If the somewhat lukewarm reception to the latest Thor and Doctor Strange is anything to go by, even the average moviegoer is beginning to feel the effects of franchise fatigue with the MCU. Which is why it's disappointing that its most unique outing that breaks away from the mold in a lot of ways might very well be it's worst effort to date. Eternals experiments with a new tone and style, but forgets to make any of it interesting outside of its admittedly enticing ending. The film introduces a new team of heroes who are basically a melancholy and boring version of the Avengers, or perhaps more accurately the Justice League considering one of the characters is literally just Marvel's Superman. The writers did their best to try and make them deeper and more complex than the rest of their peers by placing a strong emphasis on their struggle with their complicated origin and purpose. Unfortunately nobody onscreen comes off as anything greater than a basic motivation and a goal, while never undergoing any significant development or growth either. So it all feels like a bunch of unjustified melodrama at the end of the day, akin to what Zack Snyder gave us when he kicked off the DCEU. It also doesn't help that they're an unlikable bunch. Few times before has an assemblage of such recognizable and usually reliable names been this uncharismatic. On top of being as dull as dishwasher, the fact that the higher powered ones all bear secret resentments towards one another to the point where they anxiously await an opportunity to "clip each other's wings" makes them seem petty and hateful. It's an old trope in these type of group movies that's never made anyone in them endearing. Then there's the story and adventure themselves to consider, which lack excitement to boot. Kumail Nanjiani does his darndest to inject some life into the mix, but the script is working against him at every turn with bland action sequences and largely humourless attempts at comedy. Things do pick up some steam in the final act however. It's legitimately fun watching these guys and gals beat the crap out of each other thanks to their neat powers, and the shocking cliffhanger conclusion honestly had my jaw on the floor. Paired with the compelling post-credit stingers I became cautiously intrigued with the future of these heroes despite not enjoying the majority of what came beforehand. Ultimately, it gets some points for pulling something out of its butt right there at the end to actually leave me awaiting a sequel. Although, that follow-up is going to need to improve on a lot. On top of the stuff I already mentioned, this narrative only serves to highlight how the MCU has the most convoluted and perplexing lore of any cinematic property possibly ever. Featuring more cosmic threats, entities, organizations, races, dimensions, and gods than the entire Cthulhu mythos. I will say the additions to it here do turn out to be fascinating and have immense potential moving forward if handled correctly. This was sadly just a very poor introduction to this portion of the universe that hopefully the later installments will be able to overcome.
Look, I'll be the first to tell you this is nothing more than a bunch of stupid Hollywood blockbuster refuse, but I'm also not going to sit here and act like it isn't any fun either. A transformation of sorts was to be expected given how Fallen Kingdom ended, but I doubt anyone could have predicted as big of a reinvention as this. The Jurassic Park/World series has been rendered almost entirely unrecognizable were it not for the prehistoric monsters running around onscreen, and not because they are now living among everyday humans. Rather, it's due to Dominion's absolutely LUDICROUS storytelling. To say the plotting jumps the shark here would be putting it incredibly mildly. The narrative reaches near The Asylum levels of nonsensical as it covers every outlandish sci-fi concept from women giving asexual birth to genetically modified versions of themselves, dinos that are trained to attack via a laser pointer, to mad scientists hell-bent on world domination (or its destruction). Why they felt the need to concoct a tale this absurd, convoluted, and undeniably dorky I have no idea, but it did leave me glued to the screen in a sense of delirious fascination regardless while it seemed the writers were simply throwing whatever wild idea they had up there next just to see what would stick. The sheer B-movie ridiculousness of the whole thing will (and already has) turn many off on this. Especially since it's part of a franchise that initially kicked off with a bit more gravitas. Personally though, it didn't bother me much at all. That's because I've only ever really turned up to these to watch dinosaurs chase and eat people in the first place, so it's hard for me to fault a film offering that too much so long as the thrills are in place. And oh boy, let me tell you, they are. The body count is disappointingly low, but that was offset for me by the constant excitement of witnessing some never-before used species and the protagonists' near misses with them, like the glorious extended getaway sequence through the streets and underground black markets of Malta. I wish they had continued the globetrotting around populated cities throughout the entire running time rather than retreating to another isolated research facility/haven location in the second half. Of course, Dominion also falls back on the modern cinema trapping of trying to get by on nostalgia pandering as well by bringing back the original three heroes of the 1993 hit and its first two sequels. Some of the resulting callbacks can feel a touch gratuitous, the main villain's death being extremely similar to Nedry's for example, yet their inclusion ultimately fixed my biggest issue with this movie's most direct predecessor by finally giving me individuals I actually care about to watch as opposed to the bland nobodies who have been carrying the show up to this point since its revival. The real stars however are the various 'saurs on display. I think a far too underappreciated aspect of the World trilogy has been its ability to turn these creatures from bloodthirsty beasts into complex and thoughtful animals capable of striking a chord with the audience. There are some genuinely moving moments with them such as a scene with two Apatosauruses in a lumberyard that hits with the same impact as when Alan Grant first saw that Brachiosaurus all those years ago. They even have feathers now for all you nitwits who couldn't let that go. I won't pretend this is a deep, high-quality experience. It's dumb, turn-your-brain-off junk food filmmaking at its most overblown and preposterous. Pure, unhealthy garbage that if I'm being totally honest was a blast to consume. In ironically hilarious fashion director Colin Trevorrow made several conscious efforts to correct the various shortcomings of Jurassic Park III by reuniting Sattler and Grant, and once again establishing the T-Rex at the top of the food chain after its pitiful showing in that outing, but inadvertently made something fans will view as a much greater piece of trash. Although at the end of the day it'll always be a minor treasure to me. I recognize that the franchise should have never been allowed to reach such a confounding low in terms of intelligence and respectability. I guess I'm just easily pleased by cheap spectacle, the amusing comments of Ian Malcolm, and the stunning CGI sight of my favorite animals as a child (and probably still now).
Normally to find such a fresh, new spin on a classic horror villain archetype like this I'd have to read a novel. Set in the 18th century, The Cursed however puts several inventive, original twists on long-established werewolf lore that allow it to provide a very unique and remarkable viewing experience. Not least of all because of what a great job it does of bringing the time period to life, giving it the vibe of a forgotten old fable. It's pretty rare in general to come across a horror flick with this strong of an emphasis placed on its storytelling. At least one not coming from A24 that is. Writer and director Sean Ellis has crafted a script with a moderate amount of allegorical properties, well-developed characters, and intriguing scenarios on top of all the artistic Age of Enlightenment era flair taking place in front of the camera. The writing only slightly being marred by the occasional baffling idiocy of its characters at points. It's not the scariest movie you'll ever see, but features some wonderfully grotesque concepts regardless that come equipped with unexpected symbolic value. An air of dark magic hangs over the entire thing alongside the feeling of a slowly approaching, deserved (but not by everyone) doom that keeps the events interesting even if they never put you in a state of constant fear or anxiety over what you'll witness next. It's fairly saddening to see this not receiving the amount of commendation it deserves. There's no denying Ellis has crafted a work offering a take on conventional folklore that's entirely his own vision. My hope is that future reappraisals will recognize it alongside Gretel & Hansel as the underappreciated in its own time gem of fairytale-esque horror it is. That may seem like a weird descriptor, but let me ask you this: what is a fairy tale when you strip away the kid-friendly, sanitized Disney mien after all, if not a grim story with a subtle hint of moralizing?
I've become a bit disenchanted with our modern superhero age of cinema, where true variety and originality are only getting harder to find. Marvel/Disney or one of their countless imitators still put out enough to tickle my fancy from time to time, but I'm finding it more and more difficult to get truly excited about whatever big event is on its way to theaters (or streaming) next, when the majority of it is either another by the numbers cape-and-costume flick or a remake/revival of some long-dormant nostalgia property that probably would have been better off left in the past. Heck, even the stuff not connected to a grand cinematic universe is often guilty of following the exact same formula with the hopes of achieving a little taste of the box office domination regularly experienced by the comic book characters in their tights and spandex, and that distinctive MCU style of shoehorning comedy into everything has been slowly creeping its way into so much as the bloody horror genre as of late. That's one area where the DCEU has kind of impressed me. Yeah, the results have been mixed at best to put it lightly, but at the very least Warner Bros. and DC Films have shown a willingness to attempt unique things with most of the various properties they've added to it so far. The Suicide Squad standing as a fine example of that. In an effort to make up for the absolute disaster that was 2016's Suicide Squad movie, James Gunn was reportedly given almost complete freedom to come up with his own vision for the project and put it onscreen as he saw fit. The end result isn't something that radically breaks the mold, but rather works well enough within the confines of it to put some one of a kind spins on the established set of familiar elements and walk away with an identity all its own. Gunn is obviously extremely educated in the various obscure nooks and crannies of DC Comics long history, and liberally pulls from lesser known corners of it to deliver a bevy of names and plot devices only the most hardcore of nerds will recognize and that nobody would have ever guessed would make their way to the screen at some point. Ditching the ghetto Hot Topic costume designs of its predecessor and its kind of, sort of spin-off Birds of Prey, the appearances of the villains here are often very faithful to, or a creative new take on, their comic book counterparts. Which naturally leads to a cast of faces, as well as powers, that honestly look blatantly odd next to each other, gleefully reveling in the absurd diversity of uniting such awide array of source material, and I'm 100% here for it. The expected blend of action and humor gets a little extra flavor due to the R-rating. All the naughty words and gore manage to differentiate themselves from what you'd find in Deadpool thanks to the singular personality and attention to detail of the director. So every gag and bloodbath compliments the surprisingly great story well, while giving each member of the team a real, significant sense of contribution Guardians of the Galaxy-style. I can't praise the narrative enough for really tackling the supremely messed up nature of Task Force X and getting me invested in the political side of a superhuman conflict in a way I haven't since The Winter Soldier. For all the laughs and goofs, this is a legitimately dark tale with a lot of bodies left behind against their will and a conclusion that's just a touch tragic since nobody will ever find out the true reason behind why these prisoners were sent basically to die. While this does nothing to grant us any insight into what's next for the DCEU or if its owners actually have any idea what they're doing with it at all, it does however finally give fans the Suicide Squad adaptation they deserve, while managing to standout from the pack by the virtue of its individualistic flourishes. Despite my overall fatigue and somewhat indifference with the whole superhero craze lately, I'd be legitimately interested in and hyped for a third outing. Particularly if James Gunn's name is attached to it again. Which is saying quite a bit when you consider how much of the MCU and its far more proven track record I still have to play catch-up on because of how willing I've been to let it pass me by at present.
