Well, uh, that was something.
Why is this even classified as a movie? It's just a 1 minute film about a group of guys electrocuting and killing an elephant. From what I understand, and what the description of the video states:
"Topsy the Elephant belonged to the Forepaugh Circus and spent the last years of her life at Coney Island's Luna Park. Because she killed one trainer (who burned her trunk with a lit cigar), and subsequently became aggressive towards two other keepers who had struck her with a pitchfork, Topsy was deemed a threat to people by her owners and killed by electrocution on January 4, 1903 at the age of 36.
Inventor Thomas Edison oversaw and conducted the electrocution, and he captured the event on film. Edison used the film in his campaign against George Westinghouse and AC technology."
Edison didn't just electrocute the elephant because he felt like it, he just oversaw the execution, which the elephant was going to be hanged originally anyways.
DO YOUR RESEARCH, YOU CRYBABIES.
Well, I finally got around to seeing it... again... for the third time.
However, this time I saw it with my dad, who isn't the biggest superhero fan in the world. Much to my surprise and enjoyment, he actually really liked it. Considering he's never been a big fan of any Marvel or DC properties, he said this was his favorite portrayal of both Superman and Batman, beating out all previous performances. He even liked Jessie Eisenberg, which is what I was worried about. Yes, I only showed him the Ultimate Edition. There's no sense in showing him the butchered mess that was the theatrical cut. Even he wondered what they could've possibly cut and couldn't imagine 30 whole minutes being chopped out. It was fun getting to see it again, and I understood even more things this time around. Now that I knew what was going, I could actually sit back and enjoy the movie for what it is. Still remains one of my favorite superhero movies to date.
This isn't war. It's a game
Absolutely go see it. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is so great in this movie. The entire run-time of this feature could be his Best Actor Winner clip show reel. His dramatic and enticing performance in this just blew me away. You feel the pain he feels as he's pinned down to a small brick wall, being forced to remove a bullet from his leg, watching his partner being pushed to the ground by sniper-point; it's a lot like Dunkirk, but without the music. No music plays the whole movie. Isaac, played by Johnson, and his partner, played by John Cena, are currently out investigating a pipeline in Iraq when things go from suspicious to a nightmare. Cena's character gets pinned down after being shot by an unidentified sniper named Juba. Isaac is forced to stay behind a wall to hide from the shooter that that has both of them pinned down. From there, the movie becomes one big chess game. The sniper wants to get information from Isaac by talking to him over his radio transmission. What he wants to do with that information, we don't know yet. I actually don't want to say that much, in fear of spoiling, but this movie engrossed me from beginning to end. I've never seen an hour and a half fly by that quickly. I wasn't bored at any moment during this. You're constantly on the edge of your seat questioning what's going. The pieces slowly become clearer as time goes on, and the sniper's motivations, I suppose, are what constitutes as the the "twist" ending. The reveal will make you have one of two reactions... or both. Flipping fantastic stuff. You start to like it the more you think about it. I only loved it even more as I thought about while driving home from the theater. The actors did an incredible job with the material they were given, it's not exactly the happiest movie you'll ever see, but it sucked me in so much. One of my favorite movies of 2017 so far.
I've definitely seen worse comedies out there. I think the biggest problem I have with it, and television shows like 'Family Guy', is the over-reliance on reference humor. It's like the film makers are saying, "Hey audience members, we saw Jurassic Park movies. Look, we know memorable scenes from them. Doesn't that just make us so fucking funny?" Every scene, they're just casually listing off a popular movie, thinking that makes their own movie good. It's really gotten old. Reference humor is one of the lowest forms of comedy you can do now.
I admit, I enjoyed Zac Efron and the other actresses in their roles. There were a couple of funny scenes, but nothing really sticks out to me... except one particularly cringe-worthy massage scene in the middle of the movie. It's something straight out of Sacha Baron Cohen production, it's really crude and goes on for too long. You remember that extremely explicit elephant sex scene from 'The Brothers Grimsby'? Yeah, it's a little like that, except it's not as explicit.
A couple funny scenes are ultimately bogged down by some really terrible cringe-worthy moments, making this just another average comedy.
