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
0 Comments
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 Allow me to preface this by saying, first off, I am fully aware of the controversy and concerns about this film, and I am not here to challenge anyone's opinion. I loved this movie, but I have to say that I completely understand the concerns people are having. All I can really do for a review is offer my perspective. While I do get where people are coming from with varying degrees of concern, I viewed it in a different way. I saw this more as a sort of cautionary tale than anything else. When I say cautionary tale, my example comes from Gotham pulling funding from Arthur Fleck's (Joaquin Phoenix) therapy sessions. That's also the basic plot to the movie, and the rest is "Joker origin story". Anyway, the lack of funding gives way to a very real concept in society, in that there are still places in the world where mental health has that stigma, and people still just shrug it off. It's important to recognize that if you suffer from the wrong set of mental health problems, and you can't get the help you need, shit can happen. It's scary, yes, but it's something we've only just recently begun to start taking seriously. It's my opinion that this was a daring way to get it all out into the open, using the character of the Joker for familiarity. We ALL know who he is, and we're fully aware that he's gonna end up the most disastrous villain of Gotham City. I find that audiences seem to be looking to empathize with the character, but I kinda feel like we're not fully supposed to. It's enough that we can put ourselves in his shoes, but at some point, you'll wanna take those shoes off 'cause it's a bit too intense, and even pretty scary. Try to imagine this as a film idea paralleling something more like Rob Zombie's 'Halloween', in that we're watching the slow development of a well-known fictional serial killer. Was it necessary? Not particularly. But one's curiosity does kinda make one wanna peek behind the curtain to see how the monster was created. To be honest, I wasn't really into this upon the first trailer, but curiosity on my all-time favourite villain's possible origin did eventually get the best of me, and I'm not sorry that it did. The highlight here, as one probably expects, is Phoenix's performance. Heath Ledger hasn't been dethroned for me, but stiff competition is seen here. Phoenix's Joker is very "Ledgeresque", but he plays the much creepier side of things here, making it an unnerving thriller. Ledger still made you laugh over violent moments (the pencil trick is still awesome), but Phoenix plays things more like some sort of twisted performer, and by the end you're gonna end up questioning who the scarier clown was you saw this year - Joker or Pennywise. It's an extremely polarizing movie, which I absolutely love, because that gives me an opportunity to voice an opinion without being accused of "bandwagoning" one way or another. My final thoughts on this are that people have every right to be concerned about it, and I understand why they may be. But I'd urge you to go into this with the right mind set. If you're gonna be looking for harmful stuff, you're gonna manage to see more than what's there. It's violent, but I've definitely seen worse in the past. For myself, as a strong message, and an interesting take on a favourite character's origin, it works extremely well. For others, your thoughts are your own, and I'm not gonna try debating them. I kinda hope this movie manages to open up more discussion about mental health, and those in need manage to get the necessary help. 5/5 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 It's interesting to reminisce on this whole 'John Wick' thing getting started, when people so often suggested that Keanu Reeves was the action hero that the world needed. This was largely due to his "gun-fu" skills (that's a combination of exactly what you think), and we had already seen him as a good action hero in the 'Matrix' films. 'John Wick' kinda resurrected him in a way, and it's nice to see that he isn't just that go-to action guy because of it. He's kinda just John Wick now, and that's more than enough. Excluding things like Marvel films, I'd say these films probably are the biggest action titles from the past decade... Yeah, I know it started in 2014, but show me a better mainstream non-fantasy action series between 2009 and now. These are kinda the new 'Die Hard' films, in my opinion. 