If there was ever a video game series that seemed perfectly suited to be turned into a movie, it was Uncharted. The whole point of those games was to capture the same quality of action, set pieces, humor, and storytelling found in only the very best of Hollywood blockbusters and present them in a playable format. Something they succeeded at marvelously. Evidently, the developers at Naughty Dog set the bar too high however, as this somewhat inevitable feeling film adaptation ironically fails to match the level of spectacle found in the source material or deliver the heartwarming character relationships that made its stories so beloved. While it's disappointing to see the brand not live up to the standards its fans expect when transferring into the very medium of entertainment it had been designed to ape for so long, it's more of an amusing paradox rather than an experience-ruining fault as the right assortment of elements are in place to still make for a pretty great, yet not as clever Indiana Jones knockoff. Honestly, its biggest issues are ones we've seen from Sony Pictures and the director before, most notably in their prior collaboration on Venom. Namely, SPE not being able to deliver the same graphical fidelity of the company's excellent PlayStation gaming consoles or even their animation studio, and Ruben Fleischer's inability to create truly thrilling action sequences. Ultimately, the film manages to coast by primarily on the charisma of its stars and the strength of their comedic interactions though. I actually loved the new, younger interpretations of these heroes as it lays some nice groundwork for the sequels to build upon. The only aspect about it that kind of bugged me is that there's no element of camaraderie between its leads, with them even constantly double-crossing and screwing each other over all throughout the running time, which looking back was such an enjoyable aspect of the narratives in the games. It makes sense however given that this is their first time meeting and working together, while also setting the foundation for their familial bonds to grow moving forward. So I can't really complain about it too much. Honestly, despite pointing out the areas where improvements need to be made (visuals, scale of exciting moments), I'm left with very little to complain about at all. Not just for the potential of what the franchise could achieve in theaters in the future, but for what it's offering right now at this very second. I laughed and had a blast with the globetrotting antics, while Tom Holland proved to be just as endearing outside of the Spider-Man tights as in them. They didn't bother including a pointless romance subplot with Chloe (it's Elena or no one, bub) either, managing to completely remove that uncomfortable womanizing streak I had come to associate with Nate in the past. This might not be the full cinematic representation Uncharted deserves or is capable of, but I'm clamoring for more regardless. 8.2/10
Probably Todd Phillips most underappreciated work. Earlier efforts like Old School and Road Trip might nowadays be regularly subjected to a sort of retroactive criticism as a result of the current standards of political correctness, but still stand out as two of the more recognizable pieces of early 2000s era raunch. Meanwhile the Hangover trilogy is straight-up iconic, and even War Dogs receives credit for marking a transition in the director's career into more serious material that quickly opened the door for him to make Joker. This however? It sits alongside School for Scoundrels as a movie no one ever really talks about much, and that's pretty sad. This is a better Hangover sequel than any of the actual Hangover sequels were. Zack Galifianakis is essentially playing the character of "Alan" again, only instead of being paired with Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms he's making life very hard for a high-strung version of Tony Stark, who instead of a cool flying supersuit has an expectant wife who's about ready to deliver that he has to get to. Naturally, unforseen consequences force them to drive across country together and plenty of hilarious misadventures ensue. The comedic material ranks among the best Philips has ever concocted. The surprising chemistry between the seemingly mismatched stars allows the angry (on Downey's part) dialog exchanges to land with particularly humorous effect, while the variety of crazy set pieces manage to avoid the laughter reducing overreliance on guns and legitimate danger that plagued so many other releases back in the 2010s (i.e. Identity Theft). The consequences, or actually lack thereof, of some of the more legally questionable exploits carry a noticeable lack of reality (you're telling me nobody put an APB out on that police vehicle stolen at the Mexico border?!), but it never prevents them from being funny. Largely dismissed and overlooked, this looks at first glance like the kind of middle-of-the-road effort so many filmmakers have put out to capitalize on their last big hit, especially given what proceeded it. That's an undeserved misconception however. Due Date held up incredibly well on this rewatch. The amusing concept leads to a lot of crazy scenarios that are adept at cracking you up. It's one of the more wild, riotous comedies I've seen that doesn't need to lean too heavily on sex humor to really push the envelope, just the dynamic of its two leads and the situation they're stuck in. Because of that it's a movie we should all give a collective second look.
Takes the short story of the same name from one of horror's most significant authors and expands upon its basic premise to create a twisted tale of body horror and sadomasochistic sexuality that ends up carrying greater shades of Clive Barker than it does its original creator, H.P. Lovecraft. A lot of parallels can be drawn between this and Hellraiser as a man of deviant sexual tastes falls prey to beings from another dimension after establishing a connection to them and comes back a monster himself. What follows is a nightmare of grotesquely malformed beasts with a similar air of kinkiness stemming from the fetishistic use of leather and chains. The distinguishing factor being that the terror feels appropriately more alien than gothic. Like all the really good horror movies though, these characters are more at risk of succumbing to their own folly than they are the disgusting monsters that lurk outside of their natural perception and the gory fates they offer that will likely make your stomach churn. The only reason they're at danger in the first place is the protagonist's intoxication with the seductive allure of the other realm's ability to stimulate parts of the mind and awaken sensual urges. Then there's her co-lead who already knows the dangers present, yet isn't as combative as he should be to the whole process seemingly due to his attraction towards her. Watching the cast spell out their doom largely because of their **** desires while hiding under the guise of scientific discovery infuses the madness with an understated psychosexual tinge. As interesting as all of that may sound though, it wouldn't matter if the film weren't entertaining. A slow start and the weak first half of its final act aside, things are a lot of gross-out fun and feature some excellent creature designs. It's whenever the heroes leave the single location where the machine allowing them to glimpse the "Beyond" resides that these low points occur. Luckily however, that's where the majority of it takes place. Also, despite all of my talk about the Freudian subtext, director Stuart Gordon frames the sex stuff with a kiddie pool level of depth. Apparently wanting you to enjoy it more for some surface level titillation as opposed to the underlying subtext of it. Still, regardless of the trappings stemming from his nature as a B-movie maker I'd say Gordon turned what I would, probably boldly, declare to be a severely underwhelming Lovecraft work into something worthwhile with legitimate substance you can pick up on underneath the trashier aspects. It's merging of nasty, face value thrills and unexpected connotations make it a a bit of an overlooked and underrated gem. Meaning it's worth checking out whether you enjoy the source material or not, provided you can handle how revolting the genre's content could be in the '80s when compared to today. 8.5/10
This long-delayed third and final entry in Dario Argento's Three Mother's trilogy was always going to be held under a fair amount of scrutiny. The original film Suspiria remains one of the most celebrated works in all of horror to this very day, and it's sequel Inferno, while nowhere near as acclaimed, still carries a respectable reputation among the hardcore genre enthusiasts. Due the amount of time between releases and the relative critical slump Argento had been on at that point, one could argue The Mother of Tears was always destined to fail for not coming out when the demand for it was at its highest. The premise is certainly great. When a collection of ancient artifacts belonging to the "Mater Lachrymarum" is uncovered, Rome is cast into a hellish spiral of madness and brutality as the witch reclaims her missing items of power. Children are devoured, infants are thrown off bridges, people are strangled by demons with their own intestines, and ritualistic spears are shoved up women's ****. It's pretty freaking awesome! Unfortunately the enjoyment is bogged down by the dull plotting. The script gets points for being more intelligible than Inferno, but man is it far less interesting. It's a lot of watching characters have boring conversations meant to explain all the nonsense happening as the protagonist moves around between various sources of information before they're inevitably slaughtered. The acting in which is terrible across-the-board, with the most painful coming from Dario's own daughter Asia in the lead role. It constantly left me desperately awaiting the next sight of gore or nudity that makes Italian horror cinema so much fun. Also, where's the style? Its predecessors are known for their giallo use of color and music. Mother of Tears has none of that, coming off as rather drab in comparison. What it does have though are some unforgettable displays of savagery and skin. Showing that its legendary director's eye for violence and titillation we're still very much intact even is his sense of art and storytelling we're not. The regrettable lack of them though makes it hard to recommend this concluding chapter that came out way later than it should have after its creator's skills had begun to decline. I can't imagine having waited close to thirty years for THIS! 5.5/10
You know what the dumbest trend in modern horror is? These legacy sequels in long-running franchises that retcon all of the other previous follow-ups inexplicably having the same name as the original film they're intended to serve as a direct continuation of. Seriously, I'm SUPER excited to now have the exact problem with Texas Chainsaw that I do with Halloween, where when I tell people I've watched it they have to ask "which one?" because they don't know if I'm talking about the first, the reboot/remake, or the "new one." For real, when this inevitably happens again for something like, I don't know, Friday the 13th or A Nightmare on Elm Street would it kill someone involved to come up with a subtitle to help avoid confusion please? Anyways, as for the actual quality of this thing, the whole point of these projects is to sort of course correct a brand that, after getting off to a fantastic start, gradually lost its way with each passing installment. With that being the case, you'd think this would have done a better job of not repeating the mistakes of the prior successors. Yeah, Tobe Hooper's classic was a sick, twisted little film, but what makes it so uncomfortable for so many even after all these years is more than just the torment its characters suffer. It's the underlying context of the deranged lunacy and savagery lurking on the fringes of society. At least as far as I've seen, everything that followed managed to overlook that while going heavy on the blood and violence. Exactly like this does. Still, while it misses what should have been the whole point of its creation, it's hard to fault this too much as a slasher. It's about as deep as a puddle and brings nothing terribly creative to the table, but it's got the gore, grime, and a few entertaining scenarios. Honestly, the aspect that's going to bug people the most is the new political tinge. The movie blatantly acknowledges the U.S.' present day struggle between warring ideals of change and keeping with the status quo. There are those who are going to take issue with how the protagonists mock conservatives for their guns, Confederate flags, and vehicular emissions. Meanwhile, others will be bothered by how most of the victims are socially progressive, cancel culturing liberals. There's enough here for you to come up with your own take on whether this leans more to the right or the left. Personally, I think it delivers an "everyone ****" mentality and ridicules both halves. So what people will find offensive is that it doesn't pick a side. Their side. Ultimately, this effectively fails to pay homage to the 1974 version's legacy. Yeah, they brought its heroine Sally back, but couldn't recapture its meaning or significance. Instead simply giving viewers another generic slaughter flick to add to the pile. Not entirely an awful thing as it means there are still a nice amount of grisly thrills to enjoy, but if you've been fed up with everything else this property has offered over the past two or so decades then this is entirely skippable.
The original Clifford show on PBS was a personal favorite of mine growing up. So naturally there was some excitement on my part to see it getting a live-action adaptation after all these years. I figured the format of the cartoon would be difficult to translate into a standalone movie aimed at wider audience, so I was anticipating something entirely original. I must say though, I wasn't expecting anything this strange. The film starts off normally enough with a young, out of place Emily Elizabeth learning the difficulties of owning a ginormous puppy, but quickly gets weird when the megalomaniacal owner **** company wants to experiment on the supersized pooch to unlock the secret of creating giant food and ending the world's hunger crisis. Then there's the stuff going in with John Cleese as some kind of magical pet rescuer who goes around giving people preternatural animals that's honestly a bit creepy if you look too closely at it. Odd though it may be, it at least gets the humor right. Admittedly most of the gags are of the "haha big doggy make big pee and drool" variety, but there are still plenty of less juvenile sources of laughter as well as some genuinely heartfelt moments between the young lead and her CGI canine costar. Truthfully the only thing that bothered me were a couple of jokes that teased adding some profanity to the mix. There's a point where a man is faced with a psychotically aggressive lamb (did I mention this was odd?) and yells "holy sheep," and another where a guy is about to tell someone who doubted him in the past to kiss a certain orifice of his on national television before promptly having the mic ripped away. Both of which are in poor taste for a property designed with children in mind. However, the source material was always a bunch of cute, wholesome fun and for the most part this is too. It loses the educational element and the message about embracing being different falls by the wayside somewhere along the way. Yet, this will definitely entertain the kids while not proving too tortuous for older viewers provided they aren't too jaded, cynical, snobbish, or edgy. 7.5/10
This might have just convinced me to start watching movie trailers again. So much of In the Earth's other promotional material was/is misleading. Things such as its "Nature is a Force of Evil" tagline, the various synopses you can find out there that say things like "as the forest comes to life around them," and even the alternative poster that sees a plant growing up into the nose of actress Ellora Torchia paint the picture of a biological nightmare akin to the Annihilation adaptation we should have gotten back in 2018. What we were actually given instead though is a cult horror flick where our protagonists get tormented by a deranged weirdo with some serious old-world religious fanatical issues, which while not terrible is nowhere near as intriguing as what it was implied to be offering. Born during the first year and out of the frustrations of our modern pandemic era, the film tells the story of a world ravaged by its own virus. It explores the effects of isolation on the human mind and the things people will be willing to latch onto no matter how illogical or untested if it comes with any sort of promise of relief from their stresses and fears. While it's cool to see something that encapsulates and plays on so many of our present day anxieties as we're still in the midst of being afflicted by them, the film's timeliness is a bit of a double-edged sword. Reportedly scripted and filmed in a mere two weeks, the project's spur-of-the-moment nature makes it simultaneously both impressive and half-baked. The science at the core of the plot shows signs of depth, but is ultimately brought down by it's lack of exposition and explanation behind character's actions. Meanwhile the hallucinogenic visuals and coarse synth soundtrack craft one heck of an atmosphere that sadly only feigns the presence of the supernatural without anything of actual terror manifesting to show for it. A somewhat unrelated complaint, but this may also be the sole time I've had to watch a movie where everyone spoke English with the subtitles on because a portion of the cast's accents were too thick to understand. Joel Fry is borderline unintelligible throughout. In the Earth deserves some praise for what writer and director Ben Wheatley was able to cook up in such a brief period. There's always something engaging to look at and listen to due to the unique stylistic flourishes. Yet, while I'm willing to admit part of my disappointment stems from what I expected to be here without having looked at any of the pre-release footage available beforehand, the final product wasn't fleshed out enough to fully engage me with what it did provide regardless. It's a compelling idea that was fast-tracked to capitalize on the legitimate day-to-day struggles we're call facing in this very moment, leaving it short off the necessary development that could have made it truly impactful and with me wishing it had been more.