Not much I can say about it, but it has quite a number of memorable moments. James Franco is wonderful as always, in any movie he's in. The cast are all first-rate and deliver pretty good performances. The things that bring the movie down for me, are the sometimes terrible visual effects, and the cliche'd elements of the story. It's definitely not very original at times, in terms of presentation, which is interesting, considering it's based on a true story. But there are some visually unique and clever moments that make this an above average period piece.
HAPPY 25th ANNIVERSARY to ALIEN 3
Hell yeah, as of today, Alien 3 was unleashed onto the world exactly 25 years ago. Now unfortunately, audiences were not treated to the amazing assembly cut, which I've already strongly recommended, but nonetheless, David Fincher's first film was released into theaters with a largely mixed reaction. It wouldn't be until 2001 that a proper fully recut version of the movie would be released, which is now available on the Alien Anthology Blu-ray box set.
I'm not going to write a super long review for this one, as I'm burnt out after that Alien: Covenant four page angry rant, but I'll write just a little on why this is one of my favorite movies of all time.
A lot of people are very quick to dismiss this movie, as one the surface, they judge the critical plot point that happens in the first 5 minutes of the movie, in which Hicks and Newt from James Cameron's Aliens are unceremoniously killed off-screen with a word of dialogue or screen-time. I wonder if audience members just tuned out after that scene and refused to accept and enjoy the movie with such a "FUCK YOU!" moment like that so early on. I personally don't mind it, as it perfectly sets the depressing tone the movie goes for. Put those characters to rest, as they're not the focus of the Alien universe. Ripley is the focus of the franchise.
Just a brief synopsis, Ripley is the soul survivor of an escape pod crash as she lands on a distant prison planet, Fiorina "Fury" 161. She's rescued and put with the other prisoners, where they must soon join forces as they face off an alien loose in the lead refinery prison plant, which stoad aboard the crashed escape pod.
I love the thematic elements Fincher tries to go for, mostly stuff that only appears in the assembly cut. A lot of people have pointed out all the religious symbolism that vapors over the entire movie, in it's imagery and storyline. Ripley comes to the planet almost like a Jesus figure. In this bleak and terrible environment, a group of people who are criminals and rapists, the prison inmates have converted to a kind of Christian religion, but are thrown off when a temptation figure, a woman, arrives on the planet. They question their own religion and existence even further with the presence of an evil figure, the xenomorph. By the person Ripley is, she forgives and atones for their sins, and ultimate sacrifices herself at the end for the good of mankind, destroying the last alien and even forming the crucifix at the end as she throws herself in the lava.
But besides it's rather heavy use of themes, it's a perfect sequel to the masterpiece Alien. Because it's not an action movie, it has the chance to recapture the close encounters claustrophobic and chaotic attitude the finale the first movie originally had. It's an incredibly nightmarish experience, in mood and events. Ripley has had to witness everyone she's ever known be killed and hasn't gotten a break since the first film. Even at the end of Alien 3, when human Bishop lies to Ripley that he'll kill the xenomorph chestburster and she can go live a normal, she can tell through his words his dishonesty, and decides she's had enough with the horror and "bullshit" she's had to endure. It's not a pleasant movie by any means, but the dark and terrible nature of the story and atmosphere makes it a true horror movie. The music by Elliot Goldenthal is on the same level as James Horner's score for Aliens. It's hopeless attitude and Alien-like sound makes it a true work of art for a movie soundtrack.
I'll take a religious-heavy, brilliantly written, visually terrifying, and wonderfully executed horror downer any day. I love this kind of shit. The characters are all interesting, especially Morse, who has a wicked dark sense of humor. Ripley's character is brought to a final close, and I consider this movie to be the true finale to the Alien franchise, and it really works. Trying to bring her back in Resurrection just screamed cash-grab. This is a fantastic film. Yes, it's depressing as hell and it's not for everyone, but that's to be expected going into a HORROR movie. PLEASE give it a chance, watch past the opening scene. It's not meant to have a happy ending where it's all smiles. Ridley Scott should've followed this movie for Alien: Covenant.
DO NOT WATCH THE TRAILER. I REPEAT. DO NOT WATCH THE TRAILER.
