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
0 Comments
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 For the past few years, I have actually been pleasantly surprised with the titles that have been getting dropped off in January. You see, this is widely considered a "dumping" month, where a bunch of throwaway titles that so few care about get a release. But counting back, one by one, we can find some good, hidden gems. 'The Kid Who Would Be King', 'Paddington 2', 'Split', all great flicks that had a January release over the past 3 years that I've run this site. However, the month kicked off with a single title that only made us as "why in the hell is this happening?" First let me just come right out with it, the plot is a bit convoluted. I ended up digging into the order of how things go in this movie, but it's really all over the damn place. This is the same idea as 2004's 'Grudge' in which a cursed spirit, haunting a house, rubs off on a bunch of people and there's a bunch of disturbing imagery that goes "boo!" It's a convoluted waste of time, seemingly trying very hard to be horror's 'Pulp Fiction' (good luck) in the way the story is executed. It's basically four separate stories that intertwine. The Landers Family story is about Fiona (Tara Westward) leaving the cursed house, disturbed by events, going home and reuniting with her husband, Sam (David Lawrence Brown) and daughter, Melinda (Zoe Fish) while the curse follows her. This is followed by real estate agent Peter (John Cho) and Nina Spencer's (Betty Gilpin) story, involving an unborn baby who will most likely have ALS. Peter tries selling the cursed house to get his mind off things, but then the curse hits him, and no good comes of it. Dementia sufferer Faith (Lin Shaye) and husband William Matheson (Frankie Faison) move into the house a year after the previous two cursed events took place. The curse hits Faith to such an extent that an assisted suicide doctor is called to the house. A year after that is Muldoon's (Andrea Riseborough) story. She's a rookie detective, and upon checking the house out for several previous crimes, she finds herself intertwined with every previous story. If this was all told in the order I wrote it out, it wouldn't have been as messy as it is. But it goes back and forth pretty confusingly, even revealing stuff about itself that ought to be spoilers. As I mentioned, it's just a mess. Now, you're probably wondering, is this another soft reboot title? or final title? one of those annoying sequels that keeps the name of the original, even though in canon it's the more recent chapter? Well shit, how about all of that? No seriously, I tried looking this up, and Wiki suggests the following: "At first announced as the reboot of the 2004 American remake and the Japanese horror film 'Ju-On: The Grudge', the film ended up being a sidequel that takes place during and after the events of the 2004 film and its sequels, and is the fourth installment in The Grudge film series." So yeah, it's a bit confusing, but that's where this one fits, apparently. Now, I kinda get what they might have been going for here. Every character who gets affected by this curse has a big, personal issue going on, which is somewhat its own curse. It could have made some interesting choices in all of its symbolism, but instead we just get a very mean-spirited movie that will crank your depression dial up to 11. I wasn't big on the 2004 version either, but I can at least admit that the imagery in it left a pretty deep impression, regardless of its story. This one only showed be how desensitized I have become as far as the whole ghost thing goes. It's just not that scary anymore, even if it borders on moments of fright. Bottom line, this is a throwaway, plain and simple, and it's kind of a shame to see such a talented cast going to waste here. The first movie of 2020, is a hard, cruel and depressing dud. 1/5 I haven't read either book all the way through yet, so right from the get-go, I should say that I don't know enough about either 'The Shining' or 'Doctor Sleep' for those comparisons. That said, this really does aim more towards the 1980 movie, featuring one of Jack Nicholson's best performances of his career. I've always liked the film for the dark, twisted mind-warp of a horror movie it was. Those comparisons to 'The Shinning' ('The Simpsons') make it even better. For those who haven't seen it, almost spoiler alert, Danny (Roger Dale Floyd/Ewan McGregor) and his mother, Wendy (Alex Essoe) manage to escape the Overlook Hotel, while Jack turns himself into a fancy psycho ice sculpture. In the aftermath, Danny is still haunted by the ghosts of the Overlook, namely that cruddy looking woman in the bathtub. He meets with Dick Hallorann (Carl Lumbly), who he still speaks to as a spirit, and Dick tells him about a trick to get rid of these haunting images. It works, and we meet with Dan years later, all grown up and picking up his Dad's old drinking habit. We learn pretty swiftly that Dan is a pretty bad egg nowadays, but soon enough he works on fixing things. In the meantime, however, a collection of... not really vampires but kinda? are going around, finding kids with gifts, and releasing their "steam", which they breathe in to remain youthful. So very much the vampiric concept, but a new and interesting take on it. However, this steam is released through pain and fear, and let's just say that a young and upcoming actor one might very well recognize by now deserves a damn Oscar for how believable he was through his suffering. That particular scene is a conversation all on its own, bringing back the brilliance of leaving our imagination to do so much of the work as things happen sort of off camera. And yeah, it's uncomfortable, and impossible not to empathize with the kid. Anyway, while this kid is getting tortured (although I wouldn't classify this a a "torture porn" flick), a young girl named Abra (Kyliegh Curran) with a powerful psychic gift sees and feels this all happen. She soon enough becomes a 13-year-old trooper, seeking out Dan in person with her psychic link to him, asking for his help. At first he says she needs to lay low, but upon realizing the crimes of Rose the Hat (Rebecca Ferguson) are very real, he helps Abra with vengeful tactics, and it's 50 shades of awesome from there. Now, for anyone coming to the movie to see the Overlook Hotel do its thing, you're gonna have to be patient. The Overlook scenes take place in the climax of the film, and we're