"Alice returns to where the nightmare began: The Hive in Raccoon City, where the Umbrella Corporation is gathering its forces for a final strike against the only remaining survivors of the apocalypse."
There's no point writing any kind of in-depth review of "Resident Evil: The Final Chapter". It's just as disappointing and "samey" as all of the "Resident Evil" movies, and it's even more boring than playing one of the linear computer games that it's based on.
With lots of overly dramatic music, big bangs and explosions, crowds of zombies, close-up hand-to-hand combat, surprise T-virus mutated-zombie jump scares, and too much reliance on timers to create tension (which nearly always falls flat), you will rightly wonder who exactly this movie is intended for other than diehard fans. It certainly wasn't intended for me or anyone looking for characters with any depth or a story that can't be summarised in more than three sentences.
The only character to stand out even a little bit is Isaacs (played by Iain Glen, otherwise known as Ser Friendzoned from "Game of Thrones") who goes through various incarnations of being either a clone or the real Isaacs until you don't care which is which. Various other characters from the previous movies return as little more than cameos. Wesker, the Red Queen, and Claire whatever-her-name-is (played by Ali Larter) all get dressed up to play pretend for hardly any reason.
The rest is just a mess of running around and fighting in the dark with CGI everywhere and computery things popping up to remind you that this is all based on the Capcom console game which nobody has played since the late 1990s. It's not difficult to follow what little story there is, but it's not worth paying too much attention to it either.
There's a bit of anti-Christian nuttery to make it appeal to the Lefties, but since the motivation of the bad guys and subtext is blatantly more akin to the the rise of the SJW religion/virus and the rioting zombies who subscribe to that ideology, it comes across as a pathetic and hilarious misfire.
Sadly, the once uber hot Milla Jovovich really looks her age now (and more so, once you get the in-joke that I've just made), so I'm glad this is "The Final Chapter". Any more would be as embarrassing as middle-aged James Bond.
"The next installment in the blockbuster franchise, UNDERWORLD: BLOOD WARS follows Vampire death dealer, Selene (Kate Beckinsale) as she fends off brutal attacks from both the Lycan clan and the Vampire faction that betrayed her. With her only allies, David (Theo James) and his father Thomas (Charles Dance), she must stop the eternal war between Lycans and Vampires, even if it means she has to make the ultimate sacrifice."
Considering that I've already bitched and whined as much as is humanly possible about how disappointing this entire series of "black and blue films" is overall, all I'm really doing by reviewing "Blood Wars" is repeating what I said about "Underworld: Awakening" four years ago but with a few extra names dropped in. Sadly, I've watched these movies get worse with every sequel (or prequel), and I'd almost forgotten what happened in the last one until I read my own review.
Suffice it to say that with a running time of just over an hour and 20 minutes (including 4 minutes of recaps at the start and several more minutes of flashbacks scattered throughout), there isn't a lot of anything new here. It's already obvious that it's not going to be the last of the "Underworld" series, but it's easily the weakest so far and reeks of being another half-arsed filler. "Underworld" really should have been a TV series after the first theatrical release if this is the way they are going to play it.
Obviously, Kate Beckinsale looks fantastic again. Also of note is Lara Pulver as Semira. She looks like a more perfect version of a young Sigourney Weaver from certain angles, but occasionally she has the air of Eva Green about her too.
It's almost the same deal with Theo James who reminds me of a younger Julian McMahon, Bradley James who looks like Mads Mikkelsen playing Le Chiffre in "Casino Royale", and James Faulkner who resembles Albert Finney way too much. Maybe the casting director thought they were trying to make a lookalike compendium of the latest James Bond films because that's what they've ended up with, give or take a few werewolves and vampires.
Whatever the case, the plot is weak, characters aren't given enough time to develop, and every slow scene seems to be designed as a hindrance rather than an attempt to progress the story. Consequently, if you only see the last 5 minutes, it will be enough to prepare you for the next installment, because the padded action sequences are nothing memorable either. A couple of important characters are completely wasted, but I'll say no more than that. Maybe it's an intentional contempt for the audience, or maybe it's just inept filmmaking, I'll let you decide for yourself.
Although the choreography improves later on, the majority of the action scenes are little more than a bunch of extras who no one cares about getting confusingly slaughtered in the background to the even more confusing duels between the main protagonists. There's never any sense of threat or danger involved due to none of the characters having enough screen time for you to get to know much about them.
The be all and end all of this "Underworld" movie is that it seems to only exist for completists and fans who will buy it anyway. If you haven't seen any of the others, you won't know what to make of it, who anyone is, or why anything is happening, and even with prior knowledge, "Underworld: Blood Wars" will still be very disappointing.
Already showing in Europe since the start of December, American audiences will have to wait until January for the theatrical release. For those who are wise to these things, the fact that it's a "January movie" says it all.
"When mysterious spacecraft touch down across the globe, an elite team - led by expert linguist Louise Banks - is brought together to investigate. As mankind teeters on the verge of global war, Banks and the team race against time for answers - and to find them, she will take a chance that could threaten her life, and quite possibly humanity."