Following a personal tragedy, a man of once high standing retreats into the Oregon wilderness to live the lonely life of truffle hunter away from the rest of society in order to escape the pain of his past. When his beloved foraging pig is stolen however, he returns to the seedy underground of the world he had left behind to confront some familiar faces and get back what was taken from him. Sounds like the premise for a good action movie, right? Well, Pig is like the total antithesis to that. As if writer and director Michael Sarnoski watched something along the lines of John Wick and thought to himself "what if the character solved the problem nonviolently?" In a time when we're seeing Nicolas Cage's name attached to only the strangest, most outlandish projects out there right now, such a serious and thoughtful drama may seem like a disappointingly normal choice for the Mandy star. Right from the beginning we're treated to lingering shots of outdoor scenery and a quiet tone reminiscent of contemporary arthouse flicks that slowly opens up into a emotional tale about love, loss, and what's really important in life. We also witness Cage give a more grounded performance where even in the chances he does have to raise his voice it's done without the usual tinge of insanity that's sort of built his brand. I assure you though, this just as weird as anything he's been in lately. For all it's thematic depth and complexity there's an inherent strand of goofiness running throughout the entire thing. The way the story portrays the selling of rare fungus to restauranteurs as being a dark and dangerous business is so absurd it can only be true. The National Treasure himself even walks around with a bloody, beaten face like a man on a warpath to the concern of absolutely nobody. That's because this is low-key parodying brutal revenge cinema. It's never explicit with its jabs at this other style of film so the experience is far from comedic, but those really paying attention will pick up on the subtle undercurrent of humor present in the plot. It ends up being the perfect touch as it makes the experience just off-kilter enough to fit it's leading man while still maintaining the air of poignancy and depth that has won it so much acclaim. I do wish its peculiarity had been allowed to shine through a little more though. Particularly in those first 30 or so minutes where you're somewhat bored trying to figure out what the narrative is going for. Yet, when it starts to finally come together you get a solemn, albeit moving narrative that preaches basic human decency over aggression. Making it a delightful oddity with something to say in the career of an actor who's appeared in a bunch of them that don't.
The thing that impressed me the most about Free Guy was its dedication to the concept of being set in a video game world. It's evident the people behind the movie actually had some idea of how video games work, which leads to the whole synopsis of an NPC somehow evolving beyond his programing and becoming self-aware make a bit of sense and feel believable to an extent. The filmmakers' insight into the medium and culture can be seen in other things as well, like the presence of a player avatar realistically glitching out in the background of a scene or the appearance of significant streaming icons like "Ninja" and "Jacksepticeye" commenting on the events. Those aren't the most significant aspects, but are stuff the kids will love and help prevent the feature from coming off as blatantly uninformed to anyone who has picked up a controller before. The plot itself is almost a direct copy of The Lego Movie in that it too tells the story of an average dude who's content to live out his mundane existence in a state of blissful ignorance until one day falling for a determined, brooding woman on a mission and inadvertently becoming the only hope of saving his world from a corporate narcissist. None of the characters outside of the protagonist and his best friend (as well as Channing Tatum in a HILARIOUS cameo) make much of an impression, and the romance component really shouldn't have centered around Jodie Comer and either of the two dudes interested in her, but rather Reynolds and Lil Rey Howery. A hill I will die on due to their perfect chemistry and already adorable platonic relationship that's practically begging to be taken further. Still, the writing does its job of acting as a vehicle for the comedy. This isn't the funniest picture out there, but is ultimately amusing enough for me to recommend it even as things like the action fall flat on their face. Reynolds is such a naturally charismatic star and while this does seem more scripted and wholesome than were used to from him, that snarky, off the cuff wit he's known for still shines through at points. So does his potty mouth unfortunately, so parents may want to make note of that well-deserved PG-13 rating. I'm not sure we're in desperate need of the already planned sequel, but I'd probably still turn up to watch it anyways. It's got that same affable, whimsical nature I've come to associate with Shawn Levy movies and is surely a crowd pleaser. This isn't the deepest piece of cinema around and is unlikely to blow anyone away. Sometimes all you need though is a light, enjoyable watch that can be easily moved on from afterwards, and Free Guy fits that bill perfectly. Plus, it comes with the added bonus of being the best film to make greater use of video games beyond just adapting them since the last Jumanji. 7.2/10
Takes me back to the early days of the MCU. Before there were massive crossovers, intergalactic threats, and now parallel universes. A time when it was just a single hero in a relatively grounded conflict that didn't leave earth or enter another plane of existence. Heck, the title character doesn't even have powers which gives the action a Jason Bourne or Mission Impossible vibe. It's also unconcerned with throwing a constant barrage of humor at the audience making this the most tonally serious superhero movie we've received since the last time a Zack Snyder work was released in theaters. Set not long after the events of Civil War, the plot sees Natasha Romanoff taking on a secret shadow organization with ties to her past. Not since Ant-Man and the Wasp has a Marvel flick been so self-contained and detached from moving the overall cinematic world it takes place in forward at all. As a result, it is totally skippable as you won't be missing anything in the grander story of the MCU should you choose not to watch it. Black Widow does still have value though in that it takes a hero who for years has sat alongside Hawkeye as the lamest, most out of place feeling member of The Avengers and actually provides a reason to give a crap about her. The emotional journey the former KGB agent goes on and the unique bond she shares with her supporting cast/family finally grants her a moment in the spotlight when in the past she's been little more than someone who was just sort of there and didn't really contribute much. Not every issue with the heroine has been fixed however. I've always felt Kevin Fiege and crew have played it a little loose with the character's abilities to make up for the lack of girl power present in the "Earth's Mightiest Heroes." I understand she's a highly trained and physically fit individual, but there's nothing here that says she's expressly any more resistant to damage than you or I so seeing her walk away from moments that should have killed or at the very least seriously injured a non-superhuman with hardly a scratch is egregiously unbelievable. That combined with the fact that some of the narrative's big reveals are incredibly predictable are what keep this from achieving perfection. Still, in an era when this franchise is focused on adapting the weirdest, wildest, and most grandiose chapters of its comic counterparts, it's nice to get something that hearkens back to the scale and scope of the first Iron Man while sporting an espionage thriller style that calls to mind The Winter Soldier. It's also the only time a director not named James Gunn has been able to make their distinctive presence felt in a MCU project. I would love to see Cate Shortland helm another entry maybe centered around Yelena Belova or, if my dreams come true, Red Guardian. So despite admittedly being a couple of films and a few miniseries behind, this is what currently has my vote as the best post-Endgame content to come out thus far.
It's likely not too much of a stretch to say that Spider-Man could be the most widely marketed superhero of all time, with only maybe Batman giving him a run for his money in that department. I've seen the character in so many different forms and incarnations over the years that after Far From Home I honestly thought I was getting Spider-Man'd out. Upon finishing this however, I'm now wondering if instead I'm just not that much of a fan of the MCU's take. Seeing all the bits and pieces pulled from the previous silver screen adaptations of Peter Parker made me realize exactly how much I'd be down for a fourth Raimi movie or even a third Amazing. Another Tom Holland standalone though? Despite loving Homecoming and there being nothing inherently wrong with this or its other direct sequel, I'd pass in favor of seeing his story continue in one the universe's shared outings for a few reasons. The first might simply be Jon Watts. It's no secret that when you sit down to watch a Marvel flick you're in for lengthy ride. Their very best releases however are able to somewhat prevent you from realizing this in the moment by how well they keep you engaged with the studio's established mix of humor, heart, and action. Watts is using the exact same formula, but has been unable since his first entry to apply it a manner that's kept me from feeling every excruciatingly long second of the 2 hour+ running-times in either of his two Home (Far From and now No Way) follow-ups. Then there's the supporting cast. I don't care about the likes of Ned Leeds or "Happy" Hogan the way I have the Harry Osborns and Gwen Stacys of the past, while the original interpretations of returning staples such as Aunt May and MJ are nowhere near as endearing. An unfortunate fact given what a large role they all play in these films and probably the best example of how not every aspect of the MCU's unique vision for Spider-Man has been for the better. None of that is to say this isn't worth watching. It's just what kept the biggest MCU event since Endgame from hitting home with me personally. When it's delivering on all of its wildest rumors however, even I was elated. Not every of promise gets fulfilled as it turns out stuff like the mid-credits scene in Let There Be Carnage was a complete waste of everyone's time, but there's enough here to make for a longtime Spidey fan's ultimate wet dream. I particularly loved how it gave me the slightest bit of insight into what the lives of certain characters were like after where they ended up the last time I got to see them onscreen. The whole thing also serves as a soft reboot of the titular hero that takes him back to his roots so the future is as always open to a wide range of interesting possibilities. Whether one of those potential directions it can go in will cause me to finally embrace Holland the way I did Tobey and, yes, even Garfield is another matter, but at least my curiosity as to what may come next has cautiously been piqued following a period when it had waned almost entirely.
More of the same, but also strangely an improvement. Unconcerned with introducing us to its flawed take on the character, this sequel can instead fully embrace itself for what it is. That means the issues haven't changed. This is still too lighthearted and silly to really fit the titular anti-hero as we know him from the comics, the action is somewhat underwhelming, you'll be wishing to see blood the PG-13 rating won't allow for, and I continue to have no idea why Brock loves Anne who comes off as more of a cold-hearted psychopath than the symbiotic parasite going around taking over people's bodies. However, now it's free to fully roll with the madness allowing for a variety of wackadoodle scenarios that would feel out of place in any movie, much less a superhero one, and it's far more entertaining as a result. A big driving point behind the hype for Let There Be Carnage, outside of its predecessor somehow actually having fans, was that we're finally getting to see the long-awaited cinematic debut of another one of Spider-Man's most memorable antagonists. Unfortunately the results on that front are kind of a mixed bag. Woody Harrelson's performance is fantastic and they definitely nailed the visual component. The red symbiote's appearance is less alien goo, and more mass of sentient flesh. This makes the transformation sequences where it looks like Cletus Kasady's body is literally transforming into a hideous monster particularly gross and striking. The script doesn't respect the supervillain as much as Andy Serkis does though, so he gets the same disposable treatment a considerably less popular Marvel foe would get which is incredibly disappointing. It feels as if the writers didn't take the time to give the conflict the significance it should have had in an effort to rush out the surprise ending that sees the merging of two worlds that never should have been separate in first place before the biggest MCU flick of the year came out. At least it's fun. It's still not the Venom film we deserve, but my acceptance of that beforehand allowed me to get some enjoyment from it. Trashy in the way a lot of the cape and costume features of the 2000s were before Iron Man kicked off bringing them all together under one roof, I can't say this is truly "good." Just that it's come into its own enough to be accepted for what it is, even if simply to watch that mid-credits stinger which opens up the future to some exciting possibilities moving forward. Meaning that if the upcoming Morbius delivers at all, Sony might have started to get a grip on its standalone bad guy universe despite its rough start and inherently confused concept.
Only in attendance because my employers provided me, my family, and girlfriend with free tickets as part of an event to bring the company together outside of the workplace, I was unsure of what to expect going into this. All of the pre-release buzz made it clear even to somebody like me who didn't really follow it that this was made in an effort to restore the franchise to its former glory in the eyes of the fans who were angered by Paul Feig's admittedly mediocre 2016 reboot and provide a worthy continuation/successor to the original film they loved. An original film that at the time of this writing I still haven't seen yet. Because of my lack of prior exposure to the iconic '80s continuity I'm sure I missed a very big portion of what this movie was doing. I was also largely lost when it came to the plot and villain as the narrative is constantly referencing and forming connections to events I never witnessed. Perhaps this should have been called Ghostbusters: New Life though as despite my unaffiliated perspective its standalone content proved enough to thoroughly entertain me. I would gladly return for a sequel to spend more time with these characters portrayed by the likes of two of the biggest child stars currently working, the always charming Paul Rudd, and the extremely underrated actress Carrie Coon. That's because Jason Reitman manges to avoid pulling a J.J. Abrams by never leaning so hard into nostalgia pandering that the past outshines Afterlife's present or potential future. Things play out exactly as you would expect them to with the cast stumbling onto the relics left behind by the old heroes before eventually taking up their fight against a returning force of evil. It works though because even in the face of all the homages and callbacks it's still THEIR story. The young protagonists carry the action entirely on their own. Yes, we do get appearances from Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Ernie Hudson, but it occurs at the tail end of the running time to ensure that their presence never overshadows that of their successors. So all of the laughs, heartwarming moments, and exhilarating thrills come directly from the next generation of 'busters as opposed to the previous. Of course, nailing the torch passing element wouldn't have mattered if the adventure built around it wasn't any good. There are certainly some questionable aspects like the irritating loud shrieking noise that plays whenever the film tries to scare you or how nobody seems the slightest bit surprised when supernatural stuff starts occuring. Other than that though it's a hilarious blockbuster with a strong horror side (which I loved) that stars an instantly endearing group of eclectic oddballs that I can't wait to see again should this get the follow-up it deserves. I may not have been the target audience here due to coming in almost completely uninformed on the franchise outside of its lowest point, but that didn't stop me from having some of the most unexpected fun I've had all year. So while it was unable to charm me with its faithfulness to the tone, nature, and style of its predecessors the way it would a longtime member of the series' fanbase, it did manage to turn me into a new devotee.