talking about a two and a half hour movie. At the same time, though, if you can overlook the hotel (pun 100% intended), the story is great on its own. It's a neat modern take on vampirism without using actual vampires, which from my perspective have become pretty dated by this point. It blends that with advancing Danny's character and story, and introducing us to a bunch of new characters without ruining anything. I wasn't entirely sure about my rating when I left the theater, but the more I think about it, the more I really like it. It's probably one of the best movies of the year, in my humble opinion. That uncomfortable torturous scene aside, the performances and direction are great here. We even have new actors playing old characters here, who pretty much nail it. I could believe that Wendy was Shelly Duvall, or Dick was Scatman Crothers. There's plenty of development for Danny, as we watch his struggle with alcoholism, the same problem his Dad faced. So, I dunno how Stephen King feels about this one (he knowingly is not a fan of the 1980 film), but I really liked it, and would highly recommend it to people looking for some new horror that uses classic ideas. As far as why it's called 'Doctor Sleep', we find out that Danny finds a job where he earns the nickname, but that's all I'm gonna say about it. The reality of it is really quite touching, and adds some warm heart to Danny's side as opposed to Rose's cold and dark side. So check it out! But brace yourself when you see a child actor you probably recognize. 5/5 Last year's 'It', whether you liked it or not, was an undeniable hit. Piggybacking on the overall success of 'Stranger Things', which was largely inspired by 'It', a remake was almost a no-brainer. After all, fun though it may be, that original made-for-TV movie just isn't all that scary, so much as cheesy. A combination of things make the first 'It' movie really good. It was mostly narrowed down to the idea that you could have a coming of age story with some light comedy within a pretty effectively scary horror movie. It gave you a bit of everything. It also leaves on a sort of cliffhanger, leaving them as kids, and bringing them into this movie as adults. Mike (Isaiah Mustafa/Chosen Jacobs) has stayed in Derry, Maine since the events that occurred in the Summer of '89. Meant to be the "Loser" who sticks around and keeps an eye on things, he hears reports of murder coming over the radio. Being that the cases are all very similar, involving attacks on children, Mike assumes it's all happening again, and makes a few phone calls. This harkens back to the pact they made at the end of the first film, stating that they'd all return to Derry if Pennywise (Bill Skarsgård) ever came back. Bill (James McAvoy/Jaeden Martell), Ben (Jay Ryan/Jeremy Ray Taylor), Bev (Jessica Chastain/Sophia Lillis), Richie (Bill Hader/Finn Wolfhard), Eddie (James Ransone/Jack Dylan Grazer) and Stan (Andy Bean/Wyatt Oleff) each receive separate phone calls, and all but one make it back to Derry for the reunion. Before long, they individually experience strange occurances, similar to those experienced in their childhood, and they know they must eventually face down and defeat Pennywise to rid the world of him once and for all. In the meantime, bully Henry Bowers (Teach Grant/Nicholas Hamilton) has since been confined to a mental health facility. His esential role in this is to work for Pennywise, escape, and set out to help him kill the Losers club - Pennywise knowing he has a personal vendetta against them already. He's sort of the reality villain the Losers have to face in life as opposed to what Pennywise represents - facing their worst fears. Henry gives Pennywise a physical puppet he can manipulate to his will very easily, and for the most part, he's a really creepy character. I had to admire that they seemingly filmed all of the flashback scenes involving the kids while filming the first chapter. This was largely pointed out by my mind recognizing Finn Wolfhard as a younger version than the one I just saw in 'Stranger Things 3'. It's only about a year's difference, but a lot can change in that time for kids that age. If it was ever common knowledge, I must have missed that part going in. All of the adult actors are very good at representing who they were as kids, and I wouldn't choose a recasting over anyone except perhaps replacing Jessica Chastain with Amy Adams - I honestly just see a much better match in the face, expression-wise. Chastain does fine though, all this really is, is a nitpick on my part. However, I found the most stand-out characters to be somewhere between Bill and Eddie, who both represent their characters almost flawlessly. Where this one loses me a bit, however, involves two different things. First and foremost, it's the length. It's just a damn long movie, and it feels like it could have been spared a few things here and there. Adding to that, the adult side of the story is interesting, but I've always found the whole concept here to gel better with the coming of age story that involves the kids. What I'm trying to say is that the first film had all of that, whereas this is mostly centered on delivering the scares, and story-wise, it's largely about remembering things from their childhood. That's not so much a criticism, as that's pretty much how the book goes. All i'm saying is that I feel there's more for an audience in the first chapter than the second. But if we really wanna get into criticism, I have to say that there were a few moments that were very confusing decisions. None of these hit me harder than a scene where someone gets vomited on, and the song 'Angel of the Morning' plays while it happens for about two seconds. It was such a "WTF" moment, and it could have been a great, triumphant horror moment involving the character. But nope. 'Deadpool' did it, 'Deadpool' is popular, so lets just copy it for a laugh. I'll tell you right now, any laughs I heard were very awkward sounding, as if to say "am I supposed to laugh here?" Any criticisms aside, though, I feel like if you can give these a back-to-back marathon, it all comes together very nicely. It's just a long-ass marathon. But the acting is solid, the scares and atmosphere are very good, and it delivers nicely with what it has to work with. All in all, I still really enjoyed this, even after getting through the book. It's just further proof to me that there are some books that just can't be so literally translated. Speaking for myself, the themes and plot that need to be here are certainly here, and it's still miles above the original TV movie. If nothing else, it's a lot of spookhouse style fun, and great for the upcoming Halloween season. 