'Chapter 3' has John Wick (Keanu Reeves) on the run after the events of the previous film sent him over the edge. Now, he has a massive amount of hit men and hit women after him, with a $14 million bounty on his head. This turns the tables for John, making this a survival action film as opposed to the revenge action films we're more familiar with. For as much as I love these movies, the second one really is just an extension on the first (I know, duh, but hear me out), offering more of the same, but with deeper dips into the whole International Assassins Guild. It's still ultimately a revenge film though, just like the first. Offering up a survival story here helps make John feel more vulnerable and fallible... I almost said that with a straight face... anyway, it's a nice change. You can still find everything you want in a 'Wick' movie here though. In fact, I highly compliment the action sequences in this one. I loved how John used his environment to his advantage. My favourite was probably the use of a horse's back legs. I know that sounds weird, but just check it out. I actually laughed out loud when I saw it. Beyond that though, we also get into some really neat fight sequences that don't just stop at a shoot-off. There's also a great knife fight in this, a fight involving dogs and Halle Berry (as Sofia - someone who helps John out once he's declared excommunicado) in her best role in a very long time, and a fight where we get to see just how durable John Wick actually is. You'll know the scene when you see it. That's just to name some of the action through this though. What you want from John Wick movie, you'll get here, and probably even more. For my money, this is the most solid action trilogy I've seen in quite a while. 5/5 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 Every year, we end up getting at least one or two of these releases that will grasp my curiosity just enough to check out. However, these films will ultimately become among the most forgettable titles of the year. 'Captive State' is really no exception to this general "throwaway" concept. It wasn't really any good, it wasn't all that terrible, it was just kinda "there", sandwiched between a few much bigger names. I had originally had 'Wonder Park' lined up, but the concept of this seemed more appealing. But be prepared for a very short, throwaway review, because there really isn't a whole lot to say about this. In present day, the world is taken over by aliens. Humankind surrenders to their powers, and now refers to them as the "legislators", as everything is essentially controlled by them. They have the humans build them "closed zones" in which they can dwell, while the only visitors allowed are government officials, in order for communication. Of course, with a situation like this, resistance groups are formed. The story mainly centers on two brothers, Gabriel (Ashton Sanders) and Rafe Drummond (Jonathan Majors) as they basically show the side of rebellion, working against this alien race and trying to escape the city. Meanwhile we also deal with the Drummond's father's former partner, Mulligan (John Goodman), who is convinced the resistance group of Phoenix (lead by Rafe) hasn't yet been shut down, and I guess he tries to do so in order to keep the peace with the aliens. Now is the time when I have to be brutally honest with my audience. I fell asleep in this movie twice. I don't know exactly how long I was out either time, but it was enough that I PROBABLY missed some important dialogue along the way. But it does go to show you just how boring this whole thing was. One might come here looking for 'District 9', or 'Arrival', but we don't get a whole lot of either of those films' charms here. At best, its a basic political thriller in the guise of an alien invasion movie - with very little aliens! The performances here were decent enough with what the actors had to work with, and the idea is still pretty neat altogether, but it could have been executed so much better. Ironically enough, the whole time watching it, I imagined the idea lending itself much more to a survival video game than the movie we got. Anyway, thus far this is really just the big throwaway title for this year. Even though I missed whatever I missed during my viewing, I really have little to no desire to go back and check it out again. It did nothing for me, and as I said before, it finds itself sandwiched between better titles. It's simply forgettable, and I don't really recommend it to anyone. It debuted at #7 in the Box Offce Top 10 that weekend, making it a bomb, and it got knocked right down to #11 the following week. So if you haven't heard of it, I'm not surprised. At the end of the day, I guess I just should have gone with 'Wonder Park' after all. 2/5 With the release of this film, we wrap up the 'Unbreakable' trilogy, with each of the three titles covering each film's particular main character. At this point, between 'Unbreakable' and 'Split', spoiler alerts need not apply, but I'll try to keep what's going on with this film spoiler-free, all the same. Long story short, the 'Unbreakable' twist was that a dramatic film turned into a superhero film, and with 'Split', a thriller did the same thing, but with the added twist of taking place in the 'Unbreakable' universe. So, it would make perfect sense that the third film would have three big twists, right? Well... we do pretty much get that here, but is it actually good for the film, or is it too much? 