slaterman2

Was getting worried with how dark and serious it started, thinking that it would disappoint by not being able to find a consistent tone once we get to the more over-the-top stuff in all the trailers. But no, it all mostly came together as a Tarantino version of a silly gore comedy. Though it probably should have set the sillier tone a little earlier. But when things get going, it's a lot of fun. The "everyone's immortal" aspect made the violence more fun. Although, for the part where they were in the sex den, the movie could have had a little more fun with the setting. Also, just because your movie takes influence from Tarantino doesn't mean you need a feet-licking shot.

Because if there's anything that's comparable to an infamous shockumentary that tricked so many people into thinking its kills were real, it's a really stupid horror movie that isn't even shocking enough to get into unrated territory. Cool killer though.

It’s a parody of shows like Downton Abbey. I have not seen a single episode of that show, but then again, how many Airplane fans know a single thing about the Airport movie it’s apparently based on? The best parodies have something for non-fans as well, and this is one of those movies. I still had a great time with this. The Airplane comparison is actually pretty accurate, because this movie is a student of the Zucker Brothers school of comedy. It’s a constant string of silly humor. Sight gags and wordplay coming at you one after the other. And it does it pretty well. Maybe occasionally some jokes don’t land, but that doesn’t matter because there’s another one coming in just a few seconds. And I think a lot more jokes hit than missed. With this and the more well-known Naked Gun remake, this style of humor is coming back. Let’s hope it stays for a while. Scary Movie 6 is coming soon too. Let’s hope that helps bring the genre back. There isn’t really a whole lot more to say about this one, except that it’s really good at what it sets out to do. A hidden gem in the dying genre of stupid theatrical comedy. ****/@jaythemovieguy7751

Zootopia was probably the only recent Disney animated movie that opened itself to potential sequels. And so this is the rare Disney sequel that feel like it has a reason to exist. It tells a story that doesn’t just feel tacked on to the end of the original, and actually builds on the world of Zootopia. I admit the only one of these Disney sequels I saw was Moana 2, and I thought it was still decent. But, in addition to not being nearly as good as the first one... the story was over. And from what I heard, the same thing goes to the other ones. Meanwhile, Zootopia has a rich world and characters that deserve to be expanded on, and this movie takes advantage of that. And in doing so, they’ve actually made something that could come close to the original. It lives up to its sense of humor and sight gags. And it also delivers on its social commentary. The world has changed, and this movie finds new things to address. All while actually delivering a story that’s more interesting than the average family film with a few surprises in there for good measure. The animation is great, and it has a colorful and imaginative look. And it goes a little bigger with its climax, which helps make it a little more exciting than the climax of the first one. This is the apparently rare good Disney sequel. A movie that actually does what people want out of a sequel. More of the characters we like, while expanding on the world with an adventure that’s actually worthy of the first one. It knows what made the original work and makes a genuine effort to actually do it beyond just fan service, and it succeeds. ****/@jaythemovieguy7751

It’s time to return to Pandora. Another completely immersive visually stunning experience. This is actually the first one I saw in IMAX 3D. The other two I just saw in regular 3D. And let me say that how amazing it looks in this format can not possibly be overstated. Right from the opening shot, it drew me right in. Barely even feels like I’m watching a traditional movie. I’m not saying it made me feel like I was there with them, but it feels like… something else entirely. This movie, like all the other ones, will make even the most jaded CGI haters question that dislike for the medium. The story is serviceable. It’s basic I guess, but not really much worse than your average Star Wars film. It is over three hours long, but while the Way of Water dragged a lot in the second act, I didn’t really notice it that much in this one. Despite that length, it fills it with enough story to move at a reasonable pace throughout. And for that, I consider it to be better than the last one. But not quite as good as the original. But that’s a pretty decent position to be in terms of quality. Avatar still remains the pinnacle of CGI spectacle. Anybody who complains about the lack of cultural impact or something can stick to Marvel. Enjoy the lack of enthusiasm for the craft. James Cameron’s passion project continues on. Takes you once again on an adventure in a rich world full of amazing sights. See it in the best format possible. ****/@jaythemovieguy7751

My favorite part was when Chris Pratt casually says that every day he regrets not using police brutality. Seen through a mystery pre-screening via AMC Screen Unseen.