4/5 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 We're gonna be going against the grain a little bit, today. I always enjoy that, as it's general proof that I'm not just running with the masses. All in all, this one is getting pretty generous reviews, and here I sit wondering exactly why. I mean, I guess I get it, but I also don't all at once. What's that mean? Stick around to the end. Here we have Haley (Kaya Scodelario), a competitive swimmer, who decides she wants to drive into the heart of a major hurricane, which is already wreaking a bit of havoc on her hometown. Her reasoning, to try to find her estranged father, Dave (Barry Pepper). Upon entering the house and beginning the search, we learn that Dave is still there, somewhere in the basement, trying to keep the house together, as flooding is slowly taking it apart. But while the rescue is already looking grim, a couple of alligators enter the scene, giving the pair one hell of a vicious obstacle to get past. The alligators and the flooding house make for some good suspense, as it's a sort of "die one way, or die the other" situation. This brings to to what I can praise about the film; it knows exactly what it is, and it's not trying to be anything more. This is a throwback to that era of the late 90s when scary movies (if they weren't teen horror) relied heavily on things like disaster and nasty creatures. There was this short-lived phase of what I like to call "realisim" horror, where things we knew existed in real life could get you (which that teen horror was also a part of). I also had to admire some of the creature effects going on here, considering the CG - I thought it looked pretty solid, myself, and I'm starting to feel like CG is REALLY hitting a positive stride, now that things are looking more realistic. And I don't mean the way we used to say things looked realistic back when 'Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within' came out. I mean... well, just watch 'Endgame'. I kinda mark it as a peak of CG technology (for now), and it seems to be carrying over to other films nicely. Beyond that, they were effective here in making these alligators pretty genuinely scary - just about anything goes with these things here. All in all, this really wasn't bad, but I do have my gripes. The number one being the character of Haley in general. To me, she's stuck between this role of strong, independent woman and damsel in distress. There are certain things she's unsure of here, and she comes close to giving up, but manages to push forward to survive, grunting and moaning every step of the way, and while it's a total nitpick on my part, my God was it annoying. It seemed that every move Haley made was punctuated with an "URG!" or an "AGH!". But again, nitpick. You could still manage to empathize enough, and there is a nice scene where they take time to have a positive exchange between the two characters. So I guess when I say that I get it, but don't get it all at once, it's like Raimi wanted to do a throwback to those late 90s films as his probable take on our nostalgic desires over the past decade plus. It's neat that he's considering this whole sort of untapped resource (unless your name is Roland Emerich), to try to bring it back and improve it a bit. But I can't help but be left with the question of "why", dangling above my head. That was widely regarded as a pretty weak era for film altogether. A few goodies popped up here and there, but all in all, it seemed like film was kind of in limbo. Our box office smashes were disaster movies, but they were mostly panned for being too silly, over the top, or whatever. I actually liked a few of them, but that doesn't stop what critics and even general audiences had to say about them. So, for me, this film goes against all logic from a money-making standpoint. But, to be fair, it's hanging in there pretty good - so really, what do I know? Maybe these kinds of movies were missed more than I thought. So, I guess, if you just wanna go have a fun and violent suspenseful time at the theater, it could be worth checking out. As a Raimi fan, I think he's done better, but he's also done worse. In the end, this is gonna be one of those titles that may gather its cult following, but for the most part, it's just kinda there - not a must-see, but decent enough to sit through once, and get that bout of late 90s nostalgia. I definitely didn't love it, but it had enough things in it for me to appreciate. 3/5 By all accounts, in my humble opinion, this had the potential to be the next 'Zombieland' - and Bill Murray being in it would have been the icing on the cake. The trailer made this look pretty damn good. But while the film isn't without it's moments, I'm sad to report that in a zombie movie featuring Bill Murray, *deep breath* his jokes somehow mostly fall flat. It's weird 'cause in a way, his dry, nonchalant humor fits this film very well. But the writing has it so that he's not even the funniest character in the movie, and that's admittedly a pretty big bummer. Who is, you ask? It's only my humble opinion, but Tilda Swinton. More on that in a bit. The bottom line, this movie should have been better than it was. Especially considering it's all-star cast. The film opens up with a song called 'The Dead Don't Die' by Sturgill Simpson, which becomes it's own character. We soon meet two country cops, Cliff Robertson (Murray), and Ronnie Peterson (Adam Driver). They are called to take in a man known in town as Hermit Bob (Tom Waits), accused by Farmer Frank Miller (Steve Buscemi) for killing some of his farm animals. However, Bob is innocent, and this is the first strange occurrence which sets everything in motion. Through these characters, we meet the rest of town, consisting of fellow officer Mindy Morrison (Chloë Sevigny), Everyman character Frank Thompson (Danny Glover), joke store runner Bobby Wiggins (Caleb Landry Jones), reporter Posie Juarez (Rosie Parez), a group of passing-through teens, headed by Zoe (Selena Gomez), and last but definitely not least, and everything that made this movie remotely good, morgue owner Zelda Winston (Swinton - as mentioned earlier). We find out that the Earth is shifting its poles, causing odd hours of daylight, strange behavior in animals, and the dead coming back to life... wait, what? Well, anyway, that's