The trailer for this tension-filled drama is a complete misrepresentation of what the movie is actually like. It totally betrays the focus of the movie and what it's really about. This is probably why some audience members are turning this movie away, because they either don't understand it or had different expectations going in.
That being said, I don't even really consider this a horror movie. That's to be expected with low-budget Art-house productions, like The Witch, but even The Witch was filled with actual scares and real dread. I still go back to that movie to this day, because it left a very real impression on me, a very creepy one.
It Comes At Night boasts 3 things:
Great performances
A claustrophobic and sometimes very tension-filled environment
Good music
And that's about it. The reason I'm giving this movie 3/5 stars, an above average rating, is those qualities really sell this movie. Those 3 things made me feel I didn't waste my money and got my time worth's spending.
Let me make something clear first before I go any further. I LOVE slow-burn horror movies. I'm an advocate for them. When a movie can perfectly combine jump-scares and atmosphere, it makes for some of my favorite movies of all time.
The problems I have with It Comes At Night though are 2 very simple things, and this could just all be me and only problems for me:
It feels like there's supposed to be this feeling of dread throughout the movie, I felt like I was supposed to be really depressed and battered down at some of the events happening, but a lot of these tension-oriented and scary scenes didn't really go all-out. They didn't go balls-to-the-wall and kept a scene going for more than 5 minutes. What I mean is, whenever a situation came up that was bad, like the dog barking at the woods and then running off, it never went past the initial concept of the scene. The scene lasts for 5 minutes, the family goes back inside the house, maybe a TINY bit paranoid, and then a few scenes later, the dog shows back up sick from the unnamed disease, and has to be put down. It wasn't like in other movies, like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Witch, where a pivotal scene like that would just build and build. The only scene that resembles something like that is in the finale, and even then, it's only about 10 minutes tops.
And the other thing was they NEVER explained what actually comes at night. I know, I know, this is a very silly response that sounds like it would come from a mainstream movie-goer who doesn't get these kinds of movies, but this aspect of the movie actually bothers me. They NEVER, EVER, ONCE, in the entire movie ever even hint at what possibly could be causing the disease or where's it coming from. No talking about where it started, how many people have it, just nothing at all. My problem is, I wouldn't mind that they don't fully explain the disease, but the fact the title of the movie and even scenes in the movie itself hint that they would eventually explains "what comes at night." Does the disease only show up at night? Do nightmares only show up at night? I guess these questions don't really matter, but it'd be nice if the movie distracted from those questions long enough to get me really invested in what was going on with the families.
Also, the ending is one of the biggest fuck you downer endings I've seen this year. It's almost as fucked up as the ending to The Wall. And YES, I understand the purpose of these twists. They tie into the central theme of the movie.
I just, I don't know. I want to give this movie a higher rating, but something about it is holding me back. There were tastes of genuine tension and there were great performances, but I don't know. I may have to think about it longer before revisiting this.
The most underrated comedy of all time. I mean that.
This has non-stop hilarious skits every minute and every single one hits their mark (Minus one). Each one tackles a different modern topic, ranging from movie critics, to identity politics, to terrorism, to advertising, to celebrities, black people, white people, etc. No one is left behind in this satire of epic proportions. It seriously had me rolling with laughter throughout the entire movie. Steven Seagal as Cock Puncher needs to be a real movie.
I adore this movie. I love it more than Spaceballs.
The second the movie falls apart is when the mother turns into a bear.
First half okay, second half garbage.
Holy crap, I need to make a video comparing this movie to Toy Story, 'cause some of the plot elements and even lines of dialogue are identical to the Toy Story trilogy. That being said, the movie itself is just above average. Decent music, pretty good animation, and some genuinely funny moments that bring this rip-off to enjoyable-enough levels.
I give the Minions a small pass, because they're basically just like those old cartoons from the 40's and 50's that they would show before a movie would begin. The only problem is, the timing doesn't work at some moments. Only 1 joke in this entire short got me to chuckle. The rest was just filler, so at least, thankfully, it was short.
What am I doing with my life, writing this?
Reddit has no idea what they're missing out on, they're too busy circlejerking the shit out of Fury Road.
