utslitt Reviews

Don't Look Up (2021)

Unforgivingly Well Written Satire. Almost Painful to Watch.

[9/10 · 3 January 2022]

As the title says, it's "almost painful to watch," the satire is just too on the nose.

The anxiety I got from watching this film stayed with me because you know in a situation like this, it'll more than likely play out exactly like the way the events in the film were portrayed. A panicked majority is never good for a well established 1%.

Don't Look Up is almost a smack across the face that we need to unplug from all of the social media influencers who "don't know jack" telling us how to live our lives. We need to tune out from and stop idolizing the lives pop stars who we live vicariously through, as well as cease the overindulgence of filler "news" which sends us off with feel-goods instead of being okay with hearing what not-necessarily-so-great, important stuff is happening.

A close resemblance of society as it is today, Don't Look Up could be a mirror if we faced the natural disaster on screen.

3 from Hell (2019)

I'm not mad, Zombie. I'm just disappointed.

[3/10 · 19 October 2019]

When I first heard that Rob Zombie was getting the gang back together for a third chapter in the Firefly family's journey, some pretty bittersweet emotions were experienced. It wasn't just myself that felt a confusing mixture of "but, why?" and "HECK YES." It seemed as though a lot of Firefly following online didn't think this needed to happen, but welcomed it anyway with an anticipation so unsure you could feel the tension a mile away.

The day of its release, 3 from Hell answered all of our questions we didn't have about Otis, Baby, and Spaulding until its conception. Was the answer we needed satisfying? Was the film as good as we were hoping to be? Were the Firefly family truly back again to cause just as much havoc as we've seen them cause before?

This review could potentially be my shortest yet, as one could easily sum this movie up with two words: "womp womp." How unfortunate 3 from Hell didn't live up to expectations; especially when the expectations across the net weren't that high to begin with. I'll go ahead and get my few compliments for it out of the way, and then we'll sit here and drown in the negativity, because I'm dead serious when I say this one was a stinker.

1.) Otis is more palatable, less over-the-top. (This could also be a negative) 2.) Richard Brake knocked it out of the park as Wolfman. Literally the only saving grace of the movie. 3.) Stellar soundtrack typical of Zombie's films

There. Now that those two bits are out of the way, let's dig in.

If you look at the description above that I screenshot from just a simple "3 from Hell" Google search, you can see that the description states "Crazed killers Baby Firefly, Captain Spaulding and Otis Driftwood unleash blood mayhem after escaping from prison." That's two-thirds of the way correct. Due to his health, it was understandable that Sid Haig couldn't be a big part of the Firefly reunion. In the film, Captain Spaulding is understandably sentenced to death, and while we thought he was killed in the car scene from Rejects, this was an OK way for him to go as well, imo. So, no, Google, Spaulding doesn't escape from prison.

One of the immediate questions that sparked for everyone as soon as 3 from Hell was announced was: "they're not dead?" The last time we saw the three, they were headed full speed ahead into a hail of bullets, not backing down from a fight, and as a result - being pumped full of lead. Shockingly, they survived. I have so many unorganized thoughts on this alone that when I go to speak on it, all that comes out is a deep, audible sigh. Before this film, they had the death they deserved, and one that fans were happy with even. Now they're suddenly alive? It doesn't make sense, but there wouldn't be a 3 from Hell if it didn't happen that way, I guess.

We don't see too much of Otis in prison, but we do see quite a bit of Baby in prison, and she isn't doing so good. She's got a number of violations, not applicable for parole, and what's left of her sanity is swirling down the drain as we see her firsthand experiencing hallucinations while in segregation. Moon's acting is what you'd expect, but this time around it doesn't feel like Baby is... Baby. Yeah, that's the character on screen, but something is off. It's not because she's behind bars, but it's because her character is seemingly forced to the point I just don't care anymore. I get it, you're mentally unstable, but unfortunately now, you're just not interesting or half as compelling as you were once before.

Otis on the other hand, a character that shouldn't under any circumstances be allowed to see the light of day, nor have his cunning taken for granted, has his cunning taken for granted as he's given a chance to see the light of day and uses this to his advantage to escape all on which is caught on camera. Predictable, right? This scene gives us a brief shot of Danny Trejo before he takes a laughably bad (beyond rotten) CGI effect of a bullet to the head. With the help of his half-brother we've never heard of til now, Otis makes his escape. Where does he go? Straight to the Warden's house to work on getting Baby freed.

I hated the scenes at the Warden's house. Despite the fantastic performance of everyone involved, they just felt empty. The terror was visible as those held hostage are being hurt with no remorse by one of America's most wanted, but other than the purpose of getting Baby back into the world, these scenes seemingly had no point. We already know what Otis is capable of, and Wolfman being a relative of Otis and Baby, we get that he's liable to be one bad mammajamma himself. That being said, why did these scenes have to drag on so freaking long?

With Baby now out of prison, Otis makes the comment to his brother that prison did a lot of damage to Baby as what was left of her sanity is beyond gone now. Baby, not too long after Otis' sentiment being expressed, suggests going to Mexico as there's no one looking for them there. The one individual who's probably the most not sound of mind, that they didn't even want to let go to the soda machine alone, comes up with the idea that can potentially secure their freedom. Seems a little out of place, but whatever.