what causes it here. I'll give it points for originality, at least. This is a straight up goofy comedy, too, so it's passable for a nice a ridiculous reason. Poles have shifted on this Earth before, and we weren't around yet to see what would have happened. Zombies are a stretch, but it's a neat, untapped reason. I'm gonna be perfectly fair. When looking at the execution of this movie, I can sort of get that it was going for an all-out farce, where there were no limits. My best comparison would be to 'Kung Pow: Enter the Fist' as an all-out farce on old Kung-Fu movies. This is doing the same thing with zombies and their respective tropes. And like Kung Pow, it's adding a bit of extra "WTF" to it all with a weird twist ending. I also believe that the dry humor comes from the idea that these tropes are all old news, and things are being treated as a sort of "oh-this-again" situation, which is understandable. Let's face it, even if you can be truly original with zombies right now, they aren't exactly being asked for these days. The point is, I think I totally get what they were trying to do here, and I'll give them some leeway on it. This is a title that's very self-aware, and breaks the fourth wall several times. In fact, the way they do fourth-wall breaking in this is a prime example of how the humor works. In one instance, Zelda asks for Ronnie's car keys. In handing them over, we see a Star Destroyer from Star Wars, and we all have a little fourth-wall snicker at the fact that Adam Driver is carrying around a mini Star Destroyer. On the other hand, it also goes all out when "reading the script" is mentioned, thus making the film a very obvious fake world, and eliminating any stakes whatsoever. It's really more of a fourth wall cliche. Let's get back to Tilda Swinton though. When I think of Ms. Swinton, I think of her as being very classy, wise, proper, and pretty well set on her serious roles. Here, she lets it all out. She's a bad ass ninja type, extremely strange and eccentric, funny in her delivery, and seems to be the only proactive character in the movie. It makes me wonder if they were also going for the Daryl trope (the "everyone's favorite" character). Anyway, she's the main reason for being in your seat as opposed to Bill Murray. That's a sad thought, but it's okay. Murray will be back in 2020's 'Ghostbusters' follow up, as the Venkman we all know and love. In closing, the humor is all over the place with more moments of giggling than laughing out loud. Following that, for such a cast, some of these characters are just tossed aside without a single thought. In fact, there's one group (I won't spoil who) who just run off and disappear, never to be heard of again. There were just so many loose ends here. Even if that was intentional as another sort of zombie trope, I can't give it a pass. I think the film's problem was that it didn't know where to draw the line. It just got too all-out ridiculous. But is it weird that I could see this becoming a cult hit in the near future, despite the fact that I didn't exactly love it? I guess time will tell. 2/5 Love it or hate it, 'It' was a huge success, and it kinda started to set the path for new remakes of old Stephen King adaptations. Next in line is 'Pet Sematary'. It's pretty much the same overall deal as the original, if you're familiar, but replace Gage with Ellie, and show a few more gruesome things for horrific content. More on that later. If you're NOT familiar with the story, here's a rough breakdown. Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) moves to Lulow, Miane from Boston, Massachusetts with his wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz) and two kids, Ellie (Jeté Laurence) and Gage (Hugo Lavoie). The family cat, "Church" also comes with. That bit's important. Anyway, one day, Ellie goes off into the woods to wander and stumbles on a funeral procession. She later finds out there's a pet cemetery when she runs into their neighbor, Judd (John Lithgow). Anyway, potential spoilers, but tragedy strikes when Church is run over by a speeding transport truck. Judd offers a solution to Louis that can bring the cat back from the dead to be with Ellie (as it seems to mostly be her cat), but with the risk of drastic change in the cat's personality. For those who know the story, it extends from there, without giving too much away, with the thought that maybe we can do the same with humans. But then again, the trailer kinda shows us everything we need to know. I honestly don't know where the "spoiler" line is drawn with this story, so fair warning on more potential spoilers ahead. All in all, this pretty much copies and pastes the original, but with the change in roles between Ellie and Gage (as mentioned before). That said, I personally wonder if it was for the better. In the original, Gage is mostly done with a doll or kinda weak practical effects. Still a lot of fun to watch, but it's not altogether creepy (at least not anymore). Now as far as Ellie goes, I have to give it up to Jeté Laurence's performance. She's a little older so more of a dramatic act can come from her, and she turns out to be just the right amount of perfectly creepy. To me, this is her movie. As far as the other performances go, everyone's decent, but no one really blows me away. Other criticisms go to the abundance of Zelda scenes (Rache's sister, who's death haunts her) which give Rachel a reason to be uncomfortable, but here it's kinda drilled into the ground and takes away from the main plot. It's damn near 50/50 with it here, whereas in the original, it's just a quick back story. One thing to really appreciate about this film, however, is the atmosphere it provides. It's just downright spooky, and kinda reminds you of something meant for Halloween - especially when they head off into the outskirts of Pet Cemetery where the native burial ground is. So I guess for everything bad there seems to be something to enjoy. Personally speaking, I have to say that I enjoyed the original better, but perhaps for the wrong reasons - it's just classic material at this point, and a lot of fun to watch as a sort of spookhouse movie. This was probably far creepier altogether, so works better as an all around horror movie. But not everyone will enjoy this for the same reasons I did. I'd almost fully recommend watching both back to back and seeing which one you prefer. But of course, if you've read and enjoyed the book, you might wanna stick to that version altogether. 