"I Watched (most of) Letterboxd's Most Divisive Films of 2025 and Picked A Side': ****/DwAdf2ula4E You know, usually Peacock runs all their ads before the movie starts, leaving no interruptions for the entire runtime, but for this one they put in regular commercial breaks throughout, as if to punish me for even thinking about watching this one. Didn't like Blood and Honey. I haven’t seen the second one, but I’ve heard it’s better. And if it’s on the level of this movie, it’s a big improvement. Congratulations, with this one, you finally managed to make something mediocre. Maybe even bordering on good. This more grounded method would kinda work for an original movie. Like if it was just a film about a child killer that heavily references Peter Pan. Actually, it would probably be taken more seriously if it was that. And honestly, even now this is actually a great way to do a dark retelling of the tale. Possibly more interesting than whatever they were going to do with Peter actually taking kids to Neverland. And of course easier to do on a “rubber mask for Winnie the Pooh” budget. But it’s a little underwhelming as an addition to a cinematic universe where actual magic exists. That’s obviously not as important, but it is a little disappointing. I’ve complained that Blood and Honey didn’t subvert as much as it should have. But at least it was about Winnie the Pooh actually existing and doing evil things. This one works better in terms of subverting the original story, but also kinda feels less like it’s sticking it to Disney. But as a movie, it is surprisingly not terrible. Yes, it is derivative of other better recent movies, but it is at least decently made. Peter Pan is played Martin Portlock, who is actually a better actor than you’d expect. There is also a bit more of an actual story here, and you can see improvement in a lot of things like acting and, especially, the gore effects. While Blood and Honey looked cheap, the violence here looks brutal. This movie was not rated here in America, but this time, there are actually parts that feel like it could be unrated. The final act feels as sick and twisted as any Terrifier movie. And Portlock may not be quite as terrifying as David Howard Thornton as Art the Clown, but he’s scary enough to add to all the horror. This movie is a surprise with how decent it is. But I can’t really make this a fully positive review simply because of how much it borrows from other movies. But it kinda made me slightly more interested in this universe. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t pay for any of these movies, but I’m convinced that it could at least be slightly interesting to follow in the way that all horror franchises that go on too long are. At this rate they’ll be making masterpieces within a few years. Gotta at least watch Blood and Honey 2. What does the good version of Blood and Honey look like? Anyway, this is surprisingly watchable despite its B-movie background. ****/@jaythemovieguy7751

"I Watched (most of) Letterboxd's Most Divisive Films of 2025 and Picked A Side': ****/DwAdf2ula4E This is a standard… actually probably not a Hallmark movie. Oxford is pretty far from small town America. Maybe… Lifetime? Although this one actually does seem to have a little more production value than those types of movies. I mean they were able to film at the beautiful setting of Oxford. But the writing is pretty much on the same level. Every romance movie cliche is here. Complete with bad dialogue and corny directing. Near the end, there’s a PG-13 sex scene set to a dramatic pop song that makes the whole thing cheesy, and then before the song ends it’s the next morning and we get an emotional scene set to the same song that makes the whole thing cheesy. This is a comedy-drama, emphasis on the drama over the comedy. When the jokes do come, they fall flat. There’s one emotional sequence that ends with the professor telling his class some quote about dying doing what you love or something like that. And then immediately after, the girl’s cliche gay comic relief best friend, breaks in with a really long awkward speech about where he wants to be when he dies. And it’s supposed to be funny or something, because he’s blabbering for so long about nothing. But really it’s just annoying and you just want him to shut the hell up, because this should be a dramatic scene. One thing I’ll give it credit for is that it actually does feel like it captures her experience of studying abroad. This is indeed her Oxford year. She did some fun things, she met some new people, and this version of Oxford feels like a real place. I mean obviously it is a real place, but everything she experienced feels real too by the time we see her ready to leave. Although, at almost two hours it runs a little too long for a movie like this, so it does drag a little. But then again that may or may not have helped to flesh out the world around her like I said. But really this kind of thing isn’t enough to recommend. Unless of course you’re into this kind of corny romance. It’s a melodramatic cliche movie about a love story that’s morally questionable and nobody seems to acknowledge it. Strictly a guilty pleasure movie. ****/@jaythemovieguy7751