Once in Mexico, surprise, surprise, trouble follows. A place they'd stated no one was looking for them had people that were - you guessed it - looking for them. Remember when Trejo was killed? His son, the leader of The Black Satans, wants vengeance for Otis having killed his father. Aquarius is tipped off where the three are staying and sends The Black Satans over to handle the job. This would have more than likely ended how Aquarius was hoping if Baby's plot armor didn't kick in by noticing the Satans pointing at her window, giving her a chance to notify her brothers resulting in a head start at surviving the situation.

The Black Satans come in and kill pretty much anyone that stands between them and who they're after. After a bunch of innocents die, Baby and Coltrane (Wolfman) are taken hostage themselves while Aquarius offers Otis a chance at saving them via a one on one machete fight, not with Aquarius, but Creep, a very large member of The Black Satans. Otis abides and while we're sitting here wondering what the heck is going on, why the Firefly group is going up against a gang, a cartel, whatever the fricking Satans are, plot armor kicks in again to save the day as a friend Baby has made cuts her and her half-brother free. Things happen the way you'd expect and the movie ends not too long after with the three of them free to do as they please.

Even Richard Brake's stellar performance wasn't enough to save this Zombie film, just as it wasn't enough to save 31, leaving him as one of the few, if not only, highlights of the film. I'm not sure if I had more questions before seeing it or afterwards. They get out of prison that easily? Why are we just now hearing about Coltrane even though he's apparently a notorious murder himself? How is Baby going to be insane behind bars noticeable enough to where her brother makes a comment about it, then the second and third act come and she's seemingly sound of mind? Why are we expected to believe that three killers, one of which is completely mentally insane to the point of creating her own reality behind bars, is able to defeat an entire gang in what seems to be less than an hour? This film went off the rails in a way it truly didn't have to. It is understood the Firefly's get up to some crazy shenanigans. It's well known they're dangerous individuals that you do not under any circumstances want to jack with. It's like Rob Zombie decided to construct a cash grab with some of his well known characters, yet had nowhere to go with it, so he decided to write the script as a failed ode to badassery.

All in all, this film had all the elements you'd expect from a Firefly movie and followed the same formula (if you will) as its two predecessors before it. There was blood (oh, lord, was there blood), plenty of violence, bad (an understatement) acting on Moon's part, tension, and plenty of memorable lines. We're introduced to the gang again, shown how vicious they are, how insane they are, how ruthless, smart, and evil they are. We got what we knew we were going to get, but this time around it fell flat. Why? Because it was unneeded. The Firefly gang should have been left for dead at the end of Rejects. This was the ending they needed. This was the ending the viewers needed. Instead, what we got was them miraculously surviving a hail of gunfire only to escape from prison and have loads of plot armor they didn't really need.

Now having seen it, my only course of action for this movie is to just pretend it doesn't exist. Rob, I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed. Really, really disappointed.

3 out of 10.

It Chapter Two (2019)

Skarsgård's Pennywise is a mastered artist of sadism.

[7/10 · 14 September 2019]

I want to start this off by giving praise where praise is due. Rich Delia, the casting director, earned his paycheck. The cast that was assembled for this lil ol' picture show here was superbly done. The chemistry amongst The Losers Club as adults was just as fantastic, as genuine, as it was when they were depicted as children. Each character reintroduced as an adult was easily identifiable and instantly familiar despite how much growth had happen within' the past 27 years. Speaking of chemistry, Bill Hader as grown Richie and James Ransone as grown Eddie can be simply described perfection. Everytime these two were on screen and interacting everyone in the theater, myself included, was having a blast.

Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise was just as wonderfully deranged and vile as one could hope for. It irks me to no bounds that after getting home, and even now I still see a bunch of ''he's no Tim Curry'' posts/rants. They're right. He's no Tim Curry, and Curry is no Skarsgård. Both performances were amazing and I see little merit in comparing them. Skarsgård, I feel, excelled in bringing to light just how ruthless Pennywise is. Skarsgård's representation of Pennywise shows us that he's mastered what seems to be an artform of sadism by vehemently using other's weaknesses against them. Regardless if you're a child, or a determined adult come back to 'play' again, anyone sound of mind would follow the steps of Stanley than try to face Pennywise.

Outside of the casting, the film was visually beautiful. Derry was bleak yet bright, dreadful yet seemingly peaceful (as long as you weren't a loser), and so on. You could imagine sitting in the second row of the theater, I got a whole lotta screen to look at. As I bent my neck in ways it never bent before trying to take the entire picture in, never once was it not worth it. Even afterwards, while rubbing the newfound kinks out I'd rightfully earned, I was still thinking of the cruddy looking theater with 'A Nightmare On Elm Street 5' displayed for presentation, or of the run down arcade where Richie visited to find his token. I wasn't physically at these places, but the way everything was displayed felt so memorable.... if that makes any sense at all.

I can go on and on about all the things I enjoyed about this film, but this post would get way too long and ruin the movie for who read this before watching it. Instead, let's get into what I disliked.

The overabundance of unneeded comedic relief. I'm all for comedic relief in horror films, but not when it's every other dang line, my dudes. For example: Richie gets barfed on at one point in the film. We're not talking "need to change your shirt" kind of barfed on, but barfed on so hardcore he has barf in places he didn't know he had places that requires a full body, deep tissue, down to the essence of his being sort of scrubbing. While that happened, Angel of the Morning begins playing. It felt excruciatingly out of place to me. It felt as though the humor of the song was supposed make this less disgusting by fault of humor? No thanks. This type of relief continuously happened to the point where things that were supposed to actually jilt the audience didn't do it at all; instead laughter ensued.