So, I watched 2 hours or more (trust me, it felt longer) of this utter shite based on a novel about alien octopusses which look like the Cloverfield monster, and I can now safely say that it was boring as shit and didn't make any fucking sense whatsoever.
I'm not some fucking thickie who can't decipher movies, but "The Arrival" is such a fucking artsy-fartsy, tangled mess that there's no explanation possible for what it's supposed to be about without drifting into some obscure philosophical bollocks which nobody normal knows about or has ever read anyway. No moral, no message, none of the most obvious questions answered, nothing memorable, just piss poor storytelling. It doesn't even have Charlie Sheen in it!
Here come loads of spoilers because fuck this movie.
She looks about as happy as I did watching this horseshit.
Basically, some ovaloid spaceships appear all over the world, and the aliens inside look like scary octopusses, or walking hands, or spiders. Take your pick, they are all nasty. The ugly motherfuckers walk like disembodied hands and squirt ink. Whatever the fuck they are, you wouldn't want one swimming up your arse.
A woman linguist (played by Amy Adams) with no make-up (because she's a scientist and clever, yawn!) and a bunch of other nondescript scientists go aboard one of the ships and attempt to communicate with the octopusses, but because the military are involved, someone (predictably) sets a bomb off during one of their missions, and the story starts again, and again, and again. Not like "Groundhog Day", but like someone fucked up editing it all together.
There's a little girl involved and a baby who may be the same person, and both are the linguist's daughter or the linguist herself. Both or all of them are destined to die of some horrible incurable disease which probably came from the octopusses. I'm fucked if I know. By this point, I'd developed a serious case of Forest Whitaker eye (yeah, he's in it too) and didn't care about anything. No action, no ray guns, no boobs, no blood, no cats. Why does something like this even exist? Oh yeah, because nerds and cucks like sci-fi.
After a scene more of less straight out of "The Abyss" (another slow movie which is also boring as shit), the aliens communicate with subtitles then leave. The linguist phones a Chinese scientist guy to tell him what his dead wife's last words were, and we're back to the linguist, and the little girl, and the baby again. Apparently she's married to the Jeremy Renner scientist guy now too, because that isn't predictable at all.
And none of it makes any fucking sense!!!!
Why are they here? Fucked if I know.
8.4 on the IMDb? Give me a fucking break. It's not even worth 1 out of 10. This is complete and utter shit from beginning to end. Allegedly, it rips-off Samuel R. Delany's "Babel 17" too.
I can't wait to see how badly director Denis Villeneuve fucks up the "Blade Runner" sequel with more style over substance now. Actually, I'm not. I won't be watching it.
"After discovering a video showing what he believes to be his vanished sister Heather, James and a group of friends head to the forest believed to be inhabited by the Blair Witch."
Starring another load of people you've never heard of and are probably never likely to hear of again, "Blair Witch" is an unnecessary sequel to a faux found footage movie I never liked very much in the first place.
So why watch it? Truth be told, I didn't. I just let my friends tell me how horrible it is, how annoying the characters are, and then I decided to write a nasty blog post about it. Hey, at least I'm honest.
I have no intention of ever wasting my time watching this shit made by Millennials for Millennials, or anything else Wingard and Barrett cobble together. From what I've been told, "Blair Witch" appears to borrow heavily from the Slender Man game and even features a thin-limbed CGI witch-creature to seal the deal. And that's really all I or anyone else needs to know. The rest of it is simply noisy jump scares.
Curious about what the Blair Witch actually looks like? Want to just see the witch and save yourself some money? Here ya go:
If I want motion-sickness from a movie which looks like a camera was being whirled round someone's head in a sock, I'm sure another equally lame "indie horror" offering will appear soon enough.
"When aspiring model Jesse moves to Los Angeles, her youth and vitality are devoured by a group of beauty-obsessed women who will take any means necessary to get what she has."
Imagine, if you will, "Zoolander" without the intentional comedy, or "Starry Eyes" without the horror. Got those fixed in your mind? Good. That's pretty much what "The Neon Demon" is, but it's not as good as either of them. In fact, it's just not good.
There are two major problems with "The Neon Demon" which render it absolutely worthless even for the Millennial dripsters who would normally gush over similar products. First, it's slower than molasses going uphill in January. Second, Elle Fanning has neither the looks, height, or demeanour to be a fashion model. The latter would make the whole movie unintentionally hilarious, but for the fact that it's also tedious as shit.
If this movie is really supposed to be a horror movie, Nicolas Winding Refn has no idea what a horror movie should be. Granted, it's a horrible movie, but there are no scares, no surprises, and not really much of anything of interest once you take out the mildly titillating lesbianism and necrophilia.
While boobs and blood used to be all that was needed for a movie to qualify for the genre, things have moved on a bit in the rest of the real world. Audiences now like subtle things such as a compelling story and decent characterisation too, neither of which you'll find here.
