sure is real or not. There are also heavy hints of 'The Serpent and the Rainbow' here, in the sense that these visitors to an exotic land get drugged and their whole experience is a nightmare. While the gist of the plot remains pretty standard for a trippy horror movie, this one is for those who are after some seriously creepy imagery to knock their minds around a bit. So much of this can come from the local faces of the area this couple is staying, and it's combined pretty well with the idea of not knowing who on the island they can trust. Hell, can Christine even trust her own husband? It keeps your mind going, but again, it somewhat falls apart in the process. All in all, it's effectively scary, and it gives you that dread feeling in your gut, especially when you see some of the lengths the film goes to. If you don't wanna go there with "eye stuff" or "gut stuff", it's not a good one. There is, unfortunately, a torture porn aspect to this. While it's not quite up there with 'Hostel', it could somewhat be compared to something like 'Saw' - of which director Darren Lynn Bousman directed parts 'II', 'III' and 'IV'. He's also responsible for 'Repo: The Genetic Opera' (a cult hit, of sorts) and one of my new favorite low budget Halloween watches - 'Tales of Halloween'. His works are curious to me, but at the end of the day, works I only need to see once and be done with them. He seems keen on those "take a shower afterwards" movies that make you feel like you were just in a terribly filthy place in your head. For something creepy, gory and straight to VOD, it's not too bad, but it caters to a specific audience as well. For me, it wasn't fun, it was just eerily confusing, and the sad part is that I can't tell if that's a good thing or not. I'm gonna say it's passable for the type of film it is. Perhaps not for me, but not a total waste either. 3/5  I flip-flopped between a few movies for this week, and it was pretty irritating. Unfortunately, this virus that has 2020 living under its shadow contributes to a lot of last minute adjustments on top of everything else. So, if you see a title change on any of my upcoming reviews, there's a decent enough reason for it. Here's hoping I won't have to flip-flop for too long. Anyway, I finally landed on 'Ava', after it changed its mind a couple of times on its release date.
We open the film with Ava (Jessica Chastain) posing as a limo driver, and we quickly find out that she's a trained assassin. Before offing her target, however, she asks what he did. This becomes the key to what happens later. After the hit is carried out, she heads to Boston to meet her sister, Judy (Jess Weixler), who she hasn't spoken to in ages. It's revealed that Ava ran off eight years ago, presumably due to a love triangle situation involving her sister and a guy named Michael (Common - that's who plays him, not just a jab on how common the name Michael is). We further learn about her Mother (Geena Davis) in the hospital, and there's a lot of family conversation about Ava's disappearance and what she's been doing this whole time. However, Ava reveals nothing. Going back to what was mentioned about her questioning her target about what he did, this is breaking protocol. By breaking protocol, she becomes a risk and soon her own Black Ops organization starts to come after her; namely her superior, Simon (Colin Farrell). Alongside him for much of the movie is Duke (John Malkovich), who seems to sort of play the role of messenger here. He wants Simon to leave Ava alone, but talks to them both, conveying what's up with either side. But to keep things super basic, it's a sort of survival movie in the same way 'John Wick 2' is, but far less exciting. For as badass as Chastain looks here, her action scenes are pretty limited. There's a lot of talk and banter here, and some of it seems pretty unnecessary. For example, I didn't really feel like the mother needed to be a part of things, necessarily. It just seemed like an excuse to get Geena Davis' classic name in there, and give you a character to empathize with. Empathizing with a character is good, sure, but not when it feels kinda forced. Then again, maybe that's just me. Really, that's not even the film's biggest problem. I think the elephant in the room here is that yet again we have ANOTHER movie where the badass heroine is seemingly caught up in some sort of love triangle. It doesn't add much to anything, it's just kinda there and really doesn't need to be. Sure, it led her to run off and become an assassin, but you could make up a lot of things to cause that. It irritates me that it always seems to have to be a thing. The bottom line here is that there are far better movies like this out there. When this is over, it doesn't leave any sort of impact on you, and it feels pretty typical for what it is. An example of a movie more like this that really stuck with me was 'Atomic Blonde'. I gave it a 3, but truth be told, it probably deserves a bit more. By the end of that year, going through the movies that stood out in my head, I remember it being one of them. This sort of just left me wanting more, because as soon as things really get good, the movie approaches its ending. I will give this film its climax, and Chastain does pretty well, looking almost like a Terminator in one of the final sequences. But up until that point, despite a punch or two being thrown, it drags a bit. At the end of the day, I don't think I'd call 'Ava' a complete waste of time. The action sequences are fairly solid when they do happen, and it's interesting to see so many different big names attached to it; mainly Geena Davis, who I haven't personally seen since 'The Exorcist' Netflix series (although I know she's also in 'GLOW'). I just think story-wise, it's fairly typical. It's one of those movies where you can call what's gonna happen fairly easily. However, it does seem that this wasn't a film destined for the theaters, and straight to digital/home release, so for what it is, it's just barely passable. I just know I've seen much better titles of its kind, and every actor here in something better. 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  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  Here we have a unique spin on a home invasion story, that judging by its trailers looks like it could be a good chunk of morbid fun. It honestly just looked like another 'Hannah' to me. It turns out, though, that this film is essentially what would happen if 'Hannah', 'Home Alone', 'Hostel' and 'The Strangers' were all blended together.