Despite it's clunky story, undeveloped characters, and not being faithful to the source material by any stretch, it still holds a special place in my heart. But even so, as a movie on it's own, it's a visual marvel. The underground dystopian city that King Koopa and his minions live is straight out of Tim Burton's Batman, and it's one of the most gorgeous cities ever, even on the same level as Blade Runner. Some of the jokes are cringy, but they're fun in a nostalgic kind of way. I might be a bit biased, and no, it's not a great movie that I'd recommend to normal people, but I still enjoy it. At least check out some of the scenes with clear views of the city. Also, the poster is fucking awesome. It's pure 90's.
Would anyone of my followers like to see me take on the Star Wars movies before the crap-fest Han Solo spin-off comes out? I have some thoughts I could get off my chest, but it'd take awhile to write.
Just going to throw this out there: I like The Phantom Menace.
This is the movie where Daniel Day-Lewis truly shines. Easily his best performance role to date, with Lincoln and There Will Be Blood respectively going after. I don't have time now to do a full review, I'll update this later, but go watch this movie! I'm actually shocked at how few people have seen this. Incredible display of acting talent.
I'm about to save you two hours of run-time, you ready?
The reason the U.S. has more expensive healthcare and insurance is because we choose to have the strongest military on the planet instead of a cheaper alternative.
There you go, just saved you two hours. If you still want to go live in France or Canada for ""better"" healthcare, have fun with terrorist attacks and a much smaller military.
I'm tired, so I'm not going to write all my thoughts, but I'll share the big ones. It's not scary. There you go. There's a few creepy moments here and there, but surprisingly didn't jump once while watching nor am I scared by Pennywise. Depending on your fear of clowns or amaze of Skasgard's acting job, the results may vary. But that said, the movie is badass. I view this as more like an Evil Dead or Drag Me To Hell type movie. Where, like there are creepy and disturbing shit happening, but you more react like, "Ooo, that's cool. That was awesome." Whenever Pennywise was on-screen, I was just fucking entertained, so that's how I view it. When he started dancing, I was on the verge of laughing. My dad also compared the movie to Beetlejuice, which is a perfect comparison. IT (2017) is basically an R-rated The Goonies with Beetlejuice thrown in, and it is awesome.
What elevates this movie up even further is that it has lovable characters you actually want to see come out on top, something I can't say for other horror installments lately. Bill and Georgie's relationship was actually heartbreaking, when I didn't expect it to be. Overall, just a lovable gang of outsiders who have to take on a killer clown. Great stuff here and so many good quotes from each the kids. But yeah, it's not scary, but it's slick, stylish, fucking hilarious at times, has a couple creepy moments, and Pennywise is the demonic Beetlejuice of modern movies. I'm actually looking forward to Chapter Two.
Star Wars jokes, huh, Disney? Not trying to be subtle anymore?
It's a remake of Spider-Man 2. Now I know that's a dumb criticism to be made, because really, how many different stories for a Spider-Man movie can you do at this point? Well, actually a lot! There's how many fucking comic books stories from The Amazing Spider-Man and Spectacular Spider-Man that Marvel Studios and Sony could've pulled from? But NOPE. We get an almost scene-by-scene copy of Spider-Man 2 with Toby Maguire. And my biggest problem with that decision, is they didn't ever top that film once in the entire run-time. There's even a scene that directly mirrors the "Raindrops are falling on my head" scene from 2, where Parker is now an ordinary guy without the suit. What a joke.
Without comparing to the original movies, what are some positives? Tom Holland is a great choice for Peter Parker, and he sticks closer to the age and personality of the original comics. I love him from The Lost City Of Z by James Gray, so it was cool to see him get a big role like this. The spidey-suit upgrades were an inventive fun thing to watch, so that added a little humorous element to the story, even if it was a little too reminiscent of the Ant-Man we just got, but Tom Holland makes it work. A couple of the jokes landed really good, especially the acting from Jon Favreau, but there were multiple desperate attempts at using memes to get younger viewers to laugh, and that got annoying. Diego Tutweiller has an excellent essay about the "Humor of Juxtaposition" in Marvel movies, so go read that too. JMichael Keaton as the villain was a fantastic choice. He doesn't have any super-insane freak-out moments, but his intimidation was what made his character interesting. And also, with the way they wrote him, you can't really love or hate him. I was actually just a sliver sympathetic towards the end when he's explaining his actions to Peter Parker. But I never felt any of the dramatic weight that I did in the originals.