A complaint I'm a little on the back and forth with myself about is there wasn't any warning beforehand about long intervals of flashing. I mean, yeah, as an epileptic you kinda take that risk when going to the movies, but at the same time when it's as prolonged as it was in some parts of the film you'd imagine there being some decency on behalf of the theater or production company saying "Heads up, epileptics. This one's gonna hurt."

The rest of my disappointments are minor. We didn't get to see too much of Audra nor Bowers. While the ending was understandably not similar to the book, what the hell was that "you're a clown!" garbage? If you're going to do CGI, make it look GOOD. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Beyond all that (would be, could be) nitpicking, I did enjoy the film. Everything from the nod to The Thing to Stephen King's cameo was delightful. I'm patiently looking forward to the bluray release so I can watch part one and two back to back.

Salem's Lot (1979)

Throw away your cross, face the master.

[8/10 · 29 August 2019]

Oh, man. This. Film. Where to begin?

Between my mother leaving me unattended to watch Cujo when I was a toddler, and my uncle torturing me with IT when made to babysit me, I can't honestly say I was a huge Stephen King fan as a child. Everything I knew about the man and his monsters made a semi-permanent note of how both man and monsters were pure evil, and I wanted nothing to do with that nightmare fuel that noticeably haunted me well beyond the point of it affecting sleep and sanity. That being said, for my thirteenth birthday inside of some now long gone film store located within' The Woodlands Mall, I absolutely had to get Salem's Lot. I refused picking out any other movie. Plus my idiotic logic was "it's $13 and I'll be 13 soon. It's a sign!" made it a done deal. My sibling's grandmother purchased it, told me "Happy Birthday", and with a sinister grin my stepfather stated we'd watch it later that evening when we got home.

Long story short, I wound up listening to most of the movie. You read correctly. I wound up listening to the movie from under one of the most itchiest blankets I've ever had the chance in my life to encounter. My sister alongside me, handling the stress of the film all the same, all the while pissing her pjs.

For the longest time afterward my sleep struggled. Once I managed to resume sleeping as I once had, I still couldn't stop envisioning Barlow in the shadows of the night inside my home. The effectiveness of the tension within' the film had seeped out into my life so masterfully, I couldn't even bare to look at the DVD's cover. All of the movies on the DVD shelf were alphabetically organized, and whenever Salem's Lot was at the end of either side of the shelf, I'd purposefully switch it with the closest film just to escape the chance of accidentally glancing at it. The case wasn't the only thing I didn't want to look at either. Windows were no longer interesting to look out of and unquestionably had to have the blinds drawn and curtains closed.

It took me fourteen years to want to revisit the film and actually act on it. In that entire fourteen years I never once forgot about Barlow and the town of Salem's Lot.

• - - ! ! ! Spoilers ahead. ! ! ! - - -

Today, after telling myself for the past few weeks how I'd "get to it tomorrow", or how I "have more important things to tend to", grabbed my blanket, my pillow, and laid down on the couch to enjoy another beautiful Tucson monsoon with Salem's Lot ready to play.

For the first couple of minutes (no more than thirty) I noticed I was trying to play on my phone to distract myself from actually delving back into the world of Salem's Lot. Surely I was overreacting from memories that couldn't have truly been that bad? I put my phone down, cuddled a dog (they'd keep me safe, right?), and let myself fall into in Tobe Hooper's vision of Stephen King's novel.

The atmosphere of the movie matched with the suspicion of every citizen in town had me drawn in. Even though I'd seen the film before, I was dying to know what was in store for these citizens, but more importantly what would Ben Mears uncover in his search for information about his work on the Marsten House? I was quite apologetic and frustrated with myself for eating while watching (or trying not to watch) the beginning of this film as the longer the film ran on, the more twisted my innards began to feel due to wild amount of unease that effortlessly streamed from the screen.

Then THAT scene came along. The scene I'd pictured in my head off and on for the last fourteen years. Ralphie Glick, assumed missing, levitating in front of his brother's window. Mystified, Danny of course lets him in. While this didn't have the same effect on me as it did all those years ago, you cannot deny the scene isn't enough to give anyone actually paying attention an immediate empty feeling in their stomach. The only thing throughout the film that provided a much needed relief from this recurring tension (as unintentional as it might have been) was Mears' Jeep doors never quite closing when he wanted them to.

In regards to vampire films, it is hands down one of the best representations I can think of. Barlow isn't about tempting his victims with their desires. There's no gimmicks to him. He is the undead. He is the master. He wants the people within' the small town of Salem's Lot and he'll be damned if he doesn't do what is needed to get them. Mostly unseen within' the film, what's most haunting about Barlow is his undeniable presence, even during daylight. While we don't see him that often, we know he's there lurking, planning, waiting for darkness to make his move. Having taken out the Glick family as well as other citizens of Salem's Lot, aided by Straker, Barlow proves he is a force to be reckoned with.

What this made for TV film manages to do beautifully is that it proves that gore and silly jump scare tactics aren't needed to make a film terrifying. Over the top violence isn't necessary to make your audience mortified. You don't have to constantly show your viewers the "big bad" to keep their presence known, or keep the threat there.