Send Help is the newest horror-comedy from Sam Raimi. From writer Damian Shannon and Mark Swift, who also worked on the Baywatch movie, the Friday the 13th remake, and Freddy vs Jason. That pedigree may not sound promising, but it does feel more like a Sam Raimi film than anything. And a great one. It stars Rachel McAddams as an under-appreciated cubicle worker who is stranded on a desert island with her jerk boss, played by Dylan O’Brien. He’s an arrogant frat boy type who constantly looks down on her even in a time like this. She’s a strong capable worker who hates his guts. This is not going to go well for him. And these characters are played very well. Rachel McAddams makes this girl into quite the evil person, but still manages to be likable, mostly by comparison to the character that O’Brien plays so well. This is a situation where the girl is completely in the wrong, but maybe not because the man is just that much of a ****. We see where she’s coming from, at least at the beginning, because of her struggles in her career, and because he’s just that horrible in the beginning. She’s basically likable in the same way Walter White is. But there are a few moments where O’Brien becomes the more sympathetic one, mostly with how far she goes at times. It’s evil sociopath versus evil tech bro. Who will come out on top? And Raimi’s style is perfect for that conflict. He fills this with plenty of dark comedy to go with the menace. And a bit of over-the-top gore other gross fluids as well. It handles the often one-sided power struggle with sadistic glee. This is the feel-bad comedy of the year. And it is a lot of fun. Triangle of Sadness for sickos. The horrific side of Sam Raimi is back in full swing. ****/@jaythemovieguy7751

Verbinski’s first movie since 2016, and it’s an ambitious one. It stars Sam Rockwell as a man who goes into a Norm’s Diner claiming to be from the future, and says he needs to take some people with him to stop an evil AI from taking over the world. And from that point on, we get a bizarre unpredictable action-comedy. Complete with three long segments of backstory for many of its main characters that seem a lot like episodes of Black Mirror. At the beginning it appears that we are in the modern times, but these stories suggest that the dystopian future may already be upon the people in that diner. The first one is easily the weakest and feels like a boomer lecturing about “them kids and they’re blasted phones.” The second one surprisingly deals with the school shooting epidemic, and it is dark comedy with emphasis on the dark. One high point would not be out of place in a Yorgos Lanthimos film. The last one is a sort of slower romance thing, and despite not having as much ridiculous **** happening, it still stays consistently interesting. In fact, the whole movie stays consistently interesting. It’s two hours and fourteen minutes long, but there is enough plot and backstory to justify that length and make it still perfectly paced. And it’s a great meshing of several genres, including comedy, action, a bit of horror, a little drama. Much of the comedy is great. Sam Rockwell gives an energetic performance, that’s dripping with charisma. The story is always unpredictable. And not only because of how many people don’t make it out alive. Even if you were to somehow know which of Rockwell’s assistants make it to the end, there’s no real point where it is clear where the movie is headed next. This is Verbinski’s Everything Everywhere All At Once. They threw in so many ideas that are so out weird and out there, and make it all mostly work they way they intended in one wildly entertaining fever dream. It deals with a lot of issues mostly involving technology and AI. But also other problems of todays world, like that aforementioned school shooter story. It is a tale of everything wrong with the digital age. But unfortunately not all of it is as deep as it wants to be. Once again there are parts that just feel like an old man yelling at a cloud. And a bunch of half-baked stuff about how “oooh, your phone is actually a prison!” But its intentions are good: pointing out the absurdity of today’s modern hellscape. In one weird, entertaining, unpredictable ride. Verbinski comes back strong with this one. Good luck trying to create something like this with AI. This movie is something you will have fun watching. And not die. And… good luck? ****/@jaythemovieguy7751