I was initially annoyed when I heard the news that the Resident Evil film series was going to get a reboot so soon after having dominated theater screens for about 15 years. You could hardly blame Sony Pictures and Constantin given how much money they made though. The one silver lining was that fans of the source material might finally get a movie with a little fidelity. It's no secret that Paul W.S. Anderson's hexalogy had almost nothing to do with the games it was supposedly based on. He might have borrowed a monster design or a name here and there, but for the most part created his own mutated beast complete with an original protagonist and everything. Well, upon having now watched this revival of the franchise's cinematic half I can state for certain that gamers have at long last received an adaptation that actually has something to do with the stuff they've played. The heroes are all familiar faces like Leon Kennedy, Jill Valentine, and Chris Redfield while the story sees them uncovering the secrets of Spencer Mansion and, of course, surviving the outbreak in Raccoon City. Both locations found in the original two PS1 classics. It even fully embraces the property's horror roots by going heavy on the scare attempts rather than just focusing primarily on the action like its predecessors did. Unfortunately, all this faithfulness is kind of wasted given that the feature presentation itself isn't very good. When the characters are shooting their way through the undead to try and escape their doomed town, it's alright. Things go straight down the toilet though the second someone opens their mouth, usually to utter a line of profanity, or the narrative tries to give an explanation behind the whole scenario. The writing is just so bad with the new takes on the cast turning some members of it into bumbling idiots for an intended comedic effect that feels wildly out of place, as well as there being elements that make no sense like how the entire police force is the only portion of the local population to be unaffected by the "Umbrella" pharmaceutical company's deranged experiment for some reason. There are aspects I can praise. The set design is fantastic with a lot of interesting little details to pick out in the backgrounds. Every environment manages to capture a vibe and atmosphere that reminded me of what terrifying Playstation gems I have managed to play, such as the first Silent Hill, and watching the survivors battle groups of great looking zombies in their cramped interiors can be genuinely tense as Johannes Roberts has a knack for crafting unsettling scenarios. The score is also fantastic. It's got some serious issues with the plotting and dialogue however, and they're enough to derail the entire experience. Perhaps this will go over better with someone who has a greater appreciation for the works that inspired it. Personally, I've only ever touched the 5th, 6th, and Revelations spin-off titles so I'm sure the majority of the Easter Eggs and parts recreated onscreen missed their intended mark with me. Still, even if you do manage to pick up on everything that doesn't change the fact that it's largely cheap fan service in lieu of legitimate quality. Not saying that isn't enough to provide a good time, but in my mind it can't save this from somehow being the worst Resident Evil flick. I'd be down to attend a sequel regardless.
An intriguing pairing of Nicolas Cage and one of Japan's most notoriously wild directors that seemed poised to be the next Mandy. Playing out like a live-action oddball anime, this samurai western black comedy can certainly be delightfully strange at times. Yet, what keeps it from reaching the same heights as other of the Matchstick Men star's wackier outings like, say, Willy's Wonderland is that its peculiarity is really all it has to offer. Sion Sono was intent on packing every scene with as many eccentric sights as possible, so there's always something interestingly bizarre to look at and I was left consistently impressed by his ability to direct such elaborate clutters of madness. The vast majority of it though occurs without meaning. An enticingly goofy opening gives way to a lengthy middle portion where the plotting hits a brick wall and only a few noteworthy moments can be found (all of which involve the lead's ballsack), before eventually picking up again in the action-packed finale. This causes the curious flourishes and outlandish visuals to often feel like filler content designed to pad out the length rather than anything of actual significance. Particularly inspired filler, but filler nonetheless. If you're like me and check out Cage's work just to see whatever kind of ridiculous crap he's getting up to next, you'll get a sense of satisfaction out of knowing you watched what may very well be the weirdest release of his career thus far. It's weirdness without substance however so its staying power compared to his modern successes such as Color Out of Space is limited. Perhaps even being one of the more forgettable entries in his catalog overall, outside of the one or two instances where it delivers some of the most memorable Cage-isms to date. 6.6/10
A wonderful allegory for the dangers our current technological age can possess to the strange and discarded. The parents of a young, lonely autistic boy have their lives turned upside down when a mysterious creature living in the world behind the screens of our tablets and cellphones (acting as an obvious metaphor for pedophiles) begins to pursue their son with the intentions of making him its "friend." Something that only begins to appeal to the child because he doesn't have any. The idea of most of the frights being viewed through the lens of an iPad camera is admittedly a pretty goofy one. Yet, the ways Come Play makes creative use of our always online, app-centric culture ensures that its jolts and jostles are consistently exciting, if not terribly scary. Then there's the monster itself to consider, which is freakishly designed in appearance and shows hints of some particularly compelling attributes that could be expanded upon in a sequel. The aspect I think most viewers will potentially take the biggest issue with will be in the film's representation of someone with ASD. It is a quality of the character that seems to have only been included to make the kid difficult to deal with. However, even if it was meant for nothing more than to service the plot by making certain interactions more believable it is at least effective in that regard. A big problem this genre typically runs into in movie form is that the actions of those onscreen can often come off as nonsensical to the audience even if the writer(s) had a good reason for them that was simply poorly communicated. Here though the presence of this condition allows for a constant sense of context or reasoning behind certain behaviors that would otherwise be questionable. So there's never a moment where you're forced to engage your suspension of disbelief. While far from the nightmare fuel I was hoping for, there were enough thrills and a surprisingly emotional ending to make this the type of fun, feel-good horror I can appreciate regardless. It's centered around an original, interesting, and well executed concept that allow it to stand out from the crowd and give it a unique way to portray its themes. Overall creating a solid case for why this is worthy of being one of your next watches.
Featuring three of the biggest stars currently working and a budget of $200 million, Netflix's latest attempt at bringing a Hollywood caliber blockbuster straight to your living room is their best yet, easily blowing prior efforts like Bright and 6 Underground out of the water. That's because it follows a more traditional action-comedy formula. Offering big heists and some Indiana Jones style globetrotting for ancient artifacts with plenty of quips along the way. It still has the same all over the place writing found in those aforementioned titles. The story flows smoothly from one exciting set piece to the next, but the characters are borderline schizophrenic with their ever-shifting allegiances and plans. This has more twists and backstabbings than a Mission Impossible flick. Plus, whoever wrote the script has some serious daddy issues. That all means very little however in the face of how funny and action-packed it is. Ryan Reynolds showcases his typical irreverent, sarcastic wit delivering an inexhaustible supply of off-the-wall lines, and Dwayne Johnson as the straight man proves to be the perfect foil while sporting that always indescribable presence that says "you must watch me." The adrenaline-fueled escapades they get up to are exhilarating with parkour chases, helicopter shootouts, and frantic prison escapes. A small touch I really appreciated was that given how our leads are technically the bad guys a lot of attention to detail was given so that we never see an innocent correctional officer or any other member of law enforcement found in the various countries visited get gunned down in one of the multiple firefights. In fact, the only thing I was bothered by was the ending. Not only does the final surprise development serve to cheapen the begrudging buddy aspect of the film, but it seems to have been included solely as a means of ensuring that each of three headlining names can return for a sequel, when to be perfectly honest the main duo are all that need to. Particularly since Gal Gadot's villain receives no development, largely serving as simple eye candy and a recognizable talent to bring in the viewers. Still, this is hilarious and thrilling. If you enjoyed the chemistry shared between "The Rock" and Reynolds during their brief time together in Hobbs & Shaw know you finally have a full movie of it. It feels like the kind of cinematic event everybody would rush to see in the days before Disney basically had a freaking monopoly on everything you can see in theaters and the MCU became the model for having any hope of achieving box-office success in the modern age.
While I haven't had the chance to really dive too deep into the Shudder library yet, even with the titles I haven't liked their lineup of exclusives has proven noteworthy thus far, with long lost Romero works, a healthy amount of foreign horror, and a pair of deranged Nicolas Cage led nightmares among so much else. The streaming service's first shark flick though is about as generic as you can get, featuring the same level of prestige found in your average Syfy original. Something that can be seen in the poor quality of its CGI predators. It makes use of an oceanic survival scenario similar to the likes of The Shallows or 47 Meters Down and places an emphasis on its characters in an effort to ape the big hits. The setup never introduces any dangers beyond just watching a group be hunted while adrift on their raft at sea however, and although attractive the cast is stuck portraying individuals who are little more than bland, uninteresting stereotypes. All of which makes the time spent with them in-between the next sight of a knifing dorsal fin kind of a bore. The man-eating action itself is decent, but admittedly that's a pretty hard thing to mess up. There's a reason why we've seen an endless amount of movies based on these creatures come out since the release of Jaws after all. My favorite parts are the shots below the water's surface of people's legs kicking in dark as they swim due to their unexpected tension. They really missed the opportunity to scare the crap out of viewers by having a shadowy outline appear onscreen during those moments. The highlights for most people will take place in the final act where the survivors are forced to confront their aquatic foes face to razor-toothed face. Still, nothing here is going to blow you away. It's thrills are competent enough to make for a passable watch, with the biggest problem outside of the weak writing being how cheap and ugly the sharks look. Those flaws are ultimately what make this feel like a made-for-TV or straight-to-DVD production in spite of its efforts to be a little more respectable than the typical B-movie alternative. As a result, I can't truly recommend this as the film is a tepid time passer even at its best, but if you've exhausted all the better options out there it isn't the worst way to get your fix of blood and gills. Just don't expect anything terribly remarkable, particularly compared to the rest of the stuff that is available with your subscription. 6.5/10
Makes creative use of its meta film-within-a-film premise. It starts off on an amusing enough note as the crew of a low-budget production are attacked by the very same monsters found in their script and are thrust into danger by their unhinged director. It's not bad, but the zombie action is kind of weak and there are a lot of odd moments that don't make sense until much later on in the running-time. So it's not until the second portion when the curtain is pulled back on a huge unexpected twist and it completely changes its entire game (while still remaining true to the mise en abyme concept), essentially giving us two movies in one, that I began to understand why this has received so much praise. As weird as it feels to say, things are better off without the undead. After One Cut goes in a wholly different direction we get a much funnier tale that can be surprisingly heartwarming. What we just saw beforehand is not simply abandoned however. Rather, it's built on, enriched, and made deeper. A lot of its more questionable aspects you will have noticed are explained, adding a lot of value to a rewatch of that first segment. In the end there aren't two disparate halves here, but rather a pair of distinctive, yet similar pieces that need each other to work. Enjoyable as it all may be though, most of the hype is coming from its novelty more so than the actual content which is merely solid. There are some good jokes, but it's never a laugh riot and while I do think it's sweet with a good heart I wasn't invested in the characters. At the same time, I haven't seen anything that's executed its ideas quite like this has and in an era where originality is harder than it should be to come by that makes the experience quite refreshing, so I understand why there are so many overstatements about its quality. Particularly given its charming attitude. This is probably the cutest thing on Shudder after all.
An aversion referenced throughout Caveat is claustrophobia. It's woven into the very DNA of the film itself as due to a low-budget this largely takes place in a single rundown location comprised of tight hallways and a handful of small bedrooms that will certainly leave the right viewers in need of a little free-roaming space afterwards. For me though, the terror came from a mix of cleithrophobia and a more general fear of the unknown. A problem the horror genre often runs into is that it can feel too plausible for the characters to escape the danger they're in with relative ease or receive outside help, and the threat itself being either the usual ghost, monster, or maniac we've seen enough times over the years to have developed an understanding of. Completely isolated and unable to leave for reasons I won't spoil, here the protagonist, and therefore the audience, are stuck in a shady situation that reeks of a setup with very little (mis)information to go on. An air of ambiguity and deceit hang over the entire scenario because of the immediately dishonest, manipulative personality of our lead's shifty landlord making it clear he's hiding quite a bit about this weird job from the tenant he's convinced to take it. What those withholdings may be however, you have no clue. So when things start getting freaky your mind will race with all the possible causes behind the incomprehensible. Effectively allowing your own imagination to scare you just as much as the unnerving atmosphere and horrific secrets to be uncovered will. The only other movie I've seen that takes this kind of approach is In Fear. Another feature that made my blood run cold as it left me in the dark for my mind to play tricks on me. At least until I began to figure out what was going on, at which point its effectiveness at alarming you decreases significantly. That's where Jeremy Lovering's directorial debut and Damian McCarthy's (Mc Carthy?) differ. When the mysteries start to get revealed in this it doesn't take away from the frightening nature this supremely messed up babysitting gig has. Instead, each new insight led to me getting more emotionally invested in the tale as the true tragedies of it came to light. Plus, not every question receives an answer leaving you with plenty to ponder over and draw your own conclusions on until the ending and even beyond. Nevertheless, despite all this praise I'm heaping on the picture it does have a pretty large flaw. The concept requires its principal figure to agree to a series of questionable stipulations so absurd it nearly defies believability to the extent where it can derail the experience for some before it ever truly begins. It's an issue that could have been explained away had any sort of reason, like a severe financial need, been established to help people understand why this man said yes to all this strangeness when the majority of others would say no, but none ever is. Still, those who can look past that will be treated to one the most terrifying releases since the first Conjuring. Many of the comforts we are unknowingly used to are absent by the way of the unfortunate subject of this nightmare's trapped status, and the means in which it leaves you constantly guessing what the danger actually is until the big revelation. Whether you can buy into its logic or not, viewed strictly for its ability to rob individuals of their composure this in top contention for the title of best content on Shudder. Not least of all because of what was able to be accomplished under such a modest production.