The 70s was undoubtedly a fantastic time for horror, giving birth to some of the greatest and most memorable horrors of all time. Some of the more notable ones being Suspiria (77), Black Christmas (74), The Amityville Horror (79), The Omen (76), Alien (79), Texas Chain Saw Massacre (74) - you get the point. What blows my mind is that hardly anyone (that I've seen) talks about Salem's Lot as proudly and passionate as they do for some of the films mentioned. It's truly a shame because as far as horror goes, I've yet to see a film that puts so much dread in my heart as Salem's Lot managed to do. Not to mention how long that feeling stayed with me. Even as I write this, no longer a child haunted by things existing in the world of fiction, I've jumped and looked over my shoulder a few times due to little noises from outside alarming me with the thought in the back of my mind of "Oh god. They're here."

Tobe Hooper managed to set a standard for vampires in cinema with this Stephen King novel, and it's hard for me to find something that is worthy of comparison. Salem's Lot will forever have a bittersweet place in my heart.

Pet Sematary (2019)

"Sometimes dead is better" is more fitting than you know.

[23 August 2019]

Every time a remake comes out, I try my very best to be able to go into it with an open mind, forgetting what I know about the original. It's better to be able to go in and judge it for what it is, rather than what it isn't because of high standards set in place. Such was the case for the 2019 release and remake of Pet Sematary. Even while "taking it for what it is" instead of comparing it to the original (easier said than done) there's a few things I found quite odd.

Spoilers ahead.

Our movie opens with the Creed family moving from Boston to the middle of nowhere, Ludlow, Maine. The house is a beautiful home, but of course there's a catch. Why wouldn't there be? Take one step off the property, directly into the street, and you're liable to become roadkill thanks to the many 16-wheelers that inattentively fly by on a daily basis. Secondly, your home is near a cemetery that can kinda sorta *cough cough* bring back the dead *cough cough*. No big deal, right?

If you're not familiar with the film or novel, or the concept of the film or novel, the cemetery, as previously mentioned, brings back people and animals from the dead. Whoever is buried there comes back shortly after, but they're not really who they once were. Church, the family cat, is found dead by Jud (the neighbor, played oh so well by John Lithgow). Jud informs Louis Creed that he knows of a place to bury the cat. Creed meets up with Jud after dark and they begin to handle the matter. Just before finally finding a spot to dig, Jud reiterates that Louis' daughter would be heartbroken to find about the loss of Church, and then takes him to a different spot to bury the cat. After doing so, surprise surprise, Church comes back home the next morning, and is far from dead.

All the while that's going on, Louis' wife, Rachel Creed, is being tormented by the memory of her deceased sister, Zelda. After Louis first mentioned Church's death to Rachel, we realize death is a sore subject for her due to her mixed emotions of grief and guilt of the cause of Zelda's death. Outside of that, there's no real reasoning other than "it's this house" behind why Rachel is now being tormented. I know what I said earlier about "taking it for what it is", and unfair high standards, yadda yadda. However, going on with the rest of this review it's quite hard to not mention to previous film. The changes made from hereon out after Church's death are big ones. Some of the changes just didn't go as well as what I think directors Kolsch and Widmyer might have intended for them to.

Ellie's death. Not a fan. Why? I'll tell ya why.

Ellie's death was done in a way that felt a little too cliche' once she was brought back by her grieving father. The concept of changing from Gage to Ellie could have been forgiven if it wasn't done in a way that had already been done a million times over. They honestly might as well just had Dark Alessa on the screen. Ellie now felt more as though she was from The Children of the Corn rather than she had risen from the dead. The "spooky girl with a spooky voice" trope was disappointing.

While the movie for the most part kept Jud's death (RIP Jud. Never gets easier seeing him go :( ) all the same, Rachel's wasn't. My complaints here are probably irrelevant to the film as they're more along the lines of "how is a little girl going to X" when in reality a little dead girl isn't going to be doing much of anything. Even then, it really bugged me that Ellie was able to accomplish so much while her father wasn't that far off. The way all of this written seemed... lazy.

What disappointed me most about this film was the absolute lack of charisma. Minus John Lithgow's casting as Jud, there is literally no heart and soul behind any other character in this film. Seriously... There's more emotion displayed on Church's face post death than there is on Louis', Rachel's, or Ellie's. The lack of depth within' our characters was what really made this film difficult to watch. You feel so detached, that while this is a harsh lesson to be learned about grief, the things happening to the people in front of you make you go "sucks to be you" instead of having any bit of genuine feeling of sadness for anyone.

Believe it or not, I appreciated the fact this wasn't a shot for shot remake. What I didn't appreciate was pretty close to everything else about it. While the imagery in the film was beautiful, and the Zelda scenes had just the right amount of tension, the story was lacking the emotion it needed. It's a shame too because that's the only thing this film really needed to be able to sell the changes they made.

It Follows (2014)

You'll Second Guess People Walking Towards You... I Promise

[8/10 · 19 August 2019]

"It Follows" hasn't been on my watch list for all that long. Once I heard about it, I heard nothing but good things from then on. The trailer itself (in my opinion) honestly wasn't all that captivating, but after reading up on it, who some of the cast was, as well as - again - all the good things I've heard from friends, those on Dreadit, and elsewhere, I figured I needed to stop being my ol' judgemental self and give it a shot.

I didn't regret that.

The opening scene with Annie doesn't last too long, but it seals the deal with starting this movie off the most puzzling, yet alluring way possible. She's clearly distressed, sprinting (in heels!) around in what seems to be a "for life or death" fashion, telling everyone she's ok. It's not explained (at this point, at least) what was wrong with poor Annie as she jumps into a car and bolts off to the middle of nowhere, but I've bitten the bait and am hooked to see what happens next. Annie makes a call and appears to have hit the machine. Seconds later we see her distorted, deceased, with just as much of an explanation as we had from the get-go.