3/5 A couple of years ago, an unsuspecting Jordan Peele took to the director's chair to create a new type of horror movie called 'Get Out'. With its mixture of a good sense of humour and a focus on black social issues, it was a runaway hit with audiences and critics alike. It went on to get nominated for four Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Lead Actor, Best Director, and it won for Best Original Screenplay. So, it was kind of a big deal. But therein lies the mistake most people will end up making with 'Us'. Audiences will probably understandably approach this movie with the mindset that we're gonna have another film here about social issues under the guise of horror - making those social issues scary. However here, the message is much more about fearing ourselves, and it doesn't get quite as deep as 'Get Out' did with its plot. This is a film made much more for the creepiness factor of things as opposed to pointing out the way things are in our society. But what does that mean for its overall quality? Laying out the plot, real quick, a family takes a trip to Santa Cruz, where wife, Adelaide (Lupita Nyong'o) experienced a bit of trauma in her childhood. Husband Gabe (Winston Duke), and their two kids, Zora (Shahadi Wright Joseph) and Jason (Evan Alex) pretty well enjoy themselves, while Adelaide feels reluctant about being there due to her childhood experience. Soon enough, it turns into a home invasion movie with a twist. The intruders here are known as the tethered, and essentially play the role of their "shadows" in a sort of underground area that I'm not entirely sure is another dimension or what, but I'll go with that for now. By all means correct me on that if I screwed up. Anyway, these "tethered" are out on a revenge plot of sorts, and the reason why might be a bit of a spoiler, but its also incredibly basic. I'm not sure I liked this one as wella s 'Get Out', but that might be my affinity for the horror/comedy blend. This one is much more straight up home invasion horror, similar to things like 'The Strangers' or even 'The Purge'. But I find this to still be an original take on an otherwise almost overdone horror concept. I also found that with 'Get Out' as it links to human experimentation films like 'Human Centipede' or to a lesser extent 'Tusk'. With that said, I think that what Peele is trying to ultimately accomplish, and he's thus far proving very successful. 'Get Out' and this were both truly original ideas built on ideas that already exist. It makes me super curious to see what he's got in store for the future. A haunting movie? A demonic possession movie? A movie about escape? The possibilities are many, and he's already nailed it twice. I say I don't like this as well as 'Get Out', but as a truly creep horror flick, it certainly still delivers. 4/5 I'll just come right out and say it - I enjoyed the first 'Happy Death Day' quite a bit. It was essentially the 'Groundhog Day' concept (living the same day over and over again), but with a horror twist. It was also a pretty self-aware comedy of sorts (full review here). With that exposition out of the way, let's just dive right in. This picks up where the first leaves off. This time around, it starts happening with Ryan (Phi Vu), roommate of Carter (Israel Broussard) and all around secondary (maybe even tertiary) character in the first film. Anyway, he ends up passing the curse it back to Tree, and things start all over again. This time around, however, we're involving science fiction and experimenting with different dimensions. The murderous baby mascot guy takes a complete back seat. So, if you wanna see more of the same idea, you're not gonna get it. It's really hardly even a horror of any sort so much as a sci-fi comedy with horror, and even some surprising drama elements. For the most part, the whole idea is that Tree ends up having to make a very difficult decision as to which dimension she needs to stay in. It ends up hitting you in the feels pretty nicely, and it's easy to empathize with her situation. All the while, it still remains a mystery story, as Tree, Carter and Ryan team up to figure out how to break this loop of perpetual death. It's a difficult film for yours truly to rate. Hand down, I think I liked the first one much better. It just did its thing without need for explanation as to why it's all happening. It was really just a bit of horror/comedy slasher fun, and didn't need to do much to be entertaining. This, however, just goes too deep with things as far as the sci-fi element goes. It kinda blind-sides you. On the other hand, I can't help but appreciate that it tried something different - especially as a movie that's ABOUT repetitiveness. I considered how I felt about the two movies on the whole, and wondered if, in a way, this was just as good as the first. But then I considered my DVD/Blu-ray rack. 'Happy Death Day' might end up on there, if I find it for cheap. 'Happy Death Day 2U' probably won't, unless it's in a combo pack with the first film, also for cheap. Apparently, a third is also in the works, and it's apparently set to also go off the rails a bit more. So there's definitely a side to this wackiness that's intentional. But that doesn't mean I have to just go with it. The first was a lot of fun, but this was kinda just weird to me. Points for the emotional side of things, but that's about all I took away from this that I REALLY liked. Otherwise, it's just a bit over the top for yours truly. I came out of it not knowing at all what to think. It's passable, but it's no 'Happy Death Day'. 