There's a pretty good idea here as 3 From Hell intends to take the Firefly family down to Mexico to see what chaos they can cause south of the border. Unfortunately, due to the position Rob Zombie left them in at the end of The Devil's Rejects he first has to make it believable that they can come back to create more carnage. This forces things into a start so slow it takes up half the running-time as the redneck killer clan must escape incarceration, replace Captain Spaulding who gets written out because of Sid Haig's illness (R.I.P.), and become involved in an extended torture sequence involving a prison warden's loved ones that comes off like a direct retread of the motel segment from the film's aforementioned predecessor. Of course, even when Zombie finally manages to bring the group together and sets them on the run again there is still a rather serious problem: none of the action feels inspired. There's plenty of the director's signature vulgarity and filth, but it's as if he slapped it all onscreen for a paycheck rather than the crudity being the result of having any truly creative vision. I did get a kick out of the more absurd aspects such as the bloody showdown with the satanic luchador gang in the final act, but the majority of this is flat and strained in a way I'm not used to from a filmmaker with a usually potent distinctive style. So much is just watching the villainous protagonists goof off and have a good time in a twisted mimicry of endearing road trip flicks because their creator made the mistake of thinking we actually like them. I suppose that's a reasonable assumption to have about an audience returning for a third outing with these characters, but given their irritating personalities and the appeal other brutal horror franchises have enjoyed, for example Friday the 13th or Saw, I think common-sense would dictate we're here for the grindhouse violence above all else rather than out **** attachment to the monsters leaving bodies in their wake. I certainly didn't want to see them survive the vengeful son of one of their former victims who shows up once they flee the country after all. A quality worth praising is the casting of Richard Brake who evidently impressed so much on the set of 31 he was chosen to fill the hole left behind by the passing of a horror icon, which he does in another notably mesmerizing deranged fashion. The gore is also really impressive in spots. However, while the previous movie simply wasn't for me, this chapter in the chronicles of these psychopaths is a genuine misstep. A tepid mixture of halfhearted savagery and lackadaisical hang around vibes that amount to another significant step back from the standout thrills of House of 1000 Corpses while carrying with it the objectionable hints of having only been created for a payday. Hopefully the musician turned exploitation cinema maestro can get this meat wagon back on track since if this made any real money given his apparent affection for these murderous degenerates it likely won't be the last we see of the trio, and I'd rather not dread their next bloodbath.
Feels more like a work of dark fantasy than true horror as it uses the weeping specter of Latin American folklore not as a means of terrifying the audience or even the family she's haunting, but rather to represent a slowly oncoming natural justice from those beyond the grave whose abusers have remained protected by the very systems that should have seen to their punishment. Similar to what Nia DaCosta attempted to do with the titular villain of her recent Candyman sequel, only nowhere near as convoluted. Centered around the Guatemalan genocide, La Llorona pulls from real life tragedy as a fictionalized version of one of the country's biggest political and military leaders during that civil war escapes the legal ramifications of his "Silent Holocaust" only to become trapped in his mansion alongside some relatives and a few employees by protestors. At which point he begins to be awakened by the sound of a woman crying in the halls at night that no one else ever seems to hear... At no point does the movie make any bones about what is going down. I mean, it's incredibly obvious who the mysterious new maid actually is from the second she appears onscreen. You know that before things end you are going to see the former dictator and general get what he deserves because that's the entire reason this was made. What keeps you invested up until that happens are the other characters as they struggle with internal dilemmas surrounding the subject and you wonder if individuals like his innocent granddaughter will suffer the same fate so that he may experience the same pain countless natives felt when he saw to it that the lives of their children were extinguished. It's an aspect the story plays on beautifully to create tension. It sort of has to because there isn't a single moment where the film is ever scary. María Mercedes Coroy is certainly a creepy presence with her odd behavior and long black hair that calls to mind the unsettling little girls of any J-horror series, but there is yet a noticeable lack of anything to put you on edge and leave you in fearful anticipation of that which could happen next. What makes me able to recommend this in spite of such an absence when I might not have found it possible to do so in other cases is its intentions. Instead of trying to keep you up for days on end, Jayro Bustamante turns an entity meant to terrify into a force that can right the wrongs of this world in a form of wish-fulfillment that targets the powers specifically responsible for the catastrophe as opposed to condemning an entire people. Making it moving and powerful in a manner the less meaningful releases in the genre designed to put butts in seats for huge box office numbers (e.g. the westernized Conjuring spin-off's take on the ghost) can't be. 9.3/10
Nicolas Cage has found himself in a very enviable position at this point in his career where he can star in films like this, Color Out of Space, and Willy's Wonderland that feature premises just wild enough to catch the eye and allow him to give the type of bizarre, unhinged performances he's clearly such a fan of, while still having a chance at garnering some sort of following unlike the string of DTV action flicks he started making around 2014 that caused people to write him off Bruce Willis style there for a minute. Because of that, here we get to witness our National Treasure go on a hallucinogenic, Heavy Metal inspired (right down to the animated segments) warpath of revenge against a drugged-out cult and their biker gang allies who may or may not be demonic that are responsible for the death of the woman he loves. It's legitimately one of the best things he's ever done. What works about Mandy is that creator Panos Cosmatos isn't afraid to just be weird with it. Like the way he drenches everything in neon colors or has the characters engage in lengthy, pointless feeling conversations that make first-half kind of boring at points as it fails to capture the deep arthouse vibe he's trying to harness, before leaning into almost full-blown absurdity in the bloodsoaked second portion that's progressively filled with outlandish imagery that could be representing the protagonist's descent into insanity. So although it runs on the same retribution-driven narrative we've seen covered in everything from John Wick to Deadpool, the unique sense of style and grotesque sights give the movie an identity all its own. We're living in a pretty stellar time where filmmakers have evidently figured out how to make effective use of the atypical attributes of Cage's impassioned performances to deliver standout cinema without ever making fun of the actor. It does acknowledge the amusing nature of his one of kind flip outs, but also causes them to make sense in the context of the story through how they express the inner pain of his role. I'm not going to sit here and tell you this is some meaningful exploration of grief and agony as it really is little more than a trippy gorefest you shouldn't be seeking true depth from. Yet, it carries itself with at least some essence of seriousness that prevents it from turning into the ridiculous farce its lead's most meme-worthy efforts (The Wicker Man, Vampire's Kiss, ect.) have been even at its most wild and eccentric. So if watching the dude from Con Air take on the LSD-fueled religious followers of an insecure narcissist with a homemade battle axe sounds like your idea **** time then give this a watch as it is no joke a highlight of the man's extensive body of work. 8.5/10
As someone who grew up watching Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, if there's one thing I would like to see more of it's medieval fantasy movies and for just $30,000 this looks absolutely incredible. You could argue it gets by a lot on the natural beauty of the Portuguese and Norwegian countrysides where it was shot, but the amount of detail in things like the gore and the protagonist's stunning set of armor show that legitimate effort went into bringing this production to life beyond merely picking pretty locations to point the camera(s) at. Unfortunately, you can tell that the majority of the meager budget went into the visuals as the running-time largely consists of watching Christopher Rygh complete menial tasks around his cottage in-between getting called offscreen to combat monsters in battles we never get to see as they couldn't afford to create any true action sequences. As a result it goes for an atmospheric, emotional mood with a lot of nonverbal storytelling. The problem is in spite of its enticing concept there's not enough plot to carry this approach. All of the significant information is conveyed VERY early on, including the effect this type of lifestyle is having on the character, so a lot of the developmental scenes that would have been important otherwise end up getting repeated at least twice for no real reason, leading to the brief 1h 12m this plays for feeling much longer than it actually is. Jordan Downey (director/editor) and Kevin Stewart (cinematography) have crafted an impressive example of what is possible for the appearance of a picture with limited financial backing. However, the also co-writing and producing duo's ambition exceeded their ability when it came to the size of the material as they tried to stretch into feature-length an amount of content that would have been better suited for a particularly attractive short film to unexciting results. Inadvertently giving starved swords and sorcery fans another flick with an exterior that's far more interesting than what's underneath it.
A feature-length PSA on elderly abuse from the guy who gave us the Night of the Living Dead series. Shot with a dreamlike quality, the film puts a nightmarish spin on what should have been one aging man's otherwise pleasant day out by subjecting him to the horrors of the myriad number of ways society fails those who have gotten on up in the years, all staged against the backdrop of cotton candy and rollercoasters. No matter how surreal the events get given the setting, they can't escape the harsh reality that this what our senior citizens experience every day. An element that allows the movie to still retain a sense of relevance and poignance even after having spent so much time drifting in the void. It's hard to believe that the work of such a prominent director was left sitting fully completed on a shelf for upwards of 40 years. Yet, the story is that the Lutheran church who commissioned George "Godfather of the Dead" Romero to make the project ended up being so horrified by its content they quickly decided against ever showing it to anyone. I question though if they were legitimately concerned about the picture's violence given how tame it is compared to some of its creator's prior releases, such as The Crazies or his widely controversial for the period directorial debut, or were instead more afraid of the potential blowback they could have received given the blunt, matter-of-fact manner it shined light on some uncomfortable truths of the era. Whatever the case, a print of The Amusement Park was discovered far after its attempted burial at a film festival in Italy and has since undergone restoration in 4K before ultimately finding a home on the streaming service Shudder for all (with a subscription) to see. Let me tell you, it's genuinely worth seeking out as it stands as one of the late Romero's greatest. The creative, clever method in which it tackles its subject matter has allowed it to remain fresh feeling and original in a way his efforts with zombies just can't anymore due to how much they've been copied. It also packs the same socially conscious vibes that helped define his career and made works like Monkey Shines so special, while adding in an extra layer of humanitarianism that almost counteracts his usual pessimism. The sole flaw being that given the budget and date of original creation, it can be a bit flat and dull in some spots. All in all though, we're truly lucky that this has finally been made available for we, the masses.
Now here's a film with a particularly foul reputation, standing as one of only a handful of movies to receive a rare 0% on Rotten Tomatoes and being famously disowned by its creator. If you look at Wes Craven's career up to this point things had been going fairly well for the director. This did release on the tails of A Nightmare on Elm Street after all (following having been reportedly shelved for two years), which to this day is still considered one of the greatest works of horror ever conceived and rests comfortably alongside Scream as his greatest contribution to the genre. So you could pretty safely say this was his first real major screwup as there's seemingly no one out there with a kind word for it. So is this the cinematic abomination you've heard? In all honesty, not really. It was just a misguided attempt by Craven to turn his savage cult classic into a teen slasher franchise. You know what was popular in 1984? Friday the 13th. Which around this time had just released its fourth entry. One hardly blame a cash-strapped Craven for trying to copy that formula with the hopes of setting himself up with a series of payday-granting sequels. All he had to do was tone down the more brutal aspects of the original, keep the blood, add some boobage, and come up with a cast of annoying 20-somethings to butcher. A cast that includes a blind girl, the helpful cannibal chick from the first Hills, a poor man's Andy Samberg, and a cartoon stereotype of a black guy alongside a few other characters who are too bland to remember. Robert Houston also returns as "Bobby" to further establish this as a direct continuation, but I guess they couldn't afford to keep him around for the whole thing as he only shows up in the very beginning. Nothing here is really all that bad. It's just that the new abandoned ranch setting lacks the compelling scenery of its predecessor and the violence is no longer creative or symbolizes anything so it feels extremely generic. It's biggest problem from a filmmaking standpoint is how the first-half is bogged down by flashback sequences to lengthy clips from the 1977 flick, which feel unnecessary as they do little to catch-up viewers who haven't seen it and bore the ones who have. It doesn't help either that after receiving a short, very small theatrical run it was quickly pushed out direct-to-video and on subscription television, which can clearly be seen as it looks like a made-for-TV production. If this truly is Craven's worst effort as so many people claim though, then his filmography as a whole is more enjoyable than many other's. Overly demonized, this is more a lackluster and ultimately forgettable stab taken at establishing the type of regularly incoming paychecks that he SHOULD have been getting when Freddy Krueger became a household name, rather than the atrocious dumpster fire it's known as. I'm in no way defending the movie as it's genuinely not worth seeking out unless you're a completionist. I simply think its heinous portrayal over the years has been overblown as it's honestly more mediocre than awful.