The way "It Follows" has began absolutely sets the pace for the rest of the film. In the brief few minutes the movie has began to play it's established to us that our antagonist isn't understood and cannot be stopped, which alone is horrifying. The music (provided by Disasterpeace) so far has beautifully, yet sadistically added tension to Annie's plight and would go on to do the same for the rest of the film.

What I liked most about this film was the emphasis the setting brought along with how crap of a situation this was. There's no bright skies when you're depressed, sleep-deprived, paranoid, tormented, and being made to feel as though you're insane, just as Jay is throughout the film. The only scene that shows sunshine also winds up being the scene wherein her friends and sister finds out she's far from crazy.

Let's talk about that beach scene, shall we? So well done. The minute I noticed "it" simply walking towards Jay from behind, I was alert and anxious as person could possibly be. Is Jay going to go swim and unknowingly avoid it? Does everyone else see them and just isn't saying anything? What is going to happen?! Jay's grabbed, and as crappy as that is, fortunately for her everyone else (except Greg) can see her hair denying the laws of physics. This wouldn't be the only time Yara, Kelly, and Paul see Jay get attacked.

The pool. Arguably the best scene in the movie. Let's be frank, alright? Most teenagers - hell, most people in general - make ridiculously, mind numbingly stupid decisions in horror movies. In this scene Jay's friends put to action what they've learned from the beach. "It" may be unseen to them, but it is very much a physical entity, as they throw a blanket on to it after being guided by a distressed Jay. Once covered, they attack it, biding Jay time to escape. This scene was as smart as it was riddled with anxiety. Would this scene be the end of Jay? We've seen "it" capture others, so could this be her time? I'm not sure if I was rooting for her to survive or if I was just tense due to picturing myself in a situation like that. Either way, the scene was very well done.

The acting was fantastic. It took me a good minute to see Paul as Paul and not Marshall from United States of Tara (amazing show, btw), but despite that I have no complaints about acting. Even when it comes to pacing/progression, the film doesn't move faster than it should, and doesn't have anything that might be seen as "filler". When you look at the actual cinematography of it, the film is just superb to look at, yet unnerving all the same, but in a good way.... I mean... if there is a "good way" to be unnerving.

If you haven't had a chance to see "It Follows", I recommend it. Seeing all the disappointing duds the genre has been putting out the past decade, this film is a breath of fresh air that brings a much needed taste of something new. I know I'm definitely going to be second guessing people walking in my direction for the next couple of weeks because of it.

8 out of 10

Overlord (2018)

Fantastic Concept, "Eh" Execution

[6/10 · 22 July 2019]

I've had this movie on my "watchlist" for forever now, so I figure I'd put it on as all the trailers I'd seen were good and I didn't really hear anything too negative about the movie. After watching it, I had some thoughts and concerns I feel as though should be mentioned. Spoilers ahead.

First off, the movie opens beautifully. We're introduced to the majority of the characters we're going to follow throughout the movie and feel just as tense as them right before they're thrown into the thick of things, without even truly knowing just how "thick" things are. The entire plane scene, as well as the leading up to meeting Chloe progressed well. That's about where the movie stops progressing well.

The introduction of Wafner, the interrogation scene in the attic are both a little drawn out. They just keep happening without giving any real value or progression to the plot of the movie. Yes, we know Wafner is a bad guy, "U-S-A, U-S-A", blah blah blah. These two scenes do nothing more than just establish who the main villain of the movie is, and ensures us that whoever Wafner is, his capture in the attic isn't the last of him.

The church scene was interesting and had beyond stellar special effects. It also did a great job at instilling that suspense into the viewer, a real strong "what the heck is going on" sort of vibe that engages us in a way that has us hooked for more information. The problem with that, no information is ever given.... ever. It's a shown concept that there's some super serum being developed, this same serum the one Wafner is interrogated over, but we know nothing more about it for the rest of the film other than "it hasn't been tested on live subjects yet."

Chloe's aunt - probably the biggest missed opportunity throughout the entire movie. They briefly introduced a character bringing along a huge breezy draft of mystery and curiosity with and for her, then don't touch on her at all after that one scene. What was even the point? Just to show how invested Chloe is in wanting revenge against the Germans? We already know she's pissed at them for invading her town and killing her parents, so why was the aunt even in the movie if they had no plans on her actually having a more prominent role? Am I missing something? I've even discussed this with others who seen the movie and they feel the same way, so if there was a message or vibe that Avery, Ray, and Smith were trying to send the viewers way, it was definitely missed.

Lastly, throughout all this malarkey only one character has any character development at all. Just one. Again, I'll repeat that. With all the characters introduced in this film, only ONE of them gets any character development and it's the obvious development of "couldn't kill a mouse" to "saves the day by killing the bad guys" progression. The lack of creativity here was truly painful.

Despite all of my complaints, this movie was entertaining to say the least. I could see myself watching it again after a good while (more than likely with company rather than alone) due to the stunning visuals and interesting concept. It just left quite a sour taste behind afterwards because of what was left unsaid as well as how much better it could have been if they'd taken just a little extra time to work on a few things.

Creepshow 2 (1987)

Deserves Better Than A 6 Star Rating

[8/10 · 22 July 2019]

Absolutely shocked to see a rating so low on this awesome anthology film! The film should be rated for how it is as a stand-alone, despite the "2" in the title.