3/5 Here we have something I consider to be a bit of a hidden gem within this Fall's releases. This is a decent combination of war movie and zombie movie, with a solid cast of relative newcomers, plenty of gruesome violence, and some edge-of-your-seat action and suspense. So yeah, one could say I quite enjoyed it. The film opens up on the Eve of D-Day, as a group of paratroopers is preparing to head out on a mission to destroy a radio tower. The plane is shot down, and the squad is forced to bail out early, providing us with one of the coolest, most intense falling scenes I've seen in recent history. For the most part, we follow a young man named Boyce (Jovan Adepo), who eventually ends up finding his Corporal, Ford (Wyatt Russell) among a few others. With these few remaining paratroopers, they continue on their mission. However, Boyce soon ends up discovering, quite by accident, some of the Nazi's more intense experimentation which, yes, leads to basically the creation of zombies - but not really your typical zombies, either, which is nice, because let's face it, the zombie Nazi idea is pretty played out. This one plays out a bit more like (dare I say it?) an 'Indiana Jones' film, in that the Nazis are showing their more occult side. They're really trying to make powerful, biological weapons that are seemingly invulnerable; a little something to add to their already powerful army. This is a film that sort of lets us peek behind the curtain and get a horrific fantasy idea of what Nazis may have been up to back then with some of their darker experimentation, which indeed WAS a reality. I think what I admired most about this one, however, is that it reaches this incredible balance. Between the horrors of war that everyone experienced back then, and some fantasy horror aspects, the film manages to pose the question of what's more terrifying in such a situation, the war everyone experienced, or whatever behind the scenes human experimentation that the Nazis really did. It's effective in allowing your imagination to explore the possibilities of death back then, and in the end, it was all very horrific and there was no real way around it. If you happen to be a horror fan, this is a title worth exploring. I'd even recommend trying to catch it on the big screen before it leaves, because it hasn't exactly been doing gangbusters at the box office. Yeah, a lot of the film is pretty out there at times, but all in all, it was something sort of right up my alley for when I'm looking for a good, solid horror flick. It MIGHT even make my Year-End Top 10. 5/5 Here we have yet another case of a movie claiming to be something along the lines of the "most terrifying thing you'll see this year". The reviews have come in, and they are generally positive, looking at how the movie works with the horrors of emotion, loss, coping, etc. Its partly symbolic, partly psychological, and truth be told, altogether really quite creepy. But at the same time, I have to admit, pretty over-hyped in my mind. The film starts out with the Graham family heading to a funeral for Annie's (Toni Collette) mother. We find out that the family wasn't entirely close with her, save for the daughter of the family, Charlie (Milly Shapiro), who was her "favourite". After the events of the funeral, however, strange events start to unfold, beginning with the desecration of Ellen's (Annie's mother's) grave. However, with that said, if you're going by trailers, this movie doesn't turn out the way you'd expect... like, at all. So if you're the kind of person who needs to be fed what the trailer feeds you, you're in for some disappointment. But what does this movie have going for it that makes it so special? Well, to be honest, this one turned the tables on me as well, but mostly in a good way. Not that far into it, there is an unexpected even that happens, which I won't spoil for you here, but it makes the movie change its track pretty abruptly, and then starts working on what makes the movie really cool. This is one of those horror movies where its also sort of a supernatural mystery that keeps you guessing as to whether or not it actually IS a supernatural horror movie, or a psychological horror movie. It kinda kills two birds with one stone in that regard. I think for the most part, I can end up giving this a positive review from my own perspective, but I won't lie in that there were a few choices made that I wasn't much a fan of. Not the least of which involved the overacted crying scenes. When tragedy hits home for Annie and her son, Peter (Alex Wolff), they kinda go off the rails in a big way with a sense of overacting. And I really hate to say that because when they aren't losing their shit, they're both doing fantastic acting jobs. On top of that, this is another one of those horror movies that has a pretty original and interesting ending, but it's so out there that not everyone is gonna just accept it. In fact, it might even ruin it for some. I felt the same way here than I did coming out of 'Cabin in the Woods', trying to analyse whether or not I loved or hated the ending. But whereas 'Cabin' had something I eventually considered bad ass, and made the most sense for what the movie was doing, this was quite a bit slower and stranger and creepier. As far as horror, where this movie does well is mostly lies in its psychological scares. It does do a great job at getting various emotions and feelings across, but does so in a successfully creepy way. We start to wonder if its all in a certain character's head the whole time. The end result is... well, interesting to say the lease. It all comes together, but it's up to you whether you like how it goes or not. All in all, a solid, slow-burning horror flick for this day and age, but not one I'd personally rave about to the masses on its awesomeness, either. I'd like to have given it full points but the parts I didn't like kinda brings it down. Still, I could see this becoming a cult hit for some. 3/5 So check this out. Last year, we had the likes of Jordan Peele of 'Key & Peele' directing a great horror comedy called 'Get Out', which won the Oscar for Best Screenplay, and was nominated for three more, including Best Picture, Best Director AND Best Actor. It was kind of a big deal. Even ignoring the Oscars altogether, it was one of the most talked about films of 2017. I have to say, I'm predicting a very similar fate for 'A Quiet Place', another rather smart horror coming from another comedic actor, John Krasinski. However this time around, it's more of a dramatic horror than a comedy horror. It's the near future, and the world (I think?) has been taken over by strange creatures. And yeah, if you're one of those people who thrives on explanation, I'll say just don't bother 'cause they are NEVER explained. But they live, and they're nasty as hell. As for their look, they sort of remind me of a miniature Cloverfield Monster. They're closer to human-size, although bigger, and faster, much, much faster. They hunt by using sound, which means that if you want to stay alive in this world, you can't make any, and I mean ANY of it. For example, the family the story focuses on has paint marks on the floor where it doesn't creek. So yeah, sensitive. Getting back to this family though, we have the Abbots, a family trying to survive through the whole mess, headed by Krasinski and real-life wife Emily Blunt playing Lee and Evelyn, respectively. They have three kids, but the one most focused on is their