While I've never seen it myself, I'm aware that the sequel to the original The Hills Have Eyes, aptly titled "Part 2," has something of a disastrous reputation, with even Wes Craven himself reportedly disowning it. The prolific horror icon had a chance to right that wrong here in this follow-up to the 2006 remake though as he stepped into the writer's chair with his son Jonathan. Unfortunately, what we got only provides further evidence that despite a strong telling and even stronger retelling of that first story this property was never destined to become a long-running franchise. Those hoping this would one-up the sick thrills of its predecessor may take some comfort in knowing that things get even nastier as we follow around a group of obnoxious soldier stereotypes that make the cast of of 2020's Monster Hunter seem charismatic by comparison. All of whom are unlikable, horrendously acted, spout the worst expletive-filled dialog ever put to paper, and make only the dumbest possible decisions in any given scenario. The action peaks VERY early on however in the opening birthing sequence that is so graphic and brutal it puts even the one in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning to shame. Most of what comes after is a lot of generic amputations and impalements that are brought to life by lackluster gore effects. None of it is scary or disturbing. It's just gross, favoring icky porta potty kills and particularly savage **** sequences over anything legitimately clever or unsettling. It's all shock value that's as cheap and ugly as the often straight-to-DVD quality visuals are. It doesn't even get the look right as it ditches the arid desert scenery in the second-half for the mutants' homemade, ramshackle living quarters hidden underground that call to mind Platinum Dunes' 2003 reboot of the Leatherface family chronicles over The Hills Have Eyes. Mutants who, by the way, come off more like rejected X-Men villains than malformed backwater psychopaths this time around. Clearly designed with the intent to kick off a series capable of churning out a seemingly endless array of future installments à la Hellraiser or Children of the Corn, this frightless disaster is as passionless as it is tasteless even with the Cravens' involvement. If this is the direction they were honestly planning on going then horror fans are better off without it. Especially since the prequel comic I read made it clear that sexual assault was going to be a staple. I'm sure it would have had a following among the likes of those who made it possible for The Human Centipede to become a trilogy, but you wouldn't find me in their ranks as I consider this to be truly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. 3.8/10
Wes Craven's 1977 original is a cult classic for good reason. It may have just been a toned-down, southern-fried version of his directorial debut The Last House on the Left, but it was a nasty, brutal film for the time with a creative setting and villains. This remake tops it in every way though, which is remarkable given how few changes were made to the script. The events are largely the exact same ones as before. Only portrayed in a harsher, more sickening manner with better acting and pacing. There's a more action-packed third act, it really hammers home a nuclear testing angle to instill the violence with a political message, and a much improved ending. That's really all that's different. Which, as someone who appreciates the original, but felt it was missing a little extra oomph, wasn't a problem for me personally. This is how you do a remake. It takes a flawed, yet respected movie and irons out a lot of its faults (sans things like the slow beginning and dumb characters), while imbuing the horror with an increased level of savagery and a lesser sense of silliness that it arguably always should have had. This isn't for the squeamish as it's definitely a product of the post-Saw, "torture porn" era of the mid-to-late 2000s where gore and depravity were matching the heights seen during the exploitation cinema craze of the '70s and '80s. If you have the stomach for it however, this is one of the best redneck cannibal nightmares you can find this side of House of 1000 Corpses. 8.7/10
Horror for the whole family! I think the most impressive part of the movie for me is its opening. In a brief scene we are introduced to the young protagonist's struggle with fitting in and making friends entirely through the emotions being displayed by the incredibly talented child actor Winslow Fegley and the story being told in the environment. It stands out to me because it subtly lets the viewers know what's going via their own intuitions, rather than simply spelling it out for them the way any other film with kids in mind would. It also means Nightbooks wastes no time in getting going, as immediately after we see the character thrust into supernatural enslavement to a sadistic witch. What follows is admittedly not always as interesting. While the surprisingly frightening dark fantasy imagery and legitimate life-or-death stakes the middle school aged leads face ultimately kept me engaged until the credits rolled, I'd be lying if I said my attention didn't drift towards my phone during the actual plotting until the next big set piece kicked in. That's because the script is full of clichés which can be seen in its rather generic "stay true to yourself" message or really in the character of Yazmin as a whole. The biggest problem though might be Krysten Ritter. The former Jessica Jones star is having a bit too much fun hamming it up in her villainous role. Her exaggerated performance and the fact that she herself is just so darn sexy prevent her from ever being a menacing presence. A big difference from what we saw from Anne Hathaway a little less than a year prior. Still, while this may not have anything on Robert Zemeckis' remake of The Witches, if you're looking for something to bring the entire house together this Halloween season Nightbooks is one of the better options out there. Largely because of its little flourishes, such as the inclusion of Chvrches' beautiful cover of The Lost Boys theme song "Cry Little Sister" (the vampiric cult classic is acknowledged multiple times throughout), that make it clear director David Yarovesky is just as interested in pandering to the adults in the audience as he is in providing poop and barf gags for the kids watching. 7.5/10
When the true greats of the genre weren't releasing the likes of Halloween or A Nightmare on Elm Street, they were making lesser known and more ridiculous works of horror that have only ever really been picked up by hardcore enthusiasts. Despite being nowhere near as iconic or well-received as their best efforts, these films were still made with a great deal of creativity and often with same level of passion. I'm talking about titles such as Deadly Blessing or Ghosts of Mars. That seems to be the style of movie James Wan was going for here. It's evident that the Insidious director made this one just to have some fun and is clearly having an absolute blast with his crazy premise, wild camera angles, playful soundtrack (which occasionally calls to mind Saw), and ludicrous gory action. The results are one of the most insane things I've ever seen and it is AWESOME! Which you wouldn't guess right away due to what a slow start it gets off to. Malignant is actually kind of boring at first and had trouble maintaining my attention early on. Its characters, setup, and even worse the scares feel cliché and predictable. It doesn't take too long for things to get interesting with its mystery though, and when the reveals start coming it explodes into a delightfully unhinged rollercoaster of madness that left me gawking at the screen in disbelief and ecstasy. Wan's willingness to fully embrace the illogical and maybe even dumb nature of the material means this will never get the same level of respect as his two Conjuring entries. Yet, it will always have a place in the hearts of the real horror devotees, likely showing up on countless lists of underappreciated gems on websites like Bloody Disgusting in the future, and further cements his legacy as the Wes Craven/John Carpenter of this generation.
What a ride! This is the story of a temporal agent who's playing a ridiculously complex game across space and time in order to stop a terrorist attack, all the while raising questions about predetermined fate and inescapable realities. Certain twists and reveals are incredibly obvious, but even when you can clearly tell where things are going next where they'll ultimately end up and what the point of it all will have been when it gets there are another matter entirely. That's what will keep you watching. In fact, the meaning of this has completely eluded me. Is it simply a way of showing off a cool paradox someone came up with? A parable on the ultimate narcissism trip? Maybe it's just about how time travel makes no freaking sense. Whatever the case it gets you thinking in ways I can't elaborate on without spoiling things that need to be seen for yourself. Like how the movie starts off as one thing before turning into something wholly different. There are people who will find this too outlandish, weird, and complex in a convoluted feeling way (largely because of their own lack of understanding). Yet, those who really enjoy when movies push the science aspect of science-fiction and use them to deliver experiences with genuine depth are sure to find this to be a worthwhile viewing. For me, it stands alongside the likes of Ex Machina and Under the Skin as a particularly rich, compelling, and unique entry in the genre that has stuck and will continue to stick with me for quite some time. The only difference being that it comes from a pair of directors nowhere near as respected as Jonathan Glazer or Alex Garland. Showing that even names typically associated with schlock are more than capable of dropping a gem despite their reputation. 8.3/10
Bodied is a wide-reaching satire that "bodies" everyone from the overly P.C. crowd who thinks the best way to avoid being racist is to study, discuss, and classify all the different types of racism, rather than just not being racist, to corny wannabe gangsters. It's primary target though is the kind of people who say awful things while trying to hide behind statements like "it was just a joke." Because, yes, anything is fair game in comedy. However, that doesn't make what you said any less crappy or wrong. The movie even savages its own subject, that being rap battles. It really revels in how absurd the entire scene is as the characters get involved with a bunch of weirdos and become mixed up in a variety of ridiculous scenarios. It makes for a hilarious watch complete with some legitimately exciting lyrical duels. Calum Worthy turns in a really great performance that sees him rising above his Disney star roots (a history cleverly referenced in subtle ways multiple times throughout the film). Honestly, is there's one problem with any of this it's that it may actually try for too much. Bodied goes down so many different avenues for critique that it can be hard to pick out a message from it at all. I actually had to take a day to sit down and sift through everything in my head before I could write this review. I also noticed that many get too hung up on the language it uses, as opposed to what it is using those harsh words to communicate. It's hard to really fault it for complexity though. This is a deep and wildly entertaining experience that deals with potentially problematic themes in an intelligent and creative manner. Far beyond what I would have expected from a YouTube original.