Each story was both goofy and maniacal in their own way. It's almost hard to pick a favorite out of the three because I enjoyed them all so much. Now, I agree with the comments that the acting might not have been the best, but the cheesiness of the acting I feel in a way helps the humor shine so bright (especially in The Raft).

Without a doubt, Creepshow 2 is one of my favorite "fun" horror movies to watch, as well as a very entertaining anthology film.

Frankenstein (1931)

Worthy of Praise

[10/10 · 22 July 2019]

Everything about this film had me invested from beginning to end. The sets, scenery, acting, story, The Monster, all handled so beautifully. While The Monster isn't as the book depicts him, he's played in a more sympathetic mannerism by Karloff, winds up being tragically misunderstood in the story, as well as the true star of the film blowing every other actor's attempt at shining brighter out of the water. Absolutely the best of out of the Universal Classics by a long shot; if you haven't seen Whale's "Frankenstein", then you need to rectify that situation as soon as possible. This will forever be a movie I return to when in need of comfort.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)

The Disappointment Master

[4/10 · 15 July 2019]

Interested in watching a movie where one dimensional characters are easily disposed in the most painfully foreseeable ways possible? Where closed endings don't matter, shock factor images we've seen before are reused to provide the same scare, and things we've known to be true are flipped upside down with no plausible excuse as to why? If you've answered yes to any or all of the questions above, ANOES 4: The Dream Master is the movie for you.

Between the unneeded montage of kung fu fighting (which winds up essentially pointless for that character) and a reflection that makes us ask "why" (seriously....just how?!), this movie drops the ball every single chance it gets.

The only reason it gets a four star rating instead of the two it deserves is because of the fantastic life brought to Freddy once again thanks to the demented work of Englund, and the as amazing as ever practical special effects.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)

A Nightmare on Cheese Street

[6/10 · 15 July 2019]

I'm a huge fan of the NOES films due to the amazing practical effects, imagery, concept, and of course, the star of the films, Englund, as well as how vividly he brings life to Freddy. When I heard about Dream Warriors, I had to see it. Even more so when I noticed Heather Langenkamp in the cast.

Our setting of the film is the "snake pit", and that's actually quite fitting when you think about it. Children having absurd, yet realistic dreams about a homicidal maniac who wants to kill them which winds up affecting their lives more than likely would be in a nuthouse - so again - the setting fits, and it's genuinely appreciated that we're exploring this element of the story. No one believes anyone behind white walls, so all the children really have is each other. Each other, and well... Nancy.

What disappointed me about this film was the irony of the name. How are you going to call the movie "Dream Warriors" and hype up these children as some sort of kick-ass superpower having, Freddy destroyers when they're picked off one by one just like they would be in any other NOES movie? Literally everyone who used their "power" (and I use that word as loosely as possible) died. Oh, and secondly, what the hell kind of power is jumping?

Either way, at the end of the day, this movie is actually one of the more interesting, clever sequels out of the NOES films. To say it's one of the better ones out of the franchise as a whole, eh... you'd be pushing it. Freddy is just as sarcastic as ever, provides us a plethora of juicy, creative death scenes, and keeps the film moving along with just the right amount of nail-biting tension.

It's worth a watch, but leave all your expectations at the door, and take it for what it is.

Insidious (I) (2010)

I Don't Get All These "Scariest Movie Ever" Reviews

[3/10 · 14 July 2019]

After watching the movie, I wasn't impressed. I figured I'd get on here and see what other reviewers had to say that might change my mind a little, as well as what some interesting facts were that could maybe influence my negative opinion to a possibly less negative (or even forgiving) one. I didn't want to just type my first impression having not really thought about it all too much for it to be nothing more than a negative, unhelpful rant of garbage.

Unfortunately, nothing changed my opinion. Everything reinforced it.

I'm a huge fan of Patrick Wilson, but this movie is by far not one of his best examples of his acting talents. He looked just as bored as everyone else on screen. The movie drags on as monotonous as it possibly can while providing many overly obvious jump scares.

What bugged me the most was how some of the imagery in this movie had the potential to be so much more impactful if it had been treated a little better. The only thing that will stick with you after this film is Tiny Tim's "Tiptoe Through the Tulips" and even then I don't know how grateful you'd be for that because it's truly obnoxious. There's clearly a reason why there's so many memes out there of this movie. Not because it's "so scary", or genuinely demented, but because it's a joke. Instead of being tuned in for the scare of a lifetime, viewers will spend their time amazed at how they've all of the sudden became a psychic due to newfound abilities to know what's going to happen in the movie ages before it happens.

When it comes to the ending of the movie, it was so lazily done. It feels more like a glorified Worldstar video that should be on reddit than it does a tension packed, twist ending. It had me in disbelief that James Wan directed this. The same James Wan that would go on to handle The Conjuring so well, and had brought us Saw, had made this colorless, lifeless garbage that was on my television right now. How disappointing.

If you haven't seen this movie, don't bother. It's nothing more than an overhyped laughing stock that tries and fails to be the Poltergeist of its time. Even then, if you still insist, grab some friends and some beers and get ready to indulge each other in some MST3K style banter as one cannot hesitate to poke fun at the garbage fire that is this movie. If you have a hard time finding it to watch, check the $5 bin at Walmart. I'm sure it'll be there.