deaf daughter, Regan, portrayed by Millicent Simmonds, who is also deaf in real life. A great move altogether, not only putting a deaf girl in this horrific situation, but the casting choice adds some heavy authenticity to the role. That said, she is a bit of a brat. With that type of character though, I really try to empathize, and when you think about it, she has good reason to be frustrated. She's deaf, he hearing aid is broken, and somehow she has to live without making any sound. That's actually on top of a whole other issue, but no way am I spoiling that 'cause it's kinda the heart and soul of the movie. This is one of those great turnaround horror movies where FINALLY we see something that isn't one of four things; ghosts, demons, found footage or home invasion. We have something nice and original here with an idea that, quite frankly surprises me hasn't been done before. I mean, the ultimate way to make your movie suspenseful, in my opinion, would be to make it a very quiet movie with those jump scares just lingering around the corner, but not necessarily happening, or happening when you don't expect it. For the most part, this movie nails that idea, so we have a bit of a right-up-my-alley horror. On top of that, the suspense works incredibly well when we start to get to know and care about these characters. It kinda reminds me of a good episode of 'Walking Dead' where we focus more on the developing characters, but that threat is always there. What adds to this, though, is the need to be silent at all times, which puts a whole new level on things. I mean, silence is required in 'Walking Dead' as well, but they can at least have conversations in that show without having to use sign language. Here, well, the movie has it's title for a good reason. To me, this follows in the footsteps of last year's 'Get Out'. Both were created from the mind of a comedic actor who understand that there's some unexplored territory in horror. It was also released close to this time and ended up being a solid, original horror movie that dares to stray away from the typical. I have to admit, I'm hoping we see a trend get kicked up here where the unexpected start making horror movies. It's worked out well so far. 5/5 One of the titles I was most looking forward to checking out this month, 'Annihilation' actually managed to give me a bit more than I was looking for. Despite perhaps a bit of a sluggish beginning, this film does touch on a lot of intriguing and frightening possibilities once things manage to get rolling. Some years ago, we are show than a small meteor strikes a lighthouse, creating a very strange, very beautiful bubble that seems to keep expanding. Soldiers and other experts have been sent in to check it out, but none have yet come back alive. This time around, it's up to a group of female scientists to enter the bubble, which they call the "Shimmer", collect data, and get to the lighthouse where it all begain to figure out exactly what it is they're dealing with. However, once inside the Shimmer, the group discovers strange mutations in the wildlife that go from absolutely breathtaking plant life to creatures and other very strange situations that could fuel your nightmares for weeks to come. The scariest part of the movie - it manages to deliver on everything scary being a very real scientific possibility, despite knowing how impossible it all is according to our own minds. While still remaining a sci-fi fantasy thriller, it does make one think. It kinda reminded me of 'Prometheus' in that sense, except this time around there will be no disappointment at not seeing any particular creatures. The creatures we do see here are very, very few, but the ideas the film is trying to get across come with them as necessary. Some are mutations of beauty, and some are just plain terrifying. I talk a lot about the movie being scary, and a lot of other critics will tell you that the fear factor is delivered very well here, but I kinda meet it in the middle. The whole deep inner core of this movie is pretty scary in that scientific mind set, and one of these creatures I found to be very unreal, but totally original and frightening in what it is. But that's about it. A lot of the on-the-surface scares are actually few and far between. for the most part, it's more of a disturbing movie that you mull over after it's done than it is a straight up jump scare horror flick. As far as performances go, it was a tough call. You can find yourself routing for our hero, Lena (Natalie Portman), but I would honestly consider the rest of the group almost too expendable. You get a bit of a brief history on who they are, and there's a tiny bit of development here and there, but if anyone gets killed off you don't necessarily care that they're gone. The interest is almost more in how they go. This particularly applies to the leader of this pack, Dr. Ventress (Jennifer Jason Leigh), whose overall character is extremely dry, uninteresting, and despite what she says it feels like she doesn't wanna be there. It was almost like watching Leigh performing completely uninterested, and just saying what the script asked her to say. Unfortunately for an otherwise fine actress, this didn't really come across as acting at all. I mean, I guess she was trying to make her character the way she was supposed to be, but it sadly kinda took me out of it all. Meanwhile Portman is pretty much acting her ass off here. It was an odd contrast. However, the overall writing and concepts held within this movie impressed me enough that Leigh's performance didn't completely take me out of things. I can say with honesty that I still managed to leave the theater well-entertained, give it credit for doing something original, and I'm still kinda pondering the film's ending, which IS a cliffhanger that might catch one off guard. This wasn't spectacular, but as far as 2018 goes, it's one of the better ones I've seen so far. It's interesting that winter doesn't seem to be that dumping ground it once was. 4/5 Well, it has been out for a little while now, people have had some time to digest it, and the general consensus seems to be about the same, for the most part. It is seen as a great movie, going the rout of something like 'Get Out'. What I mean here is that it's not, strictly speaking, a "horror movie" so much as a different genre. Where 'Get Out' focused a lot more on comedy combined with some suspense, 'It', as you've probably read, is more of a coming of age story with varying horror elements. For