And this is where I get into my major problem with this movie and the other MCU movies. They feel so disconnected from the real world, that what they Avengers do have no effect on civilization and not a single person is affected by their actions. Why don't we get to see the reactions of people getting killed when a plane crashes into a city-scope tower? It's obvious people were harmed and killed, but why don't we see that? Because Marvel wants to keep their movies fun and accessible to wide-spread audiences. All the dramatic tension in every single Marvel movie I've seen so far, is so superficial and without consequence. Call me biased to DC all you want, I'm not, but at least in Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice, you see the effects that Superman's attack on Zod had on Metropolis and the world. You see the people who were affected by those actions, IE, the little girl who lost her mother, the employee at Wayne enterprises who lost his legs, etc. We never see anything like that in the MCU movies, Spider-Man Homecoming included. The only time it gets even close to this aspect is when Peter's Decathlon class is stuck in an elevator about to drop, or the ferry with people on it. But just like the other movies, it plays it up for laughs, so there's no serious weight to the situation, because you know none of them are going to be killed, and you don't see any people really cowering in fear. You know what would've made that ferry scene work even better? Seeing a mother protect maybe a child in her arms, and then seeing Peter Parker's reaction, realizing the gravity of the situation. But NOPE. We have a fat black guy say, "Yeah, go Spider-man!" What the fuck.
I firmly believe at this point no one will ever make a Spider-Man or superhero movie in general that tops Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2. Do people just not understand what made that movie so incredible? People sure like to praise, but do they really know why?
Such a simple premise, yet so effective.
I think that's my only complaint about this classic, is how minimal and straight-forward the film's story is. Now -- that's not to say that's a bad thing, 'cause it works enough for this. What many others have already commented is how The Texas Chain Saw Massacre very much goes for a documentary-style of filmmaking. It opens with a stock narrator telling us what's about to happen, as if implying to the viewers, that the events that are shown, really happened. The gritty and dark grainy photography Hooper shoots come off as archival footage, like this is actual footage of a real sequence of events. Also, what I noticed throughout, was the inclusion of rather unnecessary details in quite a few scenes. Why would we need to see someone get out of a car, go back inside the gas station to turn off the light and close the door, and then get back in the car? That's not important to the story. In most films, you'd cut that right out. But these small and left-in touches add to the documentary quality. This is something that newer Texas Chainsaw films are missing, as they go for a much more cinematic look, as opposed to this real-life cinematography. Going slightly off-topic, this is why James Cameron, for the 2012 restoration of Titanic, bumped up the aspect ratio of his film to 16:9 and color corrected the movie differently, to give his film about the Titanic a more television-like documentary facade. I bet most of you didn't even think about that.
But as for this beast of a movie, which spawned many sequels, video games, books, spin-off movies, Halloween Horror Nights mazes, and etc, what makes this gruesome feature so inciting? Why was it such a phenomenon and became possibly the most recognized horror icon in history? Some point at the "Based On A True Story" gimmick that the marketing team strategized, and while the movie is very loosely based on real serial killer, Ed Gein, most of the movie is fiction. I think the gruesome depiction of someone getting sliced up with a chainsaw, which hadn't really been seen on film before, was captivating and exciting for viewers. This is most likely why this extremely low-budgeted 16mm production went on to make over 35 million at the box office over the course of 8 years. Who wouldn't go see the one disgusting horror film you just gotta see? And Leatherface's costume is just so gross, but brilliant. A cannibal who wears his victims' faces as masks? Fucking grotesque, but amazing. Can I also just mention the bleak and fucked-up set design? Notice at the final dinner scene, the chair Sally's sitting in, the arm rests are literally just human arms. Awesome. Nowadays, the feature is a slight dated compared to some horror films, in terms of pacing and editing, but The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is just as engrossing and fast-paced as you can get. I did not feel the run-time at all in this, despite it's sometimes slow-pace and scenes that have no much going on. Just like Jaws, which came out a year later, the movie starts out slow, with an energetic group of friends just taking a ride through Texas, and the movie accelerates to an insane chase sequence, eventually the movie just turning into an absolute nightmare. The claustrophobic and up-close tight photography makes for some deeply disturbing imagery. What also helps this movie over some others is the pitch-black visuals at night. In most other productions, in order for the audience to see what's going on at night, the crew could be using a low-light camera to ever-so slight brighten up the night sequences just so you could see. In this film thought, the night scenes are quite literally pitch-fucking-black. You can't see shit in this, which is probably the most realistic and frightening lighting; not knowing where Leatherface is going to show up makes for an even more tense atmosphere. The final scene at the dinner table and subsequent chase at the end are two of my favorite scenes in horror history. Sickening stuff. If you haven't checked out the original The Texas Chain Saw Massacre yet, please do, for Tobe Hooper and Gunnar Hansen.