Nightmares in Red, White and Blue: The Evolution of the American Horror Film (2009)

Not News, But Enjoyable Nonetheless

[7/10 · 12 July 2019]

While fans of horror might not necessarily learn anything new from watching this documentary, they'll definitely enjoy the time listening to their favorite directors, producers, and alike's, input on classics of the genre as well as what inspired them to be apart of the films that they did. The movie begins with horror in its early days of cinema and works its way up to modern day, showing us what the title suggests it will: "The Evolution of the American HOrror FIlm." Again, while you might not learn anything new, this documentary gives us the opportunity to jump into the brilliant minds of some of those who made some of our favorite films, and for that I am grateful. Worth the watch!

Poltergeist (1982)

Not A Bad Film, But Severely Overhyped.

[7/10 · 12 July 2019]

Don't get me wrong, this film isn't garbage by no means whatsoever. It is ridiculously overhyped, however.

All in all, the film is a great example of the lesson that you reap what you sow. Spielberg definitely gets this message across in the very end, while keeping us hooked for fun ride from the beginning to the end.

That being said, with every twist and turn, with all the action and development on screen, I found myself very unfulfilled once the credits began to roll. With everything I had read about this movie before watching, all the hype, all the facts about on screen happenings, and etc, the movie didn't live up to my expectations. Not only was it not what I was hoping for, it left some things unanswered in a way that wasn't so much "what if" for my brain to have fun with afterwards, but rather "what the hell happens now"?

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)

Freddy's Back!

[6/10 · 12 July 2019]

First off, I feel like I owe this movie an apology. I went into this thinking it was going to be a stupid rip off, trying to cash in on the still running heat of Krueger's first debut. While there might be some truth in that, the film itself was surprisingly entertaining and actually a very decent horror film, sequel or not.

While we don't see any returning characters other than Freddy K himself, this film is just as gut churningingly tense as it's predecessor. The opening scene alone setting the most dreadful atmosphere for the rest of the movie had my anxiety going off the charts, working overtime. I usually eat something while watching movies, so I had to put my food down for that opening scene because it succeeded in its job of putting absolute dread in the viewers heart.

As the movie progresses we are witness to some hauntingly breathtaking special effects that sell their scenes in such a manner it feels like we're in the movie and Freddy is coming for us. You'd have to be full of it to state there was a lack of creativity anywhere within' this film.

The only reason I'm rating this film so low is due to the ending. I felt it got a little out of hand, and on top of that, left a lot of things unanswered. While this could be a good thing if set up properly, instead leaving us to think "what if", it doesn't. It happens in such a way that's so "pick and choose" with the events that happened during the film resulting in the viewer (or at least myself) feeling as though there was no consistency. I'm not going to state what exact questions I had, so that I might not spoil the movie nor its ending, but trust me that there's plenty.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

A Nightmare Worth Experiencing

[8/10 · 12 July 2019]

What can you do when sleep becomes the enemy? The brilliance of this film is that simple haunting question. No one can stay away for forever. Freddy Krueger invades his victims dreams and is brought to life in such a beautifully grotesque way to where the viewer struggles anxiously to pull their eyes away from the screen. Heather Langenkamp as Nancy shines on screen as the movie takes it's twists and turns for both the better and worse. It's hard to argue why this movie isn't a gem in it's own right, and it's clear to see why New Line is "The House that Freddy Built."

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

Hauntingly Beautiful Story!

[9/10 · 10 July 2019]

Everything from the passionate encounters between Ryder and Oldman's characters, Mina and Count, to the eye-catching, enchanting gothic scenery had me absolutely mystified and my eyes glued to the screen.

The story follows somewhat closely in comparison to the novel, giving life to the classic in quite a splendid retelling (if you will). Everyone is familiar with the story, or at least the character, Dracula, so going into this film I'm sure everyone has their own set of expectations. What I didn't expect was to be as intrigued and truly interested as I wound up being. The (just over) two hours of film manages to fly right by as Coppola shows us his take on this beloved classic. Oh, boy, I cannot tell you truly just how much every little detail of this movie from the shadows, to the scene's setting, to the character chemistries and portrayals, and last but definitely not the least, the score of the film pieces together a striking visual that is hard to forget.

As many others stated on here in their reviews, Oldman sets the bar so high, giving the most untouchable performance as Dracula, that even the OG Dracula himself couldn't surpass nor could even wish to replicate it.

Another great portrayal that I feel must be noted is Hopkins' role as Van Helsing. Hopkins' delivers this character to us in such a way that's so "as a matter of fact" that you wind up rooting for him as much as you do Dracula himself.

So, why a 9? Why not a 10?

Simply enough: Keanu Reeve's misperformance. His attempt at playing Johnathon Harker is as stiff and underwhelming as it is painful to watch. Watching him play Harker makes me truly wonder what the everloving hell Mina Murray sees in him. Obviously it's not his personality because the character falls about as flat as a cardboard castle on a rainy day. Surely someone as in love with his fiance as Harker claims to be would show a little more expression if things went as south as they did in this film. As big of a Reeves' fan as I am, I wholeheartedly believe this movie could have truly benefited from a different actor as Harker, and then would be without a doubt worth rating a perfect 10.

Cult of Chucky (2017)

Not That Bad

[6/10 · 9 July 2019]

While it isn't as good as the film before it (Curse of Chucky), Cult of Chucky helps continue to storyline of the Child's Play universe with new and old characters in an appreciated way (for the most part). The film picks up where Curse of Chucky has left of, showing us what has happened to the main character of the last film. Chucky of course, is as alive as ever, and as always, is seeking revenge.