The film opens with 13-year-old Becky (Lulu Wilson), being questioned by authorities about the recent events that took place at her family home. We then flash back to two weeks ago, where a bullied Becky, who lost her mother to Cancer a year prior, is still dealing with it. We don't really like Becky for the opening moments of the film. She's pretty much a brat, and one hopes that things will eventually pay off. Becky's big personal struggle is mostly with her father, Jeff (Joel McHale), who wants to move on with life. We do get that he's a good father, though, when he decides to keep their family home rather than move, as it's full of memories; mostly for Becky's sake. However, he also intends to compromise by moving forward with an interracial relationship with the new woman in his life, Kayla (Amanda Brugel) and her son, Ty (Isaiah Rockcliffe). This triggers an emotional Becky to wander off to a nearby hideout where she pines for her mother, but also happens upon a mysterious key. Meanwhile, Neo-Nazi prisoner, Dominic (Kevin James) and his cronies, Apex (Robert Maillet), Cole (Ryan McDonald) and Hammond (James McDougall) make an escape from their transport van. They end up jacking a car (complete with showing off just how evil they are) and head straight towards the same home, in search of the same key Becky found. We don't know what it's for (nor do we ever find out), but before we know it, we get into another home invasion movie that finds Becky taking the concept of 'Home Alone' and cranking it to eleven. One might be wondering at this point where 'Hostel' enters into the configuration, while the other films I listed in the blend are fairly self-explanatory. To be blunt, it's the fact that this is much more of a torturous gore-fest than I figure it was going to be. I expected violence, but some of the kills in this would make 80's slasher icons rethink their careers. This is definitely one for fans of a good on-screen blood bath, especially if you wanna see it all happen to a group of Neo-Nazi scumbags. That said, I personally tend to veer away from torturous kills, so there was a lot here that had me routing for her, but then second guessing myself. Though Becky bears certain similarities in this to a Jason Voorhees, in that she's basically your anti-hero bent on revenge, her methods are so much more brutal. Once she gets her hands on one of these guys she goes full Energizer Bunny, and you sit there going "okay, okay, you got him!" It could very well be satisfying to some, and I'd understand why, but it tended to be a bit much for me. At least Jason's kills tended to be swift with no messing around. It seemed clear to me that the creators of the film REALLY had it in for racist folks, and more power to them for having that mindset. These guys are the worst kind of villains, even going so far as to harm a couple of dogs... so maybe put a dash of 'John Wick' in that blend, too. I thought it this one was mostly quite good, but I have to admit that I'd have appreciated it much more of the contrast between a fun action movie and an all-out gore fest was adjusted more. I also have a real problem with the idea that we have no idea what this mysterious key unlocks. Much of the time, I appreciate a movie making you use your imagination, but there's a big difference between "what is the golden glow in the briefcase?" and "what does the item that completely drove the film do?" That key is the whole reason anything is happening, and by the end, we have no idea why we went through everything we did. I'm sorry if that's a spoiler, but maybe you'll be less disappointed going into it than I was, if you already know that. This is one of those films that was kinda made for coming home and checking out after having the worst kind of day. It's the movie version of something like coming home to shoot up a bunch of demons in a high-paced round of 'Doom'. It doesn't serve as a whole lot more though. There's not really any substance to it, and it's just scary violent and made me uneasy for most of it. Generally, when the new anti-hero gets a good kill, my reply is "Nice!" or "Ooh! Damn!" but in this, there was actually a lot of "Jesus!" and "Stop, stop, he's already dead!" So, admittedly, it's not quite for me and could have been much better than it was. But I do still think that fans of a good gore-fest can get their moneys worth with this one. Just proceed with caution, especially if you happen to be a dog lover! 3/5  If you've ever been into raunchy teen movies in recent years, you're probably at least somewhat familiar with Clark Duke. He can first be spotted (at least with movies) in 'Superbad', crdited as "Party Teenager", but has since become better known for his roles in 'Sex Drive' and 'Hot Tub Time Machine'. I've always kind of enjoyed his characters, being altogether nerdy but charismatic, so when it came to this film, I was looking forward to checking out his directorial debut - especially with a relatively star-studded cast.