There’s a bunch of new stuff thrown in there. Some of it works, some of it REALLY doesn’t. First the positives. This does have a good style to it. Great cinematography and dedicated performances. It looks like the time period. The obvious comparison is Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula. To the point where it could be described as a copy of it. This isn’t as good, but it is a decent try. And at least he tried to make it differ from the countless other adaptations of this story. But Besson’s directing is also the movie’s downfall. With quite a few scenes that are just corny and over-the-top, and leave the audience begging for a hint of subtlety. And a bunch of things that are added in there are just really dumb ideas. Like he threw in some stuff about Dracula creating a perfume that makes him irresistible to women. It’s slightly less weird in context. What doesn’t work even in context, is the fact that it’s introduced with a bizarre dance montage. Oh and there’s also the CGI gargoyles. Yeah, he doesn’t live alone in that castle. He lives with a bunch of gargoyles that come to life, and act as his servants. And I guess I have mixed feelings about it. Meaning that I think it would be fun in a movie that didn’t take itself so seriously. Like people would be calling them the worst thing ever, but I’d be defending them saying “No they’re fun. They fit in with the tone.” But they don’t fit in with the tone, they’re goofy, and a Dracula movie doesn’t need CGI gargoyle minions. Also, there’s some reveal about them at the very end that’s just confoundingly stupid. I don’t understand what they were implying with it, but I have a feeling that even if I knew enough for it to make sense, it would still be really dumb. This movie makes so many out there decisions that do not work that it could practically be worth a recommendation just to see how bizarre it gets. But then again, apparently, Luc Besson is kind of a creep, so… **** that. But with that aside, even without the ironic enjoyment, this is still a decently made reimagining, that’s let down by some bad decisions. Besson took some big swings and many of them were misses. It’s not as much of an ambitious mess as Megalopolis, but it does kind of ride that route, and it is at least a lot more entertaining than that movie. Basically a second-rate version of Coppola’s Dracula that decided it needed a fight scene with CGI gargoyles. Not the best. ****/@jaythemovieguy7751

This is one of Pixar’s more humor-centered films. It’s has a very strong cartoon energy to it, and plenty of good jokes. It also has a very charming art and animation style. But it also has an interesting story. I’m not going to say it’s especially unpredictable, but it has enough surprises for me to not completely see how everything would be resolved. It’s a story about environmental issues, yet it manages to display it’s somewhat timely themes and its more vague ones about unity etc without being preachy. And I like how the ending, despite being a happy one, is still willing to get slightly bittersweet at least for a family movie. This is more enjoyable than Pixar’s last few original movies, and honestly, probably most of their entire library of non-original ones too. I don’t think it quite reaches the heights of their golden age, but if it was released in that time, I don’t think it would stick out that much, so that’s something. It’s a fun, cute, family-friendly time. ****/@jaythemovieguy7751

A step down from the first two. More conventional and slow to get going. Still ends up being interesting and well-made enough to just barely get an eight.

Unlike the work of the Safdie brothers together, it does not feel like a panic attack. It’s a sports story with its highs and lows for its character. It follows his career between 1997 and 2000, while also dealing with his addiction to painkillers and relationship with his girlfriend played by Emily Blunt. But unlike The Iron Claw, A24’s other wrestling movie, it’s as much about the fighting career as all that personal stuff. And also it’s not as tragic. So can The Rock act? Yes, it turns out he can when he actually tries. And he seems to be sold on going down this path for at least some time. You’ve seen The Rock, now get ready to see Dwayne Johnson. The movie itself is an interesting enough film. It’s not on the same level as the Safdie Brothers’ work together or The Iron Claw for that matter. It’s a semi-Oscar-bait movie, but it’s a decently made one that delivers the usual goods without ever doing anything truly amazing. It’s a standard sports drama, but it’s the Rock’s standard sports drama, so that should count for something. But outside the idea of it redefining his image, which has pretty much dominated the conversation around this, it is still a well-acted, decently-made film. It might not be a must-see. I hate to admit that since, well, already nobody’s seeing it. But it is a good time for what it’s worth. ****/@jaythemovieguy7751