'Glass' opens up with David Dunn (Bruce Willis) taking on the role of "hero" with his abilities of super strength and extrasensory perception. He's after "The Horde", aka Kevin Wendell Crumb (James McAvoy) and his several personalities, after learning of a group of cheerleaders being kidnapped by him. The fight scene that ensues is actually pretty cool, but they ultimately end up being arrested and brought to a mental institution. Here, Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), calling himself "Mr. Glass" is also residing, under the supervision of Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson). Once the other two arrive, Staple reveals to them that their collective superhuman abilities are in their imaginations, and everything can be simply explained away. This leads Mr. Glass to attempt to bring out The Beast (the big, bad, strong and villainous personality of Kevin's) so that he can battle David during the public unveiling of the city's new tallest tower. This will revive Kevin's faith in his superhuman abilities as well as reveal them to the world. That's pretty much it, with a couple of interesting but relatively weak extra twists at the end. As I mentioned before, there's pretty much three here. One reveals a piece of Kevin's history, one reveals a secret of Dr. Staple's identity, and one reveals just how much of a mastermind Elijah Price is. In truth, these twists end up being just sort of okay. Nothing really floored me here, and I think that's mostly due to a combination of predictability, and the fact that this trilogy has already kinda blown its wad with the previous two twists. Thankfully, however, I didn't leave thinking to myself that the whole thing was just dumb. It had some pretty dumb moments, sure (seriously, Shyamalan, STOP USING WATER AS A WEAKNESS!!), but all in all, it was decent for what it needed to be. The previous two films were superior, to be sure, but it does end up being kinda neat how everyone and everything comes together here. Each character even ends up getting a sort of "sidekick" as well, David with his Son, Joseph (Spencer Treat Clark); Elijah with his Mother, Mrs. Price (Charlayne Woodard); and interestingly enough, Kevin with his previous kidnap victim, Casey Cooke (Anya Taylor-Joy). They each have important roles to play here, and each sort of come into their own, almost forming their own little sidekick team. So there's some pretty neat stuff going on here, and in my opinion, the film pretty much does what it needs to do. However, the overall breakdown of everything ends up being somewhat underwhelming for an audience who came ready for a solid superhero movie, complete with action and fighting and witty one-liners. But how can we be really THAT let down, knowing that Shyamalan has his tendency to keep things relatively slow-paced, using mostly dialogue to reveal the story as it goes? Speaking for myself, I'm not really THAT let down here. It's simply the weaker of the three films to me, fulfilling the common position of "weak third film", which is really nothing new. 3/5 Try to imagine taking the general concept of 'Saw', and giving it a PG-13 rating. That's essentially what we get here with 'Escape Room'. One might think that the lack of blood and/or gore would take away from the whole deal, but truth be told, the film actually still pulls off a great deal of suspense. It's far more of a psychological thriller than any sort of horror movie. We get introduced to six main players, all of whom are randomly gifted a puzzle box. A physics student named Zoey (Taylor Russell), a stockboy named Ben (Logan Miller), a trader named Jason (Jay Ellis), a war vet named Amanda (Deborah Ann Woll), a former miner named Mike (Tyler Labine) and an escape room geek named Danny (Nik Dodani). Once the puzzle boxes are solved, a clue invites them to the Minos Escape Room Facility, with $10,000 up for grabs upon successful completion of the puzzles. Once the group meets up, the film pretty much takes off, and does a pretty damn good job with playing on psychological fears that could potentially lead to death. While the main fears at play here are obvious, you can also spot things like claustrophobia, or even the fear of losing one's mind. The overall premise is actually quite enjoyable, and does manage to keep you on edge for the most part. All that said, the unfortunate downside to this is that as far as likable characters go, there are so few. Between the six, I only really enjoyed Zoey and Mike, while Amanda and Danny had their moments, and Jason and Ben just got downright irritating at points. However, we can chalk that up to a nitpick on my part, seeing as when all said and done, I suppose that's providing contrast. However, there is one part of this otherwise decent movie that I cannot overlook, and that's the