As "The Neon Demon" is contrived to be very Elle Fanning-centric, it's a pity that she doesn't have the "X Factor" or any screen presence whatsoever. As a girl-next-door type, I'm sure Elle has her devoted, horndog fans, but based on her performance in this movie, I'm not likely to ever be one of them. It's hard to tell if her acting is good, bad, or horrendous because every character in "The Neon Demon" is unlikable and seems to be affected by some kind of Asperger's Syndrome anyway.
Keanu Reeves stands out in his two minutes of screentime, but he's last-billed for good reason. In what can only be described as an extended cameo where he's still channelling John Wick, he's not much more than a miserable so-and-so, albeit with all the best lines. I would say more, but I've already written more words than his character has. If you're a big Keanu mark and want to see "The Neon Demon" purely because he's in it, be prepared to be disappointed.
If you're looking for a movie which satirises the fashion industry, you would obviously be better off with "Zoolander" or even the unfairly maligned "Zoolander 2" (which is almost as great as the first one). Sadly, "Showgirls" did all the seedy stuff better many years ago, and both "Eat" and "Starry Eyes" did the horror properly.
I was asked if I had seen this movie last night, and my reply was, "Seen it, hated it." That doesn't make for much of a critique, but it's all that really needs to be said when anyone mentions this pretentious arthouse crap in future. I wasn't even going waste my time reviewing it because, like most new movies, it's not worth the effort of sitting through in the first place, but I suppose I've done it now. "The Neon Demon" is complete and utter shit.
"A family in 1630s New England is torn apart by the forces of witchcraft, black magic and possession."
Agin my better reckoning, having travailed a vast ocean, I didst watcheth "The Witch". Hearken now, kindred, for the pure and faithful dispensation of mine own findings concerning this motion picture, if my conscience seeith fit to do so.
"The Witch" cannot be judged by false horror fanatics, as 'tis a work of the Devil himself to doeth so. 'Staid, thou must abandoneth prideful conceit to appreciate the lacketh of jump-scares, naked dugs, and blood herein this narrative which relieth on nothing save a thing called atmosphere. 'Tis not that such evils be not containeth in "The Witch", but blinketh and thou shalt miss them. Dost thou sayest contrarily, thou might be witched!
Verily, Colonnials wilt require subtitles to understandeth the strangeness of the Puritan accents. As anyone who doth hail from South of the Gap of Watford wilt testify, 'tis an ungodly language akin to the sounds of tupping beasts and 'twill be most unpleasant to thine ears. Shouldst thou walkest out of thy movie theatre with thy mind befuddled by gibberish, thou wilt assuredly not be the only one.
Fair Mistress Anya Taylor-Joy doth steal every scene.
If the deep Northern English tone of Master Ralph Ineson playing Master William dost not set thy nerves on edge, thou might be assuaged by the comeliness of Mistress Anya Taylor-Joy as Mistress Thomasin. Mistress Thomasin art a maiden who playeth on the Sabbath and breaketh all of God's commandments. She knoweth in her shame that she deserveth everlasting 'ellfire, yet has the fairest aspect and golden locks of an angel. Aye, there's the rub.
'Tis oft the case that a fair maiden dost hideth a secret evil, and verily, "The Witch" doth make much of this trope. Attempting to turneth it on its head to please the Warriors of Social Justice who would liken the subtext to a fallacious theorem called "feminism", doth not hold yet a pail of water carried on thy head. Such unmanly posturings haveth no place in this story which reinforceth the traditional superstitions of the patriarchy and doth not seek to quell them. Dost thou wish to oppose that contrarily with a gnashing of thy teeth? Soft now! Thou shouldst asketh thy goat!
Comely Mistress Sarah Stephens beest in it for nought but five minutes.
Mistress Sarah Stephens beest a more comely wench as the young seductive version of the evil witch in the woods, but her time on screen must be sparse. Nay, not as sparse as the complete lack of a witch in "The Blair Witch Project" (1999), but she dost not speak lest the vowels of her native Australian tongue giveth away that she be nought more than a Victoria's Secret model cast only for her titillating fairness. Thus, of all the maidens in "The Witch", Mistress Sarah beest the fairest to behold. 'Tis not only Master Harvey Scrimshaw as Master Caleb who wilt be fascinated by her countenance and come-hither bosom.
Adam's sin have been imputed to all, and a corrupt nature dwelling within, the cast doeth marvellous well with what they have to travail with. Likewise, the cinematography deserveth to be praised for its pridefulness but cannot be due to its oft-times darkness. Doeth the flaws outweigh the good? The opinion beeth by the sword divideth, and there be no consensus among them that art not afflicted by the pox. 'Tis God alone not Man who can tell thee.
Nay, there beest not cats in this film of witches.
Amidst blighted crops, addled eggs, goats bleeding instead of squirting milk from their teats, and with its grief-stricken protagonists in financial crisis, "The Witch" beest more akin to an analogy of modern life in the still recession-hit Colonies rather thanst the historical supernatural tale which it trieth so hard to tell. 'Tis hard to judge if that beest Master Robert Eggar's intent or not, since 'twas all filmed in Canada. There beest irony aplenty in that detail for thee if the Devil hold not fast thine eyelids.