Once again, it is entirely from the perspective of the dog. The camera’s always at his level, and for most of the runtime they don’t even show the human characters’ faces. They’re like the adults in Peanuts, except we can actually understand what they’re saying. They managed to shoot the entire movie around the dog. They had a behind the scenes feature afterwards that they said was only for theaters - (hey, that’s a good draw for you to support it there) - and they said that it took three years to film this with him. And it worked. They got a full length horror movie where he’s the star. I mean it is a short one. Scratch that. The Naked Gun reboot was a short one. This one is only an hour and twelve minutes. And they know enough about directing Indy to make him into an actual character. Much has been said about how expressive this guy is. While watching this I may have suspected that it was more because of directing than anything he actually did, and the behind-the-scenes stuff kinda confirmed that. A lot of it is the Kuleshov effect, or the idea that the audience will associate any emotion to a blank expression depending on context. They thankfully didn’t traumatize the dog. And there’s nothing they did with him that’s on the level of that one scene in Anatomy of a Fall. If you saw the movie, you know which scene I’m talking about. Thank God for that. But this is definitely the better achievement in animal acting. Anatomy of a Fall had one scene that’s admittedly more convincing and disturbing than any individual shot in this movie. But they managed to make this good boy show convincing emotions throughout the entire movie. And even without that, it is still a well-made horror movie with quite a few good scares. It’s scary in that supernatural horror type way. It’s rated PG-13, but never feels toned down. Independent horror movies don’t tone down ****. Especially ones distributed by Shudder. Remember when they released In A Violent Nature unrated? This isn’t about blood or gore. It’s about things that go bump in the night. But what puts it above other movies with supernatural scares and atmosphere is its emotional element. I’m not going to spoil if that’s in the way that you’ve all feared, but it does get heart-wrenching at the end. It deals with depressing themes. In a way that’s kind of the go-to cliche that people use to describe arthouse horror, but this perspective makes it feel fresh. Picture if Courage the Cowardly Dog was an emotional A24 horror movie. This movie makes its dog perspective more than just a gimmick. It’s a creepy and emotional horror movie, that directs its furry star to acting perfection. You think it’s impressive that Dwayne Johnson was able to give a legit good performance that same weekend? Here’s something even more surprising. It’s a great movie. Be sure to stay for the behind the scenes stuff. It shouldn’t be that hard. The credits are short and play over footage of the dog. There’s some interesting stuff in there that’ll make you appreciate it more. ****/@jaythemovieguy7751

Two hours of looking at someone else's vacation footage. Goes absolutely nowhere. Cool cinematography though.