those who have at least seen the miniseries, the story does remain pretty much the same idea. The difference being, here, it's not adults flashing back constantly to their experiences. It's just strictly the kids doing a "Part 1" of a 2-parter. As far as the book-readers and King enthusiasts go... shit, I dunno. I have heard from some that the movie is actually a horrible adaptation of the actual story. Not having read the book myself, however, all I really have to go on is the movie's vast improvements over the miniseries. I feel like by now, pretty much everyone out there knows the basic premise. But for the few who are brand spanking new, allow me to fill in the gap. Our movie starts by introducing us to a 1988 Derry, Maine. We also meet two boys, Bill (Jaeden Leiberher) and Georgie (Jackson Robert Scott). Bill, sick in bed, makes Georgie a paper boat. Eventually, Georgie sails it along the street, using the gutter as a river, only to have it fall into a sewer. While peeking in to look for it, Georgie meets Pennywise (Bill Skarsgård), a creepy but seemingly friendly clown. Pennywise lures him in for his boat, maims the shit out of his arm, and eventually murders Georgie in cold blood. But the only ones who know about it are the observing audience and some random cat. The film then cuts to one year later, as we meet the main players of our story. A group of kids, who one by one, have their own scary experiences with supernatural somethings, all which lead to this creepy-ass clown. We have Eddie (Jack Dylan Grazer), Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor), Bev (Sophia Lillis), Richie (Finn Wolfhard), Stan (Wyatt Olef) and Mike (Chosen Jacobs) suffering these scary ordeals alongside Bill. However, my first criticism comes with this as frankly, the group really just isn't fleshed out too well at all. Your main focuses here are actually Bev, who I swear replaces Bill as the main character, Richie, who is the comic relief, and the one recognizable kid here ('Stranger Things') and Eddie, who has an overbearing mother and is also a bit of a comic relief, but more in an anxious way than a fun way. Bill is still a part of it, sure, but he totally seems to take a back seat despite the fact that he lost his brother to this thing. Stan, I found played a bit of a middle-ground character. Much more looked at than in the miniseries, but still nothing that stood out here. Although, I would personally argue his "fear" was probably the best executed. As for Ben and Mike - essentially the "token fat kid" and the "token black kid". The all makes the most interesting character of the story Bev, as she has to deal with the darker side of things at home, even without some asshole clown giving her shit. As for the supporting cast? Well, there's our bully, Henry Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton) who is just as harsh, if not worse, as he was in the miniseries. These over-the-top "King Bullies" never got much of a chance to bring it down a notch, apparently, as his big mission is to make these kids' life a living hell, cutting them, killing them, whatever he has to do to feel better. It is, however, illustrated in the movie what leads him to such a shitty attitude. And to the film's credit, apparently it's ONE thing that was tackled here better than the book. But again, never read the book, so who knows? This is stuff I've read and heard online. So, with all this negativity, people who know me well might wonder about my opinion here. When I came out of 'It', I was heard to say stuff like "that was awesome" and "I wanna go see it again". Truth be told, despite my criticisms, I still loved this movie for the fun ride that it provided. It's funny but even though these characters weren't as fleshed out as they should have been, I still managed to care about them and what happened to them. There were even moments I thought they may have turned the tables to kill off certain characters in some crazy twist. Another criticism often heard was how cheesy the effects were. Frankly, this is something I disagree with altogether. They weren't freaking 'Avatar', no, but they certainly weren't THAT bad. There were a few moments like when you see Eddie run into his Leper. It looks kinda silly, I guess, but with stuff like that I'm giving it a pass. I excuse the fact that some of the effects might look a bit corny due to the fact that they are representing what the kids are fearing at the time. I was afraid of a lot as a kid that I think is ridiculous nowadays. Maybe that's just the way I interpret it, but from what I understand, they are amping the horror factor up for Part 2, and I definitely look forward to it. As a final note, I'd like to say that the kids here all acted quite well with what they had - at least some of the more focused on kids. I've heard about the "bad acting" in this as well, but to some extent, I'm sorry, you've gotta cut kids some slack. For what this was, it was perfectly fine. Remember, we're looking at a group of kids who have literally formed a "Losers Club". As for Mr. Skarsgård, he was one of the best parts about this movie. My general comparison is that he is to Tim Curry what Heath Ledger was to Cesar Romero as the Joker. The latter was far more cheesy and fun to watch, whereas the prior was far creepier and made for a great, dark villain. Why not Jack Nicholson, you say? Well, his Joker still holds up very well whereas Tim Curry's Pennywise is... frankly laughable. But surprisingly, no one blew me away in this as much as Georgie did. No seriously! There's a specific scene you see in the trailer where Bill sees Georgie in the basement. In the actual movie, Jackson Robert Scott seems to understand completely the use of body language and how creepy it can get. One particular second or two just has him in the shadows, grinning at Bill in a very sinister manner. I mean, not to keep bringing it back to this comparison, but he's only 8 years old and already has a better Joker-like look than Jared Leto. Anyway, despite it's flaws, the biggest being the development of all characters involved, it's still a fun time. One can see this movie as a sort of Fun House experience rather than it being just a straight up horror experience. It's getting closer to Halloween, and by the look of it's numbers, it's gonna be going for a while yet. If you don't like horror THAT much, and prefer something a bit lighter, this really does provide a happy medium. Just remember, it's more about having fun than being scared! 4/5 |