ending. Without spoiling too much, the ending turns the film on its head from a rather decent psychological thriller to a straight up Saturday morning cartoon. So as I sat in the audience, ready to leave, and pretty well satisfied with the results of the film, it asked me to stay put, in an attempt to set itself up for a sequel. Again, no spoilers, but as a slight hint, IMDb includes "sci-fi" as one of the genres it covers. It's downright silly. There's still plenty to like about the film, though. The atmosphere, the overall tension, the designs of most of the rooms, it really does show the flexing of creative muscle. While at the end of the year, I feel that this will pretty much be forgotten about, it can still be a fun time for anyone interested. Overall, it's not entirely disappointing... that ending though? I'm curious to see if it will lead to anything in the near future - but my money's on "probably not". 3/5 Tom Cruise returns as Ethan Hunt in the sixth installment of the 'Mission: Impossible' series. Now, if I'm honest, I feel like the number one draw to these films anymore is for us to watch Mr. Cruise risk his life for the sake of entertaining his audience. No matter how you may feel about the man, that's something to be admired. However, this movie has seemingly built more around it than any other title in the series. A group has formed from the ashes of The Syndicate known as The Apostles - The Syndicate being the terrorist organization lead by Solomon Lane (Sean Harris) who was captured in the previous film. Ethan receives information about a deal to sell plutonium to several members of the Apostles. The plan doesn't quite go accordingly, and Ethan is later sent to retrieve to plutonium cores. However, in order to make sure he doesn't "screw it up" again, he's accompanied by August Walker (Henry Cavill), who ends up being a whole different type of obstacle for Ethan to overcome. The rest of the usual team returns as well, including the likes of our favourites, Luthor (Ving Rhames), and Benji (Simon Pegg), plus a couple of pleasant surprises to where I don't really know if it would be a spoiler to mention their names or not. But I digress. One relatively common complaint about the first 'Mission: Impossible' was that it was more about Ethan than the team, whereas the original show was always very much about the team. It seems that as these movies have progressed, since about 'M:I-2' (by far the worst of the series), the team has continually progressed with them. The focus is on the team now more than ever, and that's one of the common praises this one is currently getting from the masses. People are calling it "The best 'Mission: Impossible' yet", and in many ways, I'm actually very agreeable to that. For me, its between this and 'Ghost Protocol'. Perhaps the best of either title, as I flip the coin between which one is actually my favourite, lies within the action. 'Rogue Nation' did fine with it as well, but it just didn't have the same edge-of-your-seat feeling. The camera flows nice and steadily throughout the movie as well, doing away with a lot of the shakey cam action. Tom really is giving it his all throughout this movie, and again, its something to be admired. Anyway, if you like these movies at all, I highly recommend checking this one out. It was nice and intense as an action movie should be, puts the shakey cam in the back seat, and you just get what you pay for and then some. Again, it's currently between this and 'Ghost Protocol' for me, but check it out and see for yourself. Even if you just need a healthy dose of adrenaline, this is a good place to find it. Easily one of my favourite movies of the summer. 5/5 So, how do I put this simply? What we have here is essentially the concept behind the 'Six Million Dollar Man', but set as a revenge film. And if you know me, you know I love me a good revenge film. We open up this one by meeting the lovely couple, Gary and Asha Trace (Logan Marshall-Green and Melanie Vallejo, respectively). Gary, working as a mechanic, finishes up a car for a client and asks Asha to come with him to deliver, as he wants to show her some of the technology this guy Eron (Harrison Gilbertson) is perfecting. Here, we are introduced to the idea of "STEM"; something to serve as an artificial brain in order to assist the handicapped. On the way home, Asha's self-driving car crashes horribly, and the two of them are pretty much left for dead by a few cruel strangers - namely Asha. However, Gary doesn't die so much as get severely injured. As a result, as one could imagine, he eventually gets hooked up with STEM as a sort of guinea pig. The main issue, however, is that STEM works almost too well, as it assists him with not only walking and movement again, but all out vigilante revenge, helping him to seek out those who murdered his wife. Some parts of it provide its audience with a sort of cautionary tale about technology taking us