Setteth in New England but filmeth in Ontario, "The Witch" looketh the part marvellous well yet falleth short on historical accuracy. Truly, 'tis most odd that in a story of witches, there beest no cats! Even a raven supping from a bloodied teat cannot be substitute for a feline familiar, and thou wouldst be smitten from the fermented juice of windfalls to suggest 'totherwise.
Master Robert Eggars hast been ambitious yet too pretentious, and "The Witch" cannot find favour in the eyes and ears of its target audience who didst squander over ninety minutes of their lives being bent out of grace by this arthouse drivel. Writers of Colonnial pulp horror fiction such as auld Master Stephen King ignoreth this problem, and 'tis clear that Master Brian Keene mayeth just be too stupid to understandeth anything.
How much wood doth a woodchop chop if a woodchop doth chop wood?
Here beest spoilers:
For thy scares, there art a stolen unbaptised baby who dost get killed to maketh an unguent for levitation, a dead dog dost get found, a bewitched pubescent boy falleth foul of the art of fascination, and there beest much communing of twin children with the Devil in the form of a goat named Black Phillip (voiced byeth Wahab Chaudhry). Everyone in the accursed family, save the fair Mistress Thomasin, dost dieth.
Although there beest blood hereth and thereth, "The Witch" hast no lashings of gore to speaketh of, and most audiences will be boredeth off their dugs.
Spoilers endeth.
Shouldst thou be looking to be afeared of a moving picture with nought but the talking of goats and wood-chopping Northerners, verily, "The Witch" beest the moving picture for thee.
"Residents of a coastal town learn, with deathly consequences, the secret shared by the two mysterious women who have sought shelter at a local resort."
It looks as if the tiny pool of new horror movies has dried-up again for this year, so I've decided to start rewatching the older ones as and when they appear on Netflix. I have no idea why. I'm not even "into" horror movies anymore, but I keep on backsliding when I'm bored.
At least the choice of things to watch is slightly better than when I used to write my "Crap I've Watched on Netflix" posts, but I'm still not saying that the very small selection of horror movies available on Netflix is particularly great. This month's biggest new addition to Netflix is, as you must realise, Neil Jordan's "Byzantium".
As some people will be watching and reviewing "Byzantium" for the very first time, I thought that I should finally write something about it here too. It's not that I haven't reviewed it before, but my critique was only two or three sentences on another site which no longer exists. Back then, I honestly thought that I'd spent more time on my review than the movie actually deserved, and I'm sure that I'm not going to say anything more informative about "Byzantium" now either.
Although I've recently seen a certain "critic" (who I have zero respect for) write that it's impossible to "hate" a movie, I'm pretty sure that I actually do hate "Byzantium". It's not just a case of "disliking it intensely" either. I loathe nearly every pretentious frame of "Byzantium" in its overly long running time apart from the sexier bits with Gemma Arterton.
Easily the best part of "Byzantium".
Yes, there really is only one good reason to ever rent or buy this movie, and it's simply to ogle Gemma Arterton channelling Kat Slater from "Eastenders" as she plays a vampire. Gemma's sexy performance as Clara, plus her deliciously violent and bloody cheesewire decapitation of a very arrogant character early on, are the only truly memorable parts of "Byzantium" for me.
Of course, "Byzantium" might be remembered by some people for being two hours of tedious yet undeniably beautiful camerawork. Nobody sane can deny that Neil Jordon's desire to make every cinematic shot equally valid as a still picture is admirable, except when that technique is clearly overused and stifles the flow of the narrative. The same thing happened recently with "It Follows" (2014), and there have been several more "slow burn" products which have made me wonder if horror directors are intentionally trying to bore their audiences to death nowadays instead of scaring them.
"Byzantium" should, however, be even more remembered for Caleb Landry Jones mumbling his lines so unintelligibly that you have to switch the subtitles on to understand what he says. Any clues as to what accent he's meant to be doing hinge around the facts that he's a Texan in real life and his Frank character has certain health problems and "issues", but it's still no excuse for such a bizarre performance. If it's any consolation, I thought that he sounded Irish.
Once again, a very tiny minority who nobody takes seriously anymore might rave about the blatant misogyny or misandry (depending on which side of the SJW fence they sit) in "Byzantium", but I won't. Make no mistake about it though, "Byzantium" is equally full of both. It's certainly not subtext here either but right in your face!
Having said that, "Byzantium" not only summarises the most common attitudes in its historically accurate depictions of the genders in certain time periods, but give or take the fantasy elements, it contains a fairly accurate depiction of how some people act in the present day. Outside of this imaginary world of the internet where he or she who shouts loudest and most often is the one who gets noticed, there's a gritty reality which isn't pleasant, and you'd only be deluding yourself to think otherwise.
Eleanor is an even more depressed teenager than Bella.
As usual, I have no time for that pseudo-philosphical and political bullshit. I only watch movies for the storytelling. To me, "Byzantium" is just another plodding vampire story where humans are considered second-class citizens and a source of food for the immortals. It's this general misanthropy of "Byzantium" which is the point that all those "reviewers with agendas" are missing.