When it comes to the story, I gotta say, it's not bad. I've been wondering for the longest time when we'd finally find someone in "the nuthouse" all because "Chucky did it." The chaos that ensues when Chucky finally appears on scene is tastefully, creatively done - all except one moment which to me seems as a repeat of a death from Bride with poor. and over-exaggerated special effects. (when you see it, you'll know what I'm referring to)

A nice touch that was added to the film was the reintroduction of Andy. We haven't seen Andy in the past three films (Bride, Seed, and Curse), but he's back, and he's ready to take on Chucky once more.

The things I didn't enjoy so much about the film was what was left unexplained due to sheer laziness, such as how the "cult" of Chucky was even able to happen at all. Yeah, yeah, we get it - voodoo shmoodoo - but when the same spell that's used for what the viewer is familiar with is used in a manner outside of that repeatedly and it's never explained why, it feels a little more "because I said so" than serial killer using voodoo to his benefit.

All in all, with that one complaint aside, the movie isn't half bad. It may not have been everything the viewer was hoping for, but it's entertaining and gets the Chucky universe back on track after derailing with Bride and Seed.

I'd recommend it.

Curse of Chucky (2013)

Not bad

[7/10 · 9 July 2019]

It was nice to see a new spin on Chucky after so long, as well as have a little more story revealed to why he was running from the police all those years ago. The movie takes itself way more seriously than it had in the last two films prior (Bride and Seed) and I'm beyond grateful for that as it brings a more dire, tense tone to the movie that is much needed. The story picks up where any other Child's Play film would have, Chucky is out for revenge, as always - but it's the new characters and the delicate approach to re-establishing everything that make this film truly shine. Curse doesn't acknowledge the previous movies in a "breaking the fourth wall" kind of way as Bride did, but rather in a manner that helps the new story we're witnessing develop, making things much more serious for our new victi-...er, characters. :p This fantastic movie brings life to an older franchise in quite a favorable way, and I absolutely suggest you see it if you're a fan of the original Child's Play film.

Seed of Chucky (2004)

Seems more like a weird dream than an actual movie

[2/10 · 9 July 2019]

I'll be blunt as possible while trying to avoid any spoilers I can. This movie was nothing more than an absolute cash grab. The story is capital B-A-D. Everything the prior films had reinforced about how you had to have the actual doll Chucky was in to bring him back, thrown out the window. Anything seems to go now, and your guess about what's going on is truly as good as the next person. Why all the "what's what" about the actual story was thrown out the window for this film and made fun of was beyond me. I understand how the film laughs at itself and makes fun of the fact that it's all about a killing doll, but even then with how this film carries itself it's almost as if the writer gave up, the director didn't give a damn, and everyone just wanted a paycheck. The only reason someone should watch this movie (besides the fact they simply want to) is if they're high off their ass with plenty more loaded bowls ready to go, because you'd have to be high to think this film is a true gem. Tiffany and Chucky are as good as ever, but it's a shame this movie had nothing to offer to the franchise besides characters we will never see again.

Child's Play 2 (1990)

Really?

[5/10 · 5 July 2019]

Outside of the fact there's a talking doll as antagonist, the film heavily relies on the incompetence of literally every adult to sell the plot of this. Even considering he's only a child, Andy's decision making skills are capital P-O-O-R, so if I were him I'd be beyond ecstatic about all that endless plot armor he seems to have.

Despite those complaints, there are some good things about the movie. First up, the LIFE given to Chucky both in regards to animation and voice acting are spot on, and didnt miss a beat in making this villain seem so gosh real! Secondly, and lastly, the deaths were pretty creative. I got a good chuckle out of some of them!

The Conjuring 2 (2016)

Left a lot to be desired...

[6/10 · 5 July 2019]

After immediately watching this after the first Conjuring film, I found myself ridiculously let down. It pales in comparison and even stand alone it's quite unbearably boring for the first half of the movie. It's a shame this wasn't handled with more care as the storyline itself showed major potential.

Once we reached the second half of the film where the possession has reached its climax and things are truly discovered to be how they are, the film finally begins to glisten in all its glory. It was truly a shame the encounters before this point weren't handled as well as they were in this moment.

The Conjuring (2013)

Great Timing, Interesting Story, Even Better Acting

[7/10 · 4 July 2019]

The opening interview was pretty cheesy, but the rest of the movie was very entertaining. Patrick Wilson accompanied by Vera Farmiga did stellar work as the Warren family. The pace of film was just right and the "encounters" throughout the film were accomplished quite splendidly as well. Don't particularly think this is something I'll watch again unless I forget certain parts and need a refresher, but it is something I'd suggest to anyone looking for a good possession film.

Annabelle (I) (2014)

"Predictable" is an understatement

[3/10 · 3 July 2019]

Boring and predictable. Played the "everyone thinks the protagonist is crazy until it's too late" card to death. The acting wasn't horrible, as everyone did a swell job, but oh my goodness, this film was just horrendously predictable which absolutely destroyed any possible chance of entertaining anyone in the room.

Annabelle: Creation (2017)

Tastefully done

[8/10 · 3 July 2019]

Overall I feel the film progressed well both in regards to tension build up and story. While the lines seemed cheesy in some parts, the acting was great and helped sell the story even more. I came into this film a bit skeptically with my mind made up before giving it a chance thinking it'd be beyond stupid, but as I watched I realized I was wrong. Tastefully done. Would watch it again.