Highly recommended viewing for this October!
R.I.P. Tobe Hooper and Gunnar Hansen.
Now THAT is a lot of blood.
Why, oh why, do I love this movie, so? Why do I love you so much, Raimi? However, in this case, I can understand why someone wouldn't enjoy the film. The story can be a little poor at times, the pacing is occasionally slow, and the characters aren't the most developed. I think the movie gets more epic towards the finale, but that's not to say there aren't good points in the beginning and mentioned categories. I love the thematic connections that came back at the end of the movie to wrap a nice little bow to Ash and Ashley's arc. The necklace Ash gives Ashley from the beginning prevents him from chainsaw-ing her neck at the end, and his eye-open eye-close game Ash played on here, demon Ashley plays later on him when he's burying her. But aside from a couple beats like that, the story is very simple. A group of friends go to a cheap cabin in the forest, they find a demonic book, then all hell breaks loose... literally.
What I really love about this movie is it's presentation. The red and blue color palettes and framing of shots are just gorgeously wild, as excepted from Raimi. My absolute favorite parts are the hand-held moments from the POV of the demons. I've never seen a horror movie before tackle a motion like this, and it turned out beautifully. There's something a slight amateur-ish about it, but lovable. Actually, the whole movie is very obviously low-budget independent. The cabin is clearly on a sound stage with propped lighting and fog machines, but something about it's look is just intoxicating. It's the ideal cabin for a horror movie. Everything about it is mesmerizing.
I think what fans like to draw from this movie is the experience it provides. The mythology behind the book of the dead and the ride you take with Ash throughout this movie, and the subsequent sequels, is something I can see people getting rallied behind. It's amazing how Raimi was able to take, what seemed like just a simple horror movie, and provide a whole successful franchise around it. Now that I think about, I actually want my own copy of the book of the dead.
Highly recommend viewing for this October!
Lots of fun horror action and plenty of blood!
I didn't have time to watch a full movie today, so this short will suffice. Too bad what I picked had to be garbage. I like the idea in concept. For a Halloween live special, Blumhouse productions did a fake live snuff film recording at a Halloween party. This sounds like a cool idea, one that could lend itself to an unprecedented online experience, but the execution here is fucking garbage. It feels so amateurish in it's costuming, set design, lighting, acting, and just everything. Nothing sticks, nothing is scary, and there are so many periods of time and gaps of stuff just not happening. I can't count how many times I wanted to shut it off.
Like yesterday, I didn't have enough time to squeeze a feature-length horror film, so I had to suffice to watch a bunch of shorts instead. However, just so there's a topic, I turned to Jan Svankmajer. His surrealist style of stop-motion animation is quite a product of the time. I felt a random rush of emotions and thoughts as I watched this piece, mostly of amusement. The animation can be a little creepy at moments, but you can't deny the fascinating and undeniable talent Svankmajer has. His clay-mation throughout all the shorts I've seen, notably his music video, Another Kind Of Love, are all grotesque and off-putting, but there was an intrigue to it that kept me watching. Worth checking these out.