Superman was written and directed by James Gunn, director The Suicide Squad and the Guardians of the Galaxy movies. The new head of DC and he’s restarting this whole cinematic universe with this one. And that universe shows promise so far. This is a more faithful recreation of the character than Snyder’s version. Which I liked too. But this is probably the best way to go, putting him in a lighthearted adventure where he can be a beacon of hope. There is probably a lot of Superman comics that tell stories as dark as the Snyderverse. But the character is more than that. I’m not saying that it definitely shouldn’t have made him dark. I know the initial plan was to make the DC universe dark to set itself apart from Marvel’s light and jokey universe. But every now and then, even Marvel would make something semi-dark. Why not occasionally make something where Superman can be Superman? Here, he’s what Superman stands for right from the beginning. The real world might not quite see it as much the ray of hope in this nightmare year that Wonder Woman became in her nightmare year, like I predicted he would. But it’s still definitely effective at being that to a seemingly smaller audience. Okay, enough comparing this to the Snyderverse. That was in the past. I don’t even think Snyder cares as much about continuing the Snyderverse as his fans do. And if this is really the start of a new universe, it’s off to a great start. It doesn’t waste time on the origin stuff. Everybody already knows where Superman came from. He’s not even the first superhero in the world of this movie. The opening text said it all started three centuries ago. Which I hope they go back to that. Superheroes in the 1700s! But anyway it takes place at this point where everything’s established, and he isn’t even the only hero in this movie. In this case, who really needs to build that kind of stuff slowly? This shows James Gunn working outside of his usual wheelhouse, a movie with no cynicism or dark humor, and is more in line with the Reeves movies. But his style does kind of come through with some scenes. With some of its humor and even a few action scenes that feel like they belong in Guardians of the Galaxy. And that sense of fun elevates this. The action works, and the occasional humor helps. Without having to bring in some origin story for everything, it tells a tale that feels like it could have come right in the middle of a comic storyline, but is still accessible to newcomers. And it’s an interesting enough one. It’s complex, but not too complex. It sets up the universe, without having any of the teases feel cynical. It has concepts and scenes that give it a sense of… I guess whimsy. And it shows Gunn’s unlikely sense of heart and character. Lex Luthor, played by Nicholas Hoult, is a particularly despicable villain. He exists in a space between cartoonishly evil, and the personification of everything wrong with the modern world. With an edge toward the latter. He’s powerful. He’s corrupt. He’s associated with foreign dictators, and is stoking the flames of war. He creates fake internet slander. Everything you can think of. When the movie says he’s evil, you believe it. David Corensweat also does a good job of playing Superman. A version reminiscent of Christopher Reeves. James Gunn proves yet again why he’s the best voice in superhero movies working today. Whether or not the world is still interested in a whole other superhero universe is kind of up in the air. No pun intended. But even as somebody who’s kind of succumbing to Marvel fatigue I want more of this. Superman is finally done right again, and it’s glorious.

It’s a decent enough story but what really elevates it is the racing scenes. They are fun and exhilarating. The main complaint people who don’t like car racing use is that it’s just people driving in a circle. Well, this one brings you up close to the action and makes driving in a circle seem like the most intense thing ever. But the scenes without action are also interesting, and Brad Pitt has enough charisma to carry this sports story. Unfortunately, at over two and a half hours long, it does tend to overstay its welcome. But overall, this is a good sports movie, enhanced by some especially good racing scenes. This is probably going to play particularly well with racing fans, but anybody who’s interested in sports stories or just action scenes that put you in the driver’s seat as the world goes speeding past should also have fun with it.

This is just like that movie Jason Takes Manhattan. Except the killer takes Manhattan. So basically nothing like that movie.

Better than the past two and possibly better than Jurassic World. Although, it's interesting how the last one ended on some stuff about dinosaurs adapting into nature, and the response here was "and then they all died." I like to think that for that first scene Snickers said "Give us the least subtle product placement imaginable," and the filmmakers thought "What if their product killed people?"

The definite selling out point of the Jurassic franchise. But also halfway to being the ideal sequel. Opens up the park to show an interesting juxtaposition between modern theme parks and dinosaurs. But more importantly, so even more innocent people can have their vacations ruined by the jaws of a dino.I spent years thinking The Lost World was better. Now I'm not sure.

It ****. Yes, it’s so bad I’m resorting to ripping off Friedberg and Selter humor. It’s a major Hollywood movie that basically has the look and feel of a CW show. And not even a decent one like the first few seasons of Arrow. More like… take your pick.

It feels like basically any other generic slasher movie. The plot is pretty much non-existent and boils down to just a bunch of faceless people get murdered. Which would be great if it was fun, suspenseful, self-aware, or had any kind of interesting kills. This movie is none of these things.What’s really the kicker is just how un-fun it is. There’s almost no self-awareness or humor here. Everything here appears to be taken very seriously. Dude, did you forget this was a movie about a killer Winnie the Pooh?

This is a great melding of both Coogler’s commercial and auteur tendencies. He promised a vampire movie, but also delivered a powerful celebration of African-American culture coming at a time where it feels most meaningful.

This is pretty much the usual Marvel stuff. But at the same it’s kind of a step up from what they’ve done recently. It feels like basically every other Marvel movie from the past few years, but at the same time… slightly better. There are a few things in there that put it above the usual recent stuff.