over. But for the most part, it's like watching 'John Wick' if John was being controlled by artificial intelligence. The film carries a beautifully dark sense of humour with it, as whenever STEM does help Gary out, it does so in such brutal fashion to can't help but laugh with the movie at how over the top awesomely violent it gets - especially when Gary doesn't necessarily want to kill. Although it may be somewhat predictable as to what exactly is going on in the movie, it doesn't prevent the fun-factor from being fairly abundant throughout the movie. I watched this with a smile on my face the whole time - not because it was funny, but because I kept finding new and cool things to enjoy about it as it unfolded - and again, I do love a good revenge plot. To top it all off, this one has one of those interesting endings where you think it's gonna end very cheaply, as though the writers just gave up. However, stick around long enough for that rug to get pulled out from underneath you, because the full ending is actually pretty awesome, in my humble opinion. I loved this movie, and there's a very good chance it'll end up making my overall Top 5 for the end-of-year list. 5/5 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 Producer/Director Clint Eastwood brings us a new idea, having to do with the 2015 Thalys train terrorist attack, and the American heroes who stopped it. What's unique about this, is that Eastwood experiments with allowing the real-life heroes to play themselves. The idea, I would imagine, is for the movie to feel more organic. After all, who would be better at playing you than you? Kudos to Eastwood for experimenting, but unfortunately, good acting goes a long way in engaging the audience. It pains me to say these things because I've always thought of Eastwood as being a great director with such titles under his belt (that I've seen) as 'Sully' and 'Gran Torino'. But what can you do? Every great director needs his/her experimental flop. Besides the rough acting from our real-life heroes (but seriously, much respect for doing what you did), the film comes across to me as a giant American flag. They seem to make damn sure in this that you know these guys are American. And not only that, but damn patriotic Americans. Even as kids, these dudes play around with guns and talk about the comradery of war. It just seems to flex a giant American bicep the whole time. But enough about that. The fact of the matter is that this movie is a bit of a throwaway. It's definitely not something I'll remember much by the end of the year, and these guys' story speaks for itself. If you wanna know more, I'd recommend either reading the book this was based on called 'The 15:17 to Paris: The True Story of a Terrorist, a Train, and Three American Soldiers' by Jeffrey E. Stern, Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos - the final three of whom were portraying themselves here, or this Wiki article for a quick reference. The whole thing is a neat idea, but it just wasn't very well executed on the whole, and ends up being unmemorable. These guys didn't convey the emotion an audience would be looking for with a story like this. The thing is, I place none of the blame on them 'cause they tried, and these guys aren't trained to act in any way (that I know of), so this is just what we're gonna get. It's a good story, but too "America, F&%$ yeah", and could have been much more if it was done a bit differently. But again, much respect for these guys in accomplishing the feat that they accomplished. 2/5 So here we have one of the bigger Golden Globe nominees for this year. But exactly how does it hold up in it's given categories? For that matter, just how IS this movie, anyway? Well, this is gonna end up being one of those titles that I'm gonna be separated on with some of the bigger critics out there. Not that the movie was bad, it's just that there wasn't a whole hell of a lot to it. But I guess I can't be too critical about that when it comes to a movie based on real events. Here we have the story of the kidnapping of John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer), the greedy grandfather who won't send the ransom, J. Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer), and the single mother who would do whatever she could to get her son back, Gail Harris (Michelle Williams) with the help of J. Paul Getty's... personal detective?... Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg). That's pretty much it. Now, that's not to be a critical asshat and say that the movie needs more or anything. I guess I just found it to be very heavy on the talking and exposition, and the truly interesting scenes were few and far between. Now, this is the same thing that makes me dislike the otherwise very popular 'American Psycho', so perhaps this just wasn't quite for me. But what about those award categories? Well, despite how bored I got (sorry), the performances of Michelle Williams and Christopher Plummer were really well executed, and I'm glad they went with Plummer as opposed to Spacey. It's also up for Best Director, Ridley Scott, and given the performances over all through this, I can understand why. In fact, these performances are what really holds the movie together, I'd say. The whole story is intriguing enough, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't drag. The film is clocked at 2h:12m, but it somehow felt a bit more like 3h to me. Every time award season comes along, it seems to be the best time to separate my opinions from that of other critics. I didn't quite get the intrigue here that I got from it's trailer. You watch the trailer, and it looks like a suspenseful, gripping thriller. You watch the movie, and you realize it's really just more of a biopic with a bit of an edge. Anyway, it's not one I can really recommend one way or another. It's something to see for yourself based on your particular tastes. If you like a lot of talking and a bit of suspense, go for it. But if you're like me, you might just find this one dry enough to leave the theater half-way through for a drink. It's not bad at all, it's just not that great. 3/5 Allow me to preface this review with a simple fact about myself that tends to blow everyone's mind. When it comes to 'Blade Runner', it's one of those classic movies I ultimately have respect for, but for whatever reason, I just can't really and truly get into. I've seen it three times in my life now, once on the big screen, and it still just does nothing for me. I blame this on the fact that my first viewing of it wasn't until about 2009 or 2010. By then, effects had advanced, and the whole idea of a dark, dystopian future was officially one of those things that was cool, but old news. So personally, it never really grasped me like it did with others. Still though, as I mentioned, I do have a respect for it being (arguably) "the first" to do it. In it's own way, it holds up as well, giving us an almost more believable futuristic setting than a lot of sci-fi manages to pull off. It's not without it's charm, I get the message about artificial intelligence and humanit emotion, I don't hate it, I don't love it, it just plain and simply wasn't for me. So when '2049' came along, I wasn't exactly pumped to see it, but I figured I'd check it out just to see if we had another "sequel-fail" on our hands. I'm gonna go ahead and say, for the most part, "no, this is actually a good sequel!" Taking place in a sort of real-time style, 30 years after the events of the original film, fans will be happy to notice that the more things have changed, the more they have stayed the same. The way I would put it is that the setting feels like the future of the original universe. They didn't go all out with their CG effects or anything, and it feels respectful. In this future, Replicants have been integrated into society. A newer model named K (Ryan Gosling) is brought in to work for the LAPD, as the perfect model who would "obey" their orders. His mission is to work as a Blade Runner, and to hunt and "retire" the older, rebellious models. As his mission unfolds, he uncovers more hard truths about the Replicant freedom movement, as well as himself, and the whole thing becomes a pretty solid detective story. So yeah, it's a good plot, and it stays true to the original's overall style and ideas while remaining it's own thing. I really do think that if you are a big fan of the original, you'll get what you're looking for here. There are a few things I'll have to forewarn about though. First and foremost, the trailer features Harrison Ford reprising his original role. If you go into this expecting it to be 'The Ford and Gosling Show', you might be disappointed. Personally, I think what they did with him worked and I'm happy this didn't become a team-up movie. But anyone looking for him won't find him until the last half hour to 40 minutes or so, in a 2 and a half hour long movie. Which brings me to my next point - it moves rather slowly. There's a whole first hour that may have been able to be narrowed down to a half hour for plot, as a lot of it is showing us the environment. Visually, it works quite nicely, but with little dialogue and a lot of deadpan speech, there IS a boring-factor to it all. It's all gonna depend on how you found the original to be. If you thought it was this big, genius thing that changed the face of cinematic history and you praise it for all it's worth then I think it's safe to say that the sequel delivers in a big way, especially after 30 years time. If you're like me, however, you might find it dragging and somewhat boring, despite it's beautiful visual style and great acting from everyone involved. I feel about this the same as I felt about the first. It has my respect, and it will work for the fans, but it wasn't entirely for me. 3/5 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 |