I actually first got introduced to David F. Sandberg from seeing his mainstream theatrical production, Annabelle: Creation. Once I looked him up online, I had no idea he was the man behind creating those fantastic and viral horror shorts on Youtube. Later on, I sat down and watched the feature-length, Lights Out, which I really loved. But as for his first-time short films, they're all perfection in a hand basket. All of the ones he's done, including the original Lights Out short, are genuinely creepy and tension-filled little moments captured brilliantly on camera. My favorite of his currently is the 2014 Pictured. Right from the get-go, the short starts off creepy with a rather grainy and faded picture of a creepy-looking girl standing on a sidewalk. From there, the short escalates, as the girl in the picture escapes and manipulates the photograph, taunting the owner in the house. The brilliant use of sound and finale set-up make this one of my new favorites. When she's putting her hand up and and down and the girl in the picture moves each time she does this, I got braced for impact and I was almost yelling at the monitor. There was a slight final scare, but it was more of an unsettling startle. I love all of Sandberg's work so far, and I can't wait to see more of his talented productions in the future.
That was fucking badass. And hilarious. Two Doug Liman movies this year and they're both fantastic. I'm not going to say anything else. You have to see this for yourself. I love it. Technically this isn't a horror movie, but this is all I saw today.
Deliver Us From Evil, it starts off in a rather unusual location, following scouts in 2010 Iraq, giving us a brief action sequence. Things take a turn for the worse and the 3 person group discovers an underground mine where something goes wrong. Cut ahead 3 years, we follow Ralph Sarchie, played by the talented Eric Bana, he and his partner get involved with a strange case of a wall painter having to do something with the supernatural. Sarchie is put in a desperate situation, as he continues to follow the case, his mental state begins to deteriorate.
What makes the movie intriguing, like Sinister, is the mystery element that's written into here, and the clever cinematic techniques that play into delivering the audience clues. Notice how all the jump-scares in the movie are only done using animals or the wall painter? They're not randomly placed jumps for the sake of having them. All the possessed people clawing on the ground, a trait of that typically of cats? I'm going to waste time going through all the little tie-ins that connect with either character traits or story conclusions, but it's there. It's pretty smartly written actually. But with that said, what drags the movie down at points is the slow pace and uninteresting scenes with the father Sarchie interacts with, played by Édgar Ramírez. I think the man is a great actor, but parts of the story where he was around dragged the story to a halt. I'm not sure if they really could cut out some of his scenes, as this was adapted from a book and supposedly "real-life" events, so whatever. Another unfortunate problem is some scenes are unnecessarily long. A little trimming in the editing room could've helped a bit. But overall, satisfaction wise, there's a lot to like here. It's not the standard horror trope fare some reviewers are pushing it as. Derrickson's brilliance is still all over the picture and I just had fun seeing his direction mixed with the great soundtrack. One thing I would've liked to see more of was the detectives combing through security footage and finding creepy shit. There was some of that, but it was few and far between. Add more of that, and this movie would've bumped up even more.
Easy watch today, because again, I'm busy with life and other projects. I'm a fan of Hardcastle's work, from his Pingu's The Thing and his other clay-mation work. Chainsaw Maid though, is a very peculiar series of videos. I love chainsaws in my horror films and this seemed like the perfect combination of sexy and horrific, but there's a good balance. I almost view this maid as the Ripley from Alien: a badass that has to protect a kid. Now, for some reason, Hardcastle has an extreme fetish for this clay-mation and the maid doesn't finally get nude until the third part, which is actually the worst one, but the first works. If you're going to watch any of these, just watch the first, The other two just aren't good enough for recommendations.
For what it is, it's a good history lesson and introduction to the history of music in movie's history, going as far back to 1895 to explain how much score had an impact on the visuals of film. I got a kick out of seeing more obscure composers, a lot of whom I love, actually have a chance to talk about what they do in their profession. Hearing Christopher Young and Steve Jablonsky get the recognition they deserve made me smile a little. But aside from the self-congratulatory stance the documentary takes, I didn't actually get a whole lot out of it. Now, that's just a problem for me and me alone, since I'm an avid fan of movie music already, I didn't learn anything I didn't already know. If you're just getting into movies and their accompanying soundtracks, this is a good documentary to get your start. But if you know even just a little bit of the ever-growing change of film music, this might not be for you. There was no clear question or hard topics being tackled like I expected, so part of me felt a little empty after watching. I got to see this at a screening where the director did a Q&A session afterwards, so that was nice to at least hear from him a little. I applaud his efforts, but it's just above-average to me. However, big props for the James Horner tribute in the end credits. That was nice.