Hard to believe this came from the same guy who brought us The Overnight and Creep 1 and 2. It just feels so flat and pedestrian. Of course, unlike those three aforementioned films this is the first time Patrick Brice is working with someone else's script. So perhaps that's why this isn't up to his usual level of quality. It is fitfully amusing. There are actually some really good lines here and there. The problem is that it's often trying way too hard to actively be funny. Something that can be seen in things like the poorly conceived, hallucination induced animated sequence that's ugly to look at and comes off as a desperate, unnecessary attempt to inject some life into the proceedings. It also doesn't go as far with the premise as it could have. Trapping a bunch of corporate jerks underground and forcing them to survive could have led to a lot of messed up scenarios, but outside of a singular act of cannibalism things are shockingly tame throughout. They don't even squabble all that much. Mostly saving the bickering for their manipulative, self-absorbed boss rather than turning on each other. This is good for the occasional laugh. You get some particularly humorous performances from Calum Worthy and Karan Soni. The latter of whom finally gets something larger than a supporting role, which is great because he really is a special talent on the scene right now. Shame it didn't happen in a better film. Here's hoping Brice can get back on track with Creep 3 and his upcoming Netflix exclusive. His prior work has been good enough for me to give him another chance. I would just hate for this to mark the beginning of some kind of decline. 6.5/10
Remember in the '80s when slasher flicks were a dime a dozen? How they all had little themes like summer camp or some random holiday? Well meet Hell Fest. A throwback to the stab-happy movies of that era that managed to find a setting largely untouched in the genre: haunted funhouses. Taking place in a seasonal Halloween amusement park a masked killer takes advantage of the fact that every employee is in costume and actively trying to scare guests to stalk and murder a group of college students undetected. A group who, while a bit annoying at first due to how unnecessarily vulgar they are, quickly begin to grow on you due to their love of all things horror. This definitely has some decent thrills. There are a couple of really good kills, one of which is very Fulci-esque, and a few genuinely tense moments near the end. The real star of the show though is the environment. The creative mazes and attractions the characters' visit make the traveling carnival look like something you'd actually want to visit were it not for the demented murderer lurking about. Plus, it's hard to not get excited by a cameo from the Candyman himself, Tony Todd. It drops the ball in a pretty big way with its villain however. Outside of a neat reveal in the final scene there's nothing interesting about him. His most defining attributes are that he slowly plods forward in a clear nod to the likes of Jason Voorhees and Michael Meyers, a tear in his right shoe, and that he hums Pop Goes the Weasel. None of which make him very memorable or scary. It's this kind of thing the hold this back from ever attaining true classic status or turning into its own franchise with sequels. Still, even relying on visuals and location alone like it is, Hell Fest is ripe for a cult following. It got off on a bit of a wrong foot with me at first as its cast of young actors and actresses seemed prime to grate on the nerves. Yet, their enthusiasm proved infectious and it wasn't long before I was having just as much fun as they seemed to be having onscreen. The entire setup makes it a perfect October watch and it even capitalizes on the premise in some clever, effective ways. All of which is enough for me to give it a pass and a recommendation. 7.3/10
For 29 years Candyman fans have been waiting for the 1992 classic to get the sequel it deserves. It looked that was finally about to happen after all these years thanks to Nia DaCosta and, to a lesser extent, Jordan Peele. The social commentary that was largely absent in Farewell to the Flesh and Day of the Dead would be returning to add some much needed depth back into the mix without the white influence that, while well-meaning back then, would not have been met so warmly today, and maybe with the same kind of creative chills that made Get Out and Us so exciting. Unfortunately the wait goes on as despite the appearance of some incredible ideas this 2021 continuation fall short of its own lofty ambitions by backing itself into a self-defeating corner. The issue is that it's actively trying to be a sequel. It's clear that DaCosta and crew want to transform the titular character from the ghost of one African-American's suffering into an instrument of black vengeance. He's no longer just Daniel Robitaille. He's Eric Garner. He's Tamir Rice. He's George Floyd. At least until he's not anymore and becomes Daniel Robitaille again in an ending that contradicts everything the film had spent so long trying to set up and completely wastes Tony Todd anyways. This problem arises because in an effort to correct the perspective of its predecessor that came from it being a product of its time, they incorrectly wrote themselves into a position where he basically HAD to come back. A large portion of the running-time is dedicated to establishing connections and ties to the original, so we're constantly reminded of who the Candyman was there and eagerly await his return. Something that makes the appearance of this "Sherman" dude in his place rather irritating. It makes sense from a thematic standpoint, but man is it unfilling. Worse is that they could have gotten away with it had they not kept referencing what Bernard Rose had created prior. They made it so the past hangs over everything like an oppressive cloud that kills any enthusiasm for what's actually here when they should have gone the full reboot route and given their own ideas room to breathe. Speaking of room to breathe, this is one of those rare cases where a longer runtime would have been a good thing. A core component of the plot is the main character's gradual physical and mental descent into becoming someone (or something) in a way he doesn't seem fully aware of. Only it's not so gradual at all. He just seems to go insane from the moment he says the summoning words into a reflective surface, which feels unnatural and rushed. It's a cool body horror element that also never really comes into fruition. In fact, the horror side as a whole fails to deliver. DaCosta relies on cheap gore rather than truly effective frights to get the job done, kind of missing the point when it comes to what made the first Candyman scary. Most of the time though it's too caught up in its own dull plotting, unresolved threads, and hollow characters making the whole thing a bit of a bore. All of which might have been acceptable had there have been a satisfying payoff, but for the aforementioned reasons it shoots itself in the foot preventing that from being a possibility. While this may be a movie with a lot of ideas that don't come together, it only crumbles under the weight of one. It should have unshackled itself from the past entirely. Never mentioned Helen Lyle or brought back Todd for the few brief seconds he's in here. As by placing itself in the shadow of that earlier work, it has put certain expectations on itself that it feels the need to fulfill just as much as the audience needs to see them be fulfilled. This is not only a shame, but frustrating as well as it keeps the film's own bold and compelling reinvention of the property from ever taking hold when you can totally see how it could have succeeded if they hadn't of attempted the fruitless balancing act of fidelity and emendation. If there's one thing its flawed conclusion is good for though it's that it leaves the door still open for the possibility of this franchise not just being a one hit wonder at some point in the future, how ever delusional that hope may be. As of right now though, many will be left wanting for a while longer yet. This 2021 version, promising though it was and brilliant in brief instances, is (accidentally) counterproductive in the worst way. 4.9/10
Gosh, this is depraved. I've seen a few movies from back in the day that received the infamous "video nasty" label such as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, but this is the first one where I've understood why people got all up in arms over it. Even now almost a full 50 years later it could still be classified as morally offensive cinema to some. The story is about two teenage girls who in the folly of youth decide to attend a concert on the bad side of town and attempt to score some weed from a shady guy they meet along the way. This leads to them getting abducted by a group of prison escapees who proceed to torture and **** them on their way to the Canadian border. By some strange twist of fate though they end breaking down in front of the house of one of the girl's parents. What follows is some good ol' fashioned bloody revenge. This is an incredibly bleak experience. I was only able to make it all the way through to the end credits because it never gets too explicit in its depictions of sexual assault, largely cutting away from the act whenever it occurs. Still, I saw more than I wanted to on that front, and there are plenty of other forms of violence being graphically portrayed right before our eyes. As a result this is definitely not for everyone. It requires an iron constitution and a strong stomach. So what makes this kind of work despite its harshness and bizarre tonal shifts that come from watching two bumbling cops fumble their way through their investigation into the girls' disappearance? Wes Craven. He showed a remarkable ability to do a lot with very limited resources in his directorial debut. The grainy, low-budget visuals give things an appropriately grimy look and feel. You can almost smell the dirt, sweat, tears, and blood. Another individual deserving of praise in all this however is David Hess as the film's big baddie. Not only is he a physically imposing presence, but displays a knack for mental domination as well as we witness him verbally bully someone into shooting themself in the head. It could have been a career-making performance had the movie itself not been so repulsive. Oh, and the soundtrack? Literally perfect. While I'm sure there are plenty of more severe options out there, this is the sickest, meanest exploitation flick I've seen thus far. I'm not even certain I could really call it "enjoyable" at all. Yet, if you're determined to watch something vile and nasty it may as well have come from one of the most influential horror directors there has been or ever will be. At least that way you can see the similarities it has to his other works, such as the nearly identical in structure The Hills Have Eyes.
Didn't quite work for me. Which is disappointing given what a huge fan I am of Napoleon Dynamite. Like that other Jared Hess comedy, most of the humor comes from watching characters in a slightly cartoonish world do and say ridiculous things in a deadpan manner. Only because this is a Nickelodeon production there are also fart jokes. That's kind of the problem. This is primarily aimed at children so the whole thing is very juvenile. Too juvenile even. There are some themes you can pick out involving being unhappy with your place in life specifically in regards to class and some shots taken at organized religion, but it will all go over the kids' heads while adults will be too annoyed by all the slapstick and gross out gags to care. The are certainly some funny moments, but not enough to keep this from missing the mark with the older members of the family.
This isn't a perfect movie by any means. There are aspects of the plot that never get explained or just flat out don't make any sense. Like why exactly a black dude who had his hand cut off, a hook shoved into the stump, and was covered in honey to be stung to death by bees for impregnating a white woman is associated with candy. Wouldn't something like Hookman or Hiveman have been more fitting? Go along for the ride though and you'll be treated to a stomach churning nightmare with a sharp socio-political edge. The gore in this is phenomenal. Bernard Rose filled the picture with gnarly deaths and bloody sights galore that feel distinctly Clive Barker despite the author himself not being in the director's seat. Maybe even moreso than Nightbreed which he actually DID direct. So if you liked Hellraiser there's a good chance you'll enjoy this too. Kudos to them as well for managing to make the titular villain scary when unobscured in the broad daylight. As we've learned from the likes of Freddy Krueger, oftentimes seeing the monster in full view severely robs then of their fear factor. Not the case here. Now if only they had made it a little easier to understand what he's saying at times... A lot of effort went into crafting a legitimate narrative that goes beyond merely watching people get murdered and tackles socially conscious themes such as racial inequality. As I said at the start of this review, there are holes and illogical aspects, but it's almost easy to overlook them entirely in the face of how good it is at pulling you into the mystery, bloodshed, and terror. It takes a while for Candyman to show up, but the time without him is well spent as we watch the protagonist investigate urban legends which effectively builds the tension for his inevitable arrival. It also gives us a chance to really take in the rundown inner-city environments which along with the soundtrack that at points sounds like carnival music being played on a pipe organ makes for a very distinctive atmosphere. It would be remiss of me to not mention the acting. Normally in older horror flicks like this you get at least one or two lackluster to bad performances. Here though the cast is uniformly fantastic. The standout being Virginia Madsen in the lead role. She has to do most of the heavy lifting as her character's life is upended by the appearance of her supernatural foe. A task she proves more than up for as she carries us through the whole range of emotions allowing us to really grow attached to her character. This is a top-notch horror movie that pulls from real world issues to give its exquisite brutality some extra depth. As with Pinhead before, I got some strong A Nightmare on Elm Street vibes. Whether it's the dreamlike qualities of the encounters with Candyman or the memorable personality and backstory that bring the ghoulish killer to nonlife, the influence of Wes Craven's classic can be found throughout. Barker and Rose did their own original thing with the similar elements however, and that's what ultimately left me loving the film in spite of its bumps. 9.3/10
I feel like a bunch of random crap happens in this movie for no reason. It's cool that they got a lot of the original cast to come back and that this sequel serves as a direct continuation of the first movie. This initially shows promise, but it isn't long before you realize that the movie is more concerned with visuals over telling a cohesive story. Which is odd because they got Clive Barker to return as the writer. It's cool how it lets us learn more about the Cenobites even if the reveals ultimately make them much less creepy and interesting. The other stuff it tries to do to establish some kind of lore goes by unexplained and just makes no sense. That's really the problem with the movie as a whole. It's like everyone involved just threw a bunch of stuff at the screen to see what would stick, regardless of whether or not it actually was a good idea or not. There's a lot of unintentional goofiness as a result. It all looks good (for the time) at least. There are a few interesting moments that reminded my why I liked the first movie, which was mostly due to how it felt like a cool mash-up of A Nightmare on Elm Street and Saw, but overall I think Hellraiser II is pretty bad. The only reason I would consider watching another one of these would just be to see what kind of convoluted plot device was used to squeeze another 8 movies out of this series, and I can probably just Google that as opposed to actually watching them.
As much fun as 2017's Jigsaw was, it being one of the better entries in the series overall, there were some clear signs that these movies were in need of a shakeup moving forward. Keeping John Kramer's story going for so long after his death like that was just getting convoluted and more than a little ridiculous, while also making it nearly impossible for newcomers to jump in. That's part of what got me so excited for Spiral. A big portion of the pre-release marketing was centered around how this was meant to take the franchise in a new direction, while still remaining true to its roots. Something I think it succeeds at marvelously. This is no reboot. Rather, it's the next chapter in the Saw universe. By going the copycat killer route the film is able to acknowledge and be connected to the original storyline in order to ensure there's a sense of continuity for longtime fans, while cleverly giving itself the freedom to do its own standalone thing and put some unique spins on familiar elements in the process to potentially bring in some new ones. Things play out much more like a crime-thriller this time out as we watch an honest cop try to uncover who is killing the corrupt police officers in his precinct (a plot device that feels very topical these days). The pace may be a bit slower than that of its predecessors in the first half, but the mystery is compelling and Chris Rock's surprisingly effective attempt playing against type makes even the most plodding moments at least moderately engaging. I was a bit worried about the comedian's acting ability going into this, and while some aspects of his performance are suspect I feel feel he did a fine job with his sarcastic wit going a long way towards making the protagonist likable for more than just his sympathetic backstory. The signature traps are smaller-scaled than any of the ones we've seen from Saw II and up, but they are memorable in their simplicity. The deaths themselves are also noticeably less gory. The thrills and chills you would expect are still in place. The horror is just handled in a way that allows more of the tension to come from the actual nature of the situation, as opposed to only the sight of blood and metal. All of which cause Spiral to hearken back to the very first title that started it all, which you can catch it giving more than a few affectionate nods to. To help pay for some of the bigger names in the cast, including a criminally underutilized Samuel L. Jackson, the visuals have taken something of a hit. These films have always been rather low-budget, but this is easily the cheapest looking of the bunch. The effects for the guts and mutilation are fine, but things like the dollar store quality fake facial hair really stick out like a sore thumb. I get part of the reason Lions Gate has no problem keeping this property going is because it costs them little to make and has always brought in massive returns, but if they're going to start hiring more recognizable talent like this maybe they should put some more money into them as well. Can you imagine Saw with the financial backing of a modern day blockbuster? Outside of that there's nothing I could really complain about as Spiral accomplishes everything it set out to do. It's just enough of a reinvention to be the fresh start the franchise needed, without betraying what made it so popular in the first place. I hope it gets some sequels because this got me excited to "play a game" again in a way a more direct continuation or full-on, slate-wiping reboot wouldn't have.