Similarly to "Interview with the Vampire" (1994) which was also directed by Neil Jordan, and just like in Anne Rice's other novels, to be a vampire is a reward. To be mortal is only to suffer and be used until your purpose is served. In the midst of this, at least Clara thanks the lorry driver who gives her and daughter a lift, but underneath her facade, she's still a cunning, manipulative user and a deadly predator who only does things for her own benefit and personal safety at the end of the day.
Rather than providing a counterpoint, Clara's daughter Eleanor (played by the unpronounceably named Saoirse Ronan) is a 200-year-old teenager with nothing inside her but 200 years years of teenage angst, feeling sorry for herself, a holier-than-thou attitude, and general mopiness. She's still a killer though, and no matter how she might legitimise how she selects her victims in her own mind, she doesn't have any discernable conscience about it. In fact, Eleanor truly believes that she's doing her elderly victims a favour. Roll out the pro-euthanasia bandwagon and preach that message in a movie, why don't you? Not to me, you won't, because I'm not listening.
Eleanor is not the most irritating character in "Byzantium" by any means, since that role is well and truly taken by Frank, but I wouldn't want to watch any more of her than this story allows. Eleanor's romantic subplot with Frank is not "a better love story than Twilight" no matter how it brings that meme to mind. The thought of them doing the nasty makes me cringe.
Passive-aggressively bashing Twilight will not make this movie scary.
The smaller but important supporting roles (including Jonny Lee Miller as Ruthven, Sam Riley as Darvell, and Maria Doyle Kennedy as Morag) are extremely well played and provide the gravitas for "Byzantium" which prevents it from being watched on titter alert for at least the first viewing. Noel the hotel owner is as tragically comedic as any Mike Leigh character (mainly because Daniel Mays is recognisable for playing those roles before), and there are some comical scenes—one of them possibly being intentional—even so. As much as I usually hate it when people do it, "Byzantium" can't stand up to repeat viewings without making it a necessity to ridicule every scene mercilessly.
The bottom line is that "Byzantium" is an extremely slow vampire movie, and as much as it attempts to be, it is not some "high art". Credit is due when it tries to ignore the traditional vampire movie tropes and rules (except for one), and it has a decent enough but predictable story if you like vampires. You really can't and shouldn't expect anything else. It's a hundred times more entertaining than "Only Lovers Left Alive" (2013) anyway.
"A young woman is followed by an unknown supernatural force after getting involved in a sexual encounter."
I've tried several times to get all the way through "It Follows" in one sitting, but I can't do it. Either I don't have the attention span anymore (which is unlikely) or it's just too boring as shit for me to want to. Thus, this isn't going to be a review as much as it will be some general bitching about the parts of "It Follows" which I noted before hitting fast-forward to get the torture over with.
From reading through what some of my online friends had to say about this movie, I understand that "It Follows" is supposed to be all "faux retro"—and it clearly seems to appeal to the hipstery "millennial" demographic who ironically weren't even alive back in the '70s, '80s, or even the '90s—but surely it should be meant for people my age (mid-40s) in that case too? So why doesn't "It Follows" generate all those happy nostalgia feelings for me? What's wrong with this picture?
The simple fact of the matter is that "It Follows" isn't to my taste as a movie. Not only are its non-specific retro qualities forced, pretentious, and inconsistent, but the slow-paced story is a load of meaningless and padded drivel with no satisfactory explanation for the "creature" or any danger of a cathartic payoff at the end.
Although the acting and dialogue is fine, the characters are somewhat flat, unlikeable, and sexually unappealing, and are too young and from the wrong country to have any cultural relevance to me even with my obligatory suspension of disbelief. As I can't identify or sympathise with American teenagers, there's no development of pathos possible.
Most importantly, however, as is the case with all new horror movies, "It Follows" is not in the least bit scary!
You'd have to tie me to a chair to make me watch this movie ever again.
I've often encountered arguments where someone says that "scary" is subjective. Well, it is to a point. Some people have varying degrees of phobias about certain things, for instance, big hairy spiders, and some people don't have any fear of those things at all. But in the case of any "scary movie", it's pretty much failed in its purpose if it doesn't have a percentage of scary for even the lowest common denominator. There are also universals which can be identified as potentially scary for other people even if you aren't scared of those things yourself, but "It Follows" doesn't contain any of them. It may be R-rated, but it's not even worth bringing the extremely sparse and still not scary "gory bits" into this discussion.
What "It Follows" does have is a decent score which sounds like John Carpenter composed parts of it (except he didn't, it was Rich Vreeland), and some initial visual similarities to "Halloween" (1978). Of course, you can film nearly any residential streets in America during Autumn and they'll look a lot like the ones in "Halloween" because nothing architecturally important has changed in the last 40 or more years. Arguing about that aspect is clearly redundant. "It Follows" is set in Detroit, Michigan, rather than Haddonfield, Illinois (or really South Pasadena, California), which only reinforces my point that America looks the same everywhere anyway.