Eh, for what it is, it's enjoyable enough. What really elevates this movie up though is it's brilliant concept, and how it actually has an effect on it's characters and resolution. There's a few points in the middle I didn't care for, and motivations that felt extremely unrealistic, but it's got it where it counts. I hear the sequels are better though, so I'm excited to watch those. This could use a bit of tweaking, but I'm going to be nice and give this a generous pass. Didn't hate it, don't think it's amazing, but I think it's a cool idea.
Shame. If you've seen ANY of the previous Saw movies, or have an IQ above 80, you'll see every twist coming a mile away. This almost feels like a Saw fan film, to be honest. It's lost that epic and convoluted feel the previous installments had, something I actually found enjoyment in. This is one of the better directed Saw movies, but certainly the weakest in terms of the writing, with the twist ending being the lamest and underdeveloped twist I've seen yet in the series. The mystery element is extremely predictable, and like I've said, if you know the plot elements from the earlier movies, you'll predict what happens, easily. For example, in the movie, the detectives and doctors are dumbfounded that the killer's blood matches up and is under the victim's finger-nails. even though, the killer's been dead for 10 years. I immediately remembered back what happened in SAW V, when Hoffman, one of the original killers, used another person's finger-prints to handle a body, pinning the blame on them. And guess what, that's exactly what happens here. Someone planted the original killer's blood under the finger-nails. Nice original twist, you got there, guys. The only reason I'd recommend checking this out on video are some of the kills, which are pretty cool, but there's nothing here that screams a theater experience. I went against judgment from others, telling me to not bother, but I went anyways because I'm a Saw fan, but I'm a little disappointed. Seeing Tobin Bell in the role was cool and some traps were nice, but just overall, lame.
I love that they even flat out mention Groundhog Day as a joke at the end of the movie. Nice little cherry on top of the cake. This movie was just badass. There's not a lot I can really complain about, actually, except for maybe one part dragging or a plot thread I thought was underdeveloped, but overall, not at all. From beginning to end, Happy Death Day is one of the funnest experiences I've had watching a movie in years. This really needs to become a classic like Krampus or other frequently mentioned horror flicks, and Jessica Rothe needs to have a career after this. Her talent she gave in this starring role was one of the most believable and raw performances I've seen from a horror protagonist since like Jamie Lee Curtis or Marilyn Burns. She was just absolutely-fucking-fantastic. She starts off as kind of a brat, and a bad person to her peers, but as the events unfold, a lot like Groundhog Day, she begins to make amends with her friends and family and change overall. Her father is mentioned throughout, him trying to call her every morning, and it's actually quite heartwarming to see her set things straight with him near the finale. There were a couple small details I liked that emphasized this thread. For example, at the beginning of the movie on the first day, her roommate makes her a cupcake for her birthday, but Theresa just throws the cupcake in the trash right in front of her. On the second, after the first kill, she just puts the cupcake on the dresser. On the third, she almost gets ready to eat it. There was some pretty clever writing that tricks the viewer into thinking the killer could be one person, but it's actually another. The ending was a little rushed with it's reveal, and that's the part where I mean underdeveloped, but I think it still works enough. Just like the protagonist, the movie doesn't spend too much time on this character, so the out-of-field reveal makes sense, to me at least.
Overall, just tons of extremely hilarious sequences that made me grin hard, especially the ones with Carter, played by Israel Broussard. I don't think I've smiled this hard watching a movie in quite awhile, all at the same time serving us with deliciously awesome horrific scenes. In one part, when Theresa is in a dorm room with one of her friends, who turns up the bass too loud, the killer starts stabbing him to death in the background while Theresa is distracted. She's on her phone, and she gets a text from a friend saying she hopes they both die, while the guy is being stabbed. Sorry, I just love little tie-ins like that. There's plenty more similar stuff written in, and I just had fun with that shit. I'd go as far to say I enjoyed this more than the recent outing of IT, which I did like. Horror has just been doing really well this year, and I'm glad it so is.