"Teenagers scare the living **** out of me
They could care less as long as someone'll bleed"
-My Chemical Romance A depiction of the violent nature of youth and a satire of the criminal justice system. Due to a mix of immaturity, a lack of real-world experience, and being a mess of hormones teens tend to lack empathy and often act on their cruelest instincts or sexual impulses without any remorse. That's what gets portrayed here as we follow a high school aged gang leader as he and his fellow "Droogs" go around assaulting, ****, and commiting various other crimes against anyone they see fit simply because they can and it's fun for them. The film does an excellent job of capturing all the qualities of a teenage sociopath in its narrator/protagonist "Alex." He's arrogant, manipulative, has no sense of guilt, spouts off borderline unintelligible jargon just like today's buzzword obsessed culture does, and when he finally receives some comeuppance from those he had harmed in the past he even has the audacity to play the victim. In an atypical move he's an intentionally unlikable, villainous, and downright evil focal character making for a unique viewing experience. All of this is brought to life by a fantastic Malcolm McDowell performance. "He's enterprising, aggressive, outgoing, young, bold, vicious. He'll do." This naturally makes the moral of the story pretty murky. I mean, it's not like you can root for or sympathize with such a vile scumbag when he gets caught, jailed, and begins to experience the same kind of brutality he once dished out. Something I really struggled with when reading the book. Luckily, Stanley Kubrick made the message much clearer in this adaptation. This is a scathing critique of prisoner reform programs and the unethical practices going on behind the scenes that don't succeed at getting these kind of violent offenders to turn over a new leaf before releasing them back into society anyways, with some shots taken at governmental corruption along the way. As you might expect given the subject material being covered here, the content in this movie is quite harsh. There are fairly graphic displays of sexual assault and torture. Kubrick managed to make this watchable in spite of all that however by intelligently pulling his punches where he needed to and imbuing the whole thing with a rather cartoonish vibe. A clash between rival gangs, for example, plays out like something you would see in a Tom and Jerry short. Stuff such as the way the world is filled with erotic imagery meant to symbolize the **** fixations of those in their pubescent years gives off a ridiculous and even playful tone that makes some of the more barbarous moments easier to sit through, but never to the point where it fails to acknowledge or represent the severity of them. This a borderline masterpiece and one of those rare examples of a film being better than the book it's based on, if only because it's themes have been made easier to decipher. The sole complaint I have that could be considered anything more than a personal nitpick extends to the **** sequences. These scenes thankfully cut off before reaching I Spit on Your Grave levels of explicit, but you still see restrained women getting forcefully stripped naked. The problem is that these parts feel rather **** as if Kubrick is unnecessarily throwing the exposed breasts and buttocks onscreen for some cheap titillation, which if that is truly the case would be disgusting given the context. Outside of that there's little to take fault with here. A classic for a reason, this is a one of a kind piece of cinema that provides a Looney Tunes gonzo look into the mind of an unrestrained juvenile delinquent with meanings that can still be dissected and discussed for years to come. It's practically mandatory viewing for anyone with a serious appreciation for the medium, regardless of whether you typically shy away from such hardcore offerings or not. 9.2/10
Somehow even hornier than its predecessor. DD takes an almost no holds barred approach when it comes to trying to one-up 3D in vulgarity and nudity. On top of there being fake breasts as far as the eye can see, these are also some of the most crass and crude gags I've ever witnessed. While some things like a farting cow corpse complete with a working butthole were a bit too juvenile for even my tastes, for the most part I was perfectly content to go along for the ride. That's because I don't demand too much from my B-movies, particularly not Piranha. Even back in 1978 all these films were really good for was a little bit of boobage, a lot of blood, and plenty of wacky hijinks along the way. So the lengths this is willing to go to in order to top the rest of the series in at least two of those categories was perfectly fine by me. That's what I came for after all. The only area where it takes a bit of a step back is in the carnage department. There's still plenty of gore and mayhem, but director John Gulager's kills are nowhere near as creative as Alexandre Aja's. Plus, trading the open lake setting of the previous entry for that of a water park makes the feeding frenzy feel much smaller in comparison. The entrail strewing goods are still delivered in a competent enough manner to make for a solid creature feature regardless, it's just clear they didn't really go for broke here like they did everywhere else. While I have yet to see Piranha II: The Spawning, I can't imagine it's any raunchier or more ridiculous than this. With tongue planted firmly in cheek, the franchise's most immature elements have been placed front and center and get taken to wild new heights. There's stuff here so nasty and irreverent you'd think you were watching another Seth Rogen/Evan Goldberg collaboration. It's definitely dumb and gratuitous, but as someone who is really only in attendance for the sleazier aspects anyways I had fun seeing things get taken to the next self-aware level. Honestly, in a way it's kind of glorious in its tastelessness and stupidity. 6.9/10
Feels weird to watch a children's movie tailor-made to scare the crap out of them. Actually, upon reflection I'm amazed at how many horror flicks were designed with kids in mind. From Gremlins to Coraline and pretty much everything from Tim Burton, apparently watching something with the potential to give you nightmares is fun regardless of your age. And let me tell you parents, you're definitely risking your son and/or daughter's sleeping pattern with this one. The titular witches are terrifying in their disgusting, monstrous true forms. Not even Anne Hathaway's figure flattering dress and ridiculous, yet very committed performance can make her any less unsettling to look at when she loses the wig and gloves. Personally, I don't think I would have been able to handle this growing up. In order to keep things from getting too frightening for the target audience, the film balances the more hair-raising stuff with plenty of silly humor. There's a whimsical, escapist tone running throughout even during the darker moments that keeps things from ever getting too serious or intense and crossing over into the realm of adult-oriented entertainment. Perhaps too much so during the second half. The movie starts off with the perfect amount of fantasy and fairytale vibes. There's a strong emotional component that allows you to sympathize with and get invested in the young protagonist and his grandmother, with hints of race-related social commentary going on in the background. As soon as the first person gets turned into a mouse though it all starts to get steadily more over-the-top before devolving into a full-blown farce by the end. Yet, its worse flaw is Chris Rock's narration. His unbelievable old southern man accent only served to make me question how I could have possibly failed to notice he can't act before now. Outside of that there's not much too complain about. So if you've ever wanted to help ensure your future cinephile(s) enter adulthood with a healthy appreciation for the horror genre this will make for a nice building block. You may want to start with something tamer like 2015's Goosebumps, but regardless of when you get around to showing this to them I'm sure you'll find it to be petrifying fun for the whole family. 8.3/10
Dirty Grandpa, but cute. For the most part this family-friendly slapstick comedy meanders around without much of a real plot as grandfather and son go back and forth in a "war" of over-the-top pranks while swapping some touching moments with the rest of the house along the way. Outside of a rather tasteless gag at a funeral that involves the body of the deceased getting manhandled, it's about as inoffensive as you can get. Naturally, the older you are the less amusing all of this will be, but it's still worth putting on for the kids. Not only will it likely keep them in a near-constant fit of laughter, but also comes with a nice anti-war message on top of preaching the values of getting along with your elders. Yes, it's about as deep and original as an inflatable children's pool. That doesn't really matter too much though when all it's trying to be is a bit of harmless entertainment for the youngsters, which is something I can always get behind.
Inferno -the second entry in Argento's Three Mothers trilogy- does feel like a direct continuation of Suspiria in terms of style and atmosphere. Dario once again bathes each scene in beautiful shades of red and other colors while providing a soundtrack from Keith Emerson that really makes certain moments standout, despite not being as prominent or memorable as Goblin's overall. While it nails the tone, the movie isn't able to recapture that same magic as the writing is much weaker. Inferno is often criticized for not making any sense. Personally, I had no trouble following what was going on, but was very aware of the various plot holes and random or downright nonsensical events that really would have benefited from some form of explanation. For instance, if the mysterious cult of witch followers didn't want people to read the book about the three mothers then why did they leave a copy of it in the local library just above their alchemy lab? As far as the more random stuff goes, there's a scene early on in the movie where the protagonist has a bizarre encounter with a girl who is clearly out of place in his music class. It's implied that she's the main witch in the movie, but she only shows up once after that for like a split second and isn't seen again. Argento later revealed that this is actually the third sister and antagonist of his much later film The Mother of Tears, but how on earth were we supposed to figure that out? She shows up like once in a scene so far detatched from the action at hand it's easy to dismiss her as a bit of unimportant weirdness. Which I suppose is all her inclusion really is anyways. There's also the part where the antique shop owner tries to drown a bag of cats only to end up murdered by a random hotdog vender. His demise isn't even related to the "Mother of Darkness." Why wasn't the character killed off in a way that tied into the main story rather than some odd side excursion? It's not even like he was some unimportant supporting character. He had relevancy in the main thread. One other thing that kind of bugged me is that it was implied that hotel staff worked for witch in the same manner the faculty of the dance academy did in Suspiria, but it's never fleshed out. They even add another plot hole to the mix by killing everyone looking into the three mothers other than the protagonist. They even go out of their way to save him. That whole "heart medicine" scene was weird. Also what was up with Varelli? Writing woes aside, there's a lot I like about this movie. It's a bizarre descent into the macabre to be sure, but its eccentric flourishes and oddball characters are actually quite charming. It's like the intention was to remake Suspiria with a higher body count, only the people involved sort of forgot about the script somewhere along the way. The frequent kills are quite gruesome even with the cheap ketchup blood. I feel like a really good job was done establishing this middle chapter (and Suspiria by extension) as part of a shared, ongoing story. Probably one of the few things other than the visuals that was handled with real elegance. As much as I've crapped on the script, I will say that it very natural for the protagonist to never fully grasp what's happening. It makes sense for him to walk into the final confrontation almost completely clueless as to what's going on given how he never had access to the full puzzle or witnessed any of the murders occurring around him. A nice touch that proves even the writing isn't all bad. 8.1/10
Following all the rumors that all the footage for Zack Snyder's nearly completed Justice League still existed after Whedon assumed control, changed the tone, and added in his own new material a movement similar to the one that got everyone's favorite anthropomorphic hedgehog redesigned for Sonic the Hedgehog began and WB actually let Snyder release his original vision in all its uncut 4-hour glory. Spending a lot of money on a non-canon piece of fanservice that still leaves their ultimate plans for the DCEU up in the air. The results are an improvement to be sure, but this isn't likely to be a vindication for anyone other than Snyder himself and the particularly delusional members of the fanbase who are still trying to convince everyone that the 31-minutes of footage added in the "Ultimate Edition" of Batman v Superman somehow magically fixes everything wrong with that film. That's because it reveals some uncomfortable truths about just how inherently flawed Justice League was to begin with. Make no mistake, this isn't a super long director's cut. It's an entirely different super long movie. A lot of the scenes and of course the story are the same, but are handled in distinctive ways. Things like the moodier score and Snyder's trademark visual style give scenes and moments a darker tone. Such as how the villains look like they were pulled straight off of the cover art for a metal album. The narrative has also been greatly expanded allowing every little idea room to breathe and be fully fleshed out. We can now see exactly where exactly Snyder was intending to go with these heroes, which unfortunately comes with the tradeoff of also having clearer knowledge of the mistakes he made trying to get them there as quickly as possible. Rather than acting as a film that works on its own while hinting at the bigger threat planned for later on down the road the way the first Avengers did for Thanos, this is essentially an overly long trailer for what might have been a pretty sweet adaptation of the Injustice video game. Nowhere is that more evident than with Steppenwolf. Who, yes, is portrayed more menacingly here, but is still uninteresting on his own and only serves to constantly remind viewers that Snyder had planned to bring Darkseid to the table at some point, likely in the very next sequel. It makes you wonder why Snyder didn't just go ahead and make that movie instead. It's not like he hadn't already cut necessary corners to get this far anyways. Which is why Flash and Cyborg get introduced and established here rather than in their own solo origin flicks; something that disrupts the flow of the story. Speaking of those two, they really exemplify how the whole team dynamic is handled a little better here as they both play a more integral role in saving the day. So now only Batman, Aquaman, and Wonder Woman are useless. Something that makes the special theme music that plays every time the Amazonian so much as looks in a different direction during a fight seem really silly after a while given how little she's actually able to do against Steppenwolf. They all still come off as inconsequential when compared to Superman though who, after hours of his peers getting slapped around, defeats the villain in a hilariously anticlimatic and one-sided beatdown that makes it hard to take the other members of the League seriously going forward because of how easily outshined they were. I think it's time we stop demonizing Whedon for his version. Yeah, his changes and additions were bad, but it's clear now that what he had to work with wasn't all that great in the first place. Most of the flaws found in his take are still present here, only marginally more tolerable. Even now without any sort of discernable destination for it to go the DCEU is probably better off without Snyder as at least WB has the potential to salvage things and with the necessary groundwork he was either uninterested or unwilling to lay. Because while his Justice League is a better movie, it's still not a good movie. Oh, and Jared Leto's Joker is still the worst thing ever.