Another big homage is to Jacques Tourneur's "Cat People" (1942) which is apparent with the indoor swimming pool scene, but it's hardly an exact match and isn't meant to be. In fact, "It Follows" owes way more to "Final Destination" (2000) for the core of its narrative, plus Brundlefly's vain attempt to delay the inevitable from "The Fly" (1986), than anything which it tips blatant nods towards. Let's face it, if you really need an allegory about sexually transmitted diseases, Bram Stoker's "Dracula" will always be the classic. It doesn't exactly take a genius to see the similarities between vampire legends and "It Follows" either.
It needed more cats. Any cats. Cats would have made it better.
I'm not the kind of philistine who would ever be stupid enough to argue that David Robert Mitchell doesn't know how to make a movie or hasn't done a great job with "It Follows" when it comes to the outstanding cinematography (which only has a few glaringly ragged handheld shots), but it's the languid pace of this thing which kills it. I'm not joking when I say that if I had to watch this movie more than once, it would soon become my go-to fix for insomnia.
One final little rant and I'm done.
I've read a ton of stuff about Maika Monroe being the new "scream queen" of horror and all that usual crap, but I don't get it. Yeah, she's an above average actress as well as being a pretty-ish blonde with only occasionally annoying lapses into vocal fry and all that jazz (for those who care), but she's certainly no Fay Wray, Ingrid Pitt, Delphine Seyrig, or even an Edwige Fenech (who wasn't blonde). I think many people need to think before throwing that "scream queen" title about willy-nilly.
And since I've accidentally mentioned it, I couldn't care less about the nudity and "sexy bits". For one thing, I'm British and nudity doesn't bother me in the slightest, and second, even the tamest porn site on the internet will show you more than "It Follows" has to offer. I have to admit that Leisa Pulido playing Greg's mother is quite the MILF though.
There are simply some movies which you know right away aren't meant for you, and lamentably, I'll have to concede that "It Follows" wasn't meant for me.
If you feel like pointing out exactly which parts of "It Follows" an adult should find shit-yer-pants-scary, you can post them in the comments section below.
"A family whose suburban home is haunted by evil forces must come together to rescue their youngest daughter after the apparitions take her captive."
Oh God, here we go with the unnecessary remakes again! 'Tis the season! Not that I'm opposed to every remake. Some of them have been better than the originals, particularly in nearly every case of the Asian horror movies which I once collected.
Yeah, some of those remakes are on the Ghost House Pictures label, the same company who are the producers of this movie, so you'd think that they would know what they were doing by now. You'd be wrong, of course. So very wrong.
Look, I'm sure that you know exactly what I'm going to say about "Poltergeist" before I even write it, so let's cut straight through the chase here.
The remake of "Poltergeist" is complete and utter shite!
Print that on the eventual Blu-ray slipcase!
I don't feel the need to back this up with any reasons. It's already bad enough that I wasted my time and money by watching this soulless piece of crap, and I don't want to torture myself more by writing about it. And no, it has nothing to do with nostalgia.
I've always disliked the original 1982 version because it only has one scene in it which even resembles real poltergeist activity, i.e. the stacking chairs one, and thus even the title of the movie was a bait and switch con job. Fundamentally, the rest of "Poltergeist" is a padded and updated ripoff of the "Little Girl Lost" episode from "The Twilight Zone" TV series anyway.
I can't stand the dope-smoking parents, or the irritating kids, and jump scares don't work on me. On top of that, the smug ghosthunting team and that awful Tangina thing grip my shit. The only two things which I care to remember fondly from the whole ordeal are JoBeth Williams' beautiful shiny legs. That's it.
In my opinion, the original "Poltergeist" is a stupid but fairly harmless, family-friendly Spielberg fantasy in everything but the director's name. I have no idea if Tobe Hooper really directed it or not. I don't care. I simply don't like "Poltergeist". I'm not an American, I don't connect with the suburban situation or the characters, and I have absolutely no nostalgic feelings about it whatsoever. Just waves and waves of bitter disappointment that it isn't actually about poltergeists.
And you know what? I don't like the sequels either.
"Poltergeist II: The Other Side" (1986) seems like an inferior ripoff of John G. Jones' genuinely terrifying "The Amityville Horror Part II" (1982) novel to me, and "Poltergeist III" (1988) is nothing but a badly made final cash grab which isn't worth piss. Back in the day, I only got through that mess of a movie because I didn't want to completely waste the VHS rental fee. It then turned into a waste both of money and part of my life. Fuck that movie too!
As for this "Poltergeist" remake. I've said all that I want to. If you need further validation, I recommend that you read round the other independent reviewers rather than the "big name" sites carrying those enormous "Poltergeist" advertisements. We all feel much the same way. There's probably nothing different on any of the free blogs which I wouldn't have said about "Poltergeist" myself if I even gave two shits about it, but the most condemnation that the shill sites will dare to write is "Well, it's not bad for a remake..." Fuck that noise!
Just watch the IMDb score drop over the weekend as more people find out the truth for themselves. It's only on 5.8 now! The comments on the official Facebook page are hilariously illuminating too. "Poltergeist is bad, it's really bad. It's "A Nightmare on Elm Street" remake bad! It's too modern, truncated, the ending is rushed, the acting/characterisation is horrible, there's no chemistry, no emotion, it isn't scary... Oh, you nearly got me there. No, I'm not doing this anymore. No more negativity!!! I'm outta here!
If you're really that desperate for a "Poltergeist" remake, try "Grave Secrets: The Legacy of Hilltop Drive" (1992) or "Insidious" (2010) instead. I haven't reviewed them either.
"In a stark desert landscape where humanity is broken, two rebels just might be able to restore order: Max, a man of action and of few words, and Furiosa, a woman of action who is looking to make it back to her childhood homeland."
Aw, fuck. Like many people, I was going to boycott "Mad Max: Fury Road" due to Mel Gibson not being in it, but curiosity got the better of me. And we all know what curiosity did to the cat, right?
Yeah, "Mad Mad: Fury Road" sucks and blows in so many ways that I can't even be bothered to type one of those "insightful" (the most overused word of the last two years on the internet, preceded by "egregious", and to a slightly lesser extent by "visceral") movie reviews which nobody expects from me anyway. I'm all about the bottom line, and so all I really have to say is that this movie lacks the most important aspect of any dramatic production—pathos.
What's the point of any movie where you don't care about any of the characters or what happens to them? There's absolutely none. For all of its spectacle, stunts, and explosive effects, "Mad Max Fury Road" doesn't have much of a story to tell and the characters are, ironically in a 3D movie, as flat as can be. It's so bad that I couldn't tell you any of their names, not that of the main bad guy or any of the good guys. If any of the "brides" in the movie actually have names, I don't remember hearing them mentioned. Even "Max" only says his name aloud once, presumably so we know that this is a real Mad Max movie rather than a clone.
Briefly, what we have here is a movie which looks the part of all the other Mad Max films but is ultimately a poor imitation of one. With so many years between "Mad Max Fury Road" and the previous sequel, it's not surprising. It's disappointing but definitely not surprising that this mess turned out the way it has. Yeah, it's like having your childhood shat on from a great height again, isn't it? It's not as bad as George Lucas taking a dump on "Indiana Jones" and "Star Wars", of course, nor is it as terrible as the plethora of lacklustre remakes which still keep happening, but this "revisiting" of Mad Max is certainly up there for people hellbent on wallowing in their own cesspit of rose-tinted nostalgia.
Without giving away too many spoilers (as if anyone cares), the story involves the new and even more laconic Max getting hooked up with a woman trying to take the leader of the bad guys' harem to a better "green place", only to discover that the place doesn't exist anymore and turn back again. Races, chases, guns, explosions, and PG-13 level violence, death, and blood abounds.
Faux Mel Gibson and some skinhead woman with a bionic arm made of Meccano.
"Mad Max Fury Road" is a very soft R-rated movie considering what might have been quite controversial subject matter, but punches are pulled in the usual ways, particularly in the confusing fight scenes where it's hard to tell who is doing what to who and there are never any satisfying pay-offs. Other than those scenes, the camerawork isn't bad at all, but as the stunts are the most important aspect, it's worth mentioning that the focus of the stunts is often lost amongst the "guzzoline punk" mayhem. In fairness, this is typical and stylistically equivalent to the classic Mad Max trilogy, except that the first movie only pulled its punches because of the budget.
Tom Hardy replacing Mel Gibson doesn't actually matter in the slightest when the movie is more focussed on as many automotive action sequences as can be crammed in than having a charismatic lead. Sparse as that role is, Mel would undoubtedly have made things a hundred times better and been a bigger name to sell the movie, but it's too late now. Added to this, Charlize Theron tends to steal what little show is on offer as Furiosa (whose character name I had to look up) by being yet another one of these "strong women" which I'm sure we'll keep on getting subjected to as long as filmmakers are swayed by the loudest whiners on the internet.
Let's be real here though, Tina Turner was a much stronger and more iconic character as Aunti Entity in "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" (1985), and whatever Furiosa is meant to embody (or "empower") is instantly forgettable. She's certainly no Ripley from the Alien movies. Oh, but Furiosa only has one arm, so let's get all the "ableist" arguments going to, shall we? Let's not. It's not worth it. "Mad Max Fury Road" is a big budget heap of nothing which simply isn't worth getting upset about one way or another.
I will just mention one thing to please the progressive-liberals and SJWs. I did notice that there weren't any black characters, unless I blinked and missed them. There are hordes of ultra white and sickly-looking "war boys" (who seem to have escaped from Derek Jarman's "Sebastiane"), however, but as I'm supposedly a "privileged white male" (or whatever the fuck that bullshit label is meant to mean for someone as poor as me with no welfare benefits available), I don't care about them either. Tina Turner was the best part of "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome", so shut the fuck up!
Since "Mad Max Fury Road" was written and directed by George Miller, I suppose I'll have to live with the fact that it really is a legitimate continuation of the Mad Max story whether I liked it or not. Having said that, I'll certainly never buy it on Blu-ray or ever watch it again. Right now, I wish I hadn't watched it in the first place.
"A teenage girl in the Midwest becomes infected by an outbreak of a disease that slowly turns the infected into cannibalistic zombies. During her transformation, her loving father stays by her side."
It's no good, I've bitten my tongue for far too long about the continued decline of so-called "horror" movies. So behold, I'm writing an actual movie review for the first time in nearly two years, even though I honestly don't care about any of it anymore. Unless something as equally dire as this zombie crap comes up later (not including the inevitable remakes and sequels which loom before us), I don't think I'll write another horror movie review this year either. Horror is creatively dead, and there's no point.
I didn't write about the hypocrisy of all the "Twilight" haters who sucked up to "Spring" (2014), even though it's little more than one of those talky "Before" movies with a couple of minutes of monster, nor did I feel obliged to climb back into my online persona like a dog returning to its own vomit to comment on the softcore teen-porno known as "It Follows" (2014). So boring! But I've digressed. I have no beef with any of these people, even if their egos may cause them to manufacture one with me. I don't know any of them personally outside of how annoyingly they act on the internet, and really don't want to. We aren't friends, and we never will be. That's just how the cookie crumbles.
Let's get down to the subject in hand. In the case of "Maggie", it's yet another PG-13 "genre" film with no scares or any horror in it, indicating that the whole concept of "scary" has apparently been abandoned forever now. Just calling a movie "horror" is enough for some people, I guess, whether it bears any resemblence to the dictionary definition or not. Still jaded, I highly doubt that there will ever be a genuinely scary movie again from anyone.
Boasting the same horrible faux-handheld camerawork (with the everso slightly shakiness of such movies as "The Reaping") and a mostly washed-out colour palette, "Maggie" won't make you throw up with motion sickness but will fill you with nausea by utilising such a recognisable "shakycam" contrivance to add "realism". LOL (I never used to use acronyms in my reviews, but I have to this time). Realism in a zombie movie? Give me a break! Why even bother? It's all FICTION, geddit? I hate to break it to you, but zombies aren't real!
To say that everything about "Maggie" is predictable would be an understatement. Aside from the obvious outcome, there's much amusement to be had when Joely Richardson touches her neck to show anxiety JUST LIKE SHE DOES IN EVERY EPISODE OF NIP/TUCK! Get some range Joely, for the love of God! LOL She's still undeniably gorgeous but seems to be no longer capable of doing an American accent or even act anymore. Shame.
Look, I can't act worth a shit either, nor can I bake a cake, but that doesn't mean that I can't spot bad acting or know what I like to eat. For that reason, the less said about Arnie's dozen lines of anguished dialogue and constipated expression throughout, the better. I still like his previous work, I just wish he would actually learn to do some acting one day. I won't deny that there are some attempts at acting here, but it's not very convincing.
I don't really want to write anything about the girl who plays Maggie, but I will. I don't know her name, Abigail Something, and I can't be bothered to look it up on the IMDb either (oh, it's on the poster... Breslin). I think she was nominated for an Oscar once. I don't remember or care. The Oscars are total bollocks anyway. For someone who is supposedly dying, Maggie just behaves like a typical mopey teenager. Oh, so sad! She didn't even register on me, and she's supposed to be the lead! Superficial characterisation or generally bad writing? Who knows? LOL again. I found that I was more interested in how old Arnie looks now, the makeup, locations, and the sets than any of the dramatic performances.
It's true what Wes Vance often said on Deadpit Radio back in the day when I used to listen to it, "If you continuously feed people with a diet of shit, eventually shit doesn't taste so bad to them anymore." In fact, a lot of them now consider shit to be their staple diet and greedily gulp it down willingly.
"Maggie" really is another plateful of steaming turds which the hard of understanding and easily pleased will undoubtedly find very satisfying. The Aristotlean "art is best when hidden" rule is thrown out of the window like a Parisian chamber pot with this movie, and forget about any of this bland crap "causing emotion" or "the catharsis of such emotion". It's tropes, formulas, flat characters, and languid storytelling all the way. OMFG (sorry about another acronym which I would never use in real life), "Maggie" is utter shite!
Slow, boring as fuck, and with a shit ending, the "horror nasties" will undoutedly ADORE and LOVE "Maggie" (since it's impossible for any of them to merely LIKE a film with their affected and constantly gushing written style). They all write the same way and repeat each other ad nauseum. I bet they are all SUPER EXCITED about this too. Bahahahahaha! Fucking tools! I bet none of them will have the balls to admit that even "Contracted" (2013) has better effects and more emotion to it than "Maggie".
I would say that I can't wait to read their reviews to see my predictions proven right, but I'm not that interested enough to do so. Let's face it, you know that the "big names" (in reality, nothing but unemployable ex-students who write purple prose for less than a penny a word) and their asscrawlers will be praising the shit out of this because it gets them page views, reciprocal promotion, a quote on the DVD cover, and access. There's very little honesty among them, and there never has been. "It's all marketing" is their hackneyed excuse. Whatever. They are nothing but gaslighters and clickbait. Let them eat zombie cupcakes!
"Maggie" is vacuous rubbish of the highest order which is presumably aimed at younger teenagers who aren't allowed to watch "The Walking Dead" on TV. Entertainment-wise, this isn't for