The movie that sold out everything that made the original concept intriguing, and set the franchise down a path of nothing but cheap gore, shock value, and stupidly improbable scenarios. Two thumbs up.

The Rube Goldberg has never been stronger. Well, they did it. After all this time, they were finally able to find a different angle to tell this story. At this rate, the next movie will all just be a metaphor for generational trauma. Wait, is THIS a metaphor for generational trauma?

I would say this didn't have to be three and a half hours, but then we wouldn't have the return of the intermission.

Doesn't feel like Lord of the Rings. Feels more like some boring second-rate Game of Thrones rip-off that gets canceled after one season.

First of all, Hugh Grant makes a great villain. He’s a more restrained bad guy, who talks in a calm soft-spoken type of way. You really believe that there is something more evil below the surface. It’s the fear of knowing what he’s capable of that makes this movie tense. And the girls also give good performances as the victims. A lot of this movie is based around theological debate. Mostly he’s the one talking, but the girls also get some good comebacks in. But anyway, there is a lot of extended scenes of him lecturing them about his views on religion, which I know that sounds boring, but actually, when you see them in action, are kind of interesting, even if you don’t agree with them. They’re pretty well-written, and he’s obviously spent as much time preparing for the lectures as the more deadly things, bringing out props and stuff to support his metaphors. And there’s even a few good moments of comic relief that hit well, and make the lectures more interesting, while breaking the tension just a little. Hugh Grant’s character and his games at times resemble a less violent version of Jigsaw. Yes, it’s violent enough to get the R-rating, but… come on. Anyway, the games are tense. Which is helped by the performances. Even if I was personally more interested in the debates. The phrase “less violent Saw games in between thought-provoking statements on religion and faith-vs-skepticism” probably sounds like the most pretentious thing ever for horror. (Hey, can you guess this is from A24?) But honestly it never comes across that way. In the context of the movie, it works. And it all comes out to an interesting and tense horror experience.

I feel you, bro. I once misspelled something on my yearly letter to Satan, and they mailed it to some fat guy on the North Pole. This is a PG-13 Disney Channel movie. A film with no target audience - too childish for adults, too adult for children. Gets really dark in the second half, then resolves it all with a ridiculous happy ending where I can't tell whether or not it's sleazy.

One of the best trap stories so far. One of the least interesting cop stories so far.

First this movie was called Saw 3D. Then it wasn't in 3D. Then it was called Saw: The Final Chapter. Then it wasn't the final chapter. What do we call it now? Also, quit it with the big twists. I'm pretty sure the sixth is the only one where it made any sense. And now they just followed up their best twist with their dumbest twist.

Somewhere between "trippy slow-burn" and "This is the most pretentious thing ever."

Starts as an interesting slow-burn. Turns just slow in the middle. But ends on a very high note.

Not as slow as I was expecting. Yes, there was a lot of shots of the killer walking through the forest, but even then it wasn't long before we got to something you'd see in a normally paced slasher movie. And the way people were hyping up the yoga scene, I was almost expecting another Terrifier bedroom scene. But this is all just "fun" gore. Generic story and flat characters: all by design. But it gets by with its new perspective on the events. And the quiet and subdued way it's shot makes it feel more... real, I guess. Pretty good arthouse slasher.

Well I sure as hell wasn't expecting a Mad Max film to turn into The Goonies halfway through. They're getting a lot of goodwill from the action scenes and Tina Turner to make up for how much it may not fit into the franchise.

Not bad if you want to look at a black screen and listen to alien noises for ninety minutes.

Fixes a lot of the issues with Fury Road, by giving it an actual story, but, at the same time, the focus on plot and character kinda dulls the adrenaline that made that movie so much fun. I can't believe I'm complaining that a movie cares about something other than action. It's still great, but also frustrating because if just they cut out some filler from its two and a half hour runtime, it could have been the best Mad Max movie since The Road Warrior. ****/channel/UCO-xIHN2qhxKM7B-eoCw2kA

One crash scene near the end is bad in a funny way. The rest of the movie is bad in a boring way. Adam Driver innocent though.