Kyle (Liam Hemsworth) is a drug dealer, working for a man he has never met before, known only as "Frog" (Vince Vaughn). He has been promoted to work wholesale in Arkansas, where he meets up with his assigned partner in crime, Swin (Duke). Eventually they find themselves working under the orders of Frog's representatives, Bright (John Malkovich) and Her (Vivica A. Fox), posing as junior park rangers by day, and trafficking under the cover of night. Swin also ends up complicating things by going against direct orders and taking up a relationship with a local named Johnna (Eden Brolin). When one particular deal goes south, however, Kyle, Swin and Johnna all find themselves at Frog's mercy. Meanwhile, through some misunderstanding, Frog is actually mistaking the small group as a threat to his empire. Half of the film follows this story while the other half is focused on how Frog got to be in the head honcho position he's in now. The film jumps back and forth, and much like an episode of 'Breaking Bad', there's a lot of "This happened - now let me show you how we got there." The film is perfectly solid for what it is, but its strengths are also its weaknesses. What I mean by this is that everything here is pretty derivative, and it sort of reflects a lot of the loose, casual crime movies of the 90s - which, by the way, are all quite a bit better. This is no comparison to 'Pulp Fiction' or 'Goodfellas', but it does share that type of mild but dark sense of humor. It's just that not a whole lot happens. It's mostly watching Frog get to where he is, while also watching two characters in the midst of something that isn't their fault. If you're looking for a dark crime movie with a slight sense of humor right now, this is a pretty decent place to look. If I'm honest, given he performances in this movie that were all pretty good, I kinda wanna see what else Clark Duke can do. This one's based on the book of the same name by John Brandon, and you can tell Duke has a fun time directing some of these bigger names. It got me curious to hopefully see what kind of original stuff he can come up with in the future. It won't win the best movie of the year, and it may be kinda slow-moving for some. But if you do have an appreciation for any sort of crime movie that has a laid-back tempo to it, this could very well fulfill your viewing desires for the time being. You're mostly gonna look at the performances here, as it's very character-driven. But if you come here for an edge of your seat story with plenty of action and edge of your seat moments, it's not exactly a gold mine. It's decent, but average. You may not love or hate it, but like me, deem it passable for what it is. 3/5  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  To kick things off with this particular review, I should probably mention that this was one of those series of books I never owned. But I do remember them, all the same. I'm not sure if I knew anyone who had them, but I definitely saw them at libraries, and remember some of the spooky images pretty plainly.
Apparently, the imagery had a lot to do with what made this series stick out. These were a set of books more or less directed at kids as a sort of campfire horror story deal, and evidently they were pretty effective. It was a good way to dip your toes into horror, because for as eerily creepy as a lot of these stories and images were, they were relatively tame, playing largely on the imagination. It was perfect for impressionable kids, and I know of some people out there who even made it a Halloween tradition, right into adulthood, to read these stories. Speaking of which, I'd have to say that this is pretty much the first true Halloween movie we have for this year, too. In fact, we open on Halloween night here. Stella (Zoe Margaret Colletti), Auggie (Gabriel Rush), and Chuck (Austin Zajur), are setting out for their last trick-or-treating session. They have a run-in with neighborhood bully, Tommy (Austin Abrams), provoke him, and hide at a drive-in theater, in the car of some guy named Ramón (Michael Garza). They eventually get away, thanks to Ramón's help, and decide that since it's Halloween, it's about time they did something cooler than trick-or-treating. They soon find themselves at the allegedly haunted Bellows house. The story goes that young Sarah Bellows lived a tortured life, and kept some scary stories in a book. When Stella takes the book home to check out, she finds that it's writing itself, and causing real, but unnatural things to happen to her friends, perhaps even killing them off. The film takes from a few things, and throws it all in a blender. It's a little bit 'Goosebumps', a little bit 'Neverending Story', and a little bit 'Final Destination' with just a hint of 'Are You Afraid of the Dark?'. But if i really wanted to compare the movie more specifically with something, I'd just call it a ballsier 'Goosebumps'. If the 'Goosebumps' movie was more aimed at kids, then this is sort of the next step up. I'm 37, and there were a few images here that even gave me the shivers a little. Of course, that's the brilliance of Guillermo Del Toro's creature designs - which by the way are just about 100% faithful to the books, as far as I've seen. But for as decent as this was, it kinda hit me with that 'World War Z' vibe. What I mean by that is that I wish it played out as more of an anthology instead of what it ended up being, which was still good, just not quite what I'd hoped for. A 'Creepshow'-like anthology would have suited these stories well, and the multiple trailers really made it look like it was gonna go that way. Basically what we have here, though, is a re-imagining of what they did with 'Goosebumps' (the essential book coming to life idea). It's still not at all a bad film though, and has the potential to become a new Halloween classic of sorts. It has done very well with audiences so far, and I could see it becoming a traditional Halloween movie to check out annually for yours truly. I didn't love it to pieces, and I wish it had gone a certain way, but I have to say that things could have been much worse. This at least has some potential to grow on me, over time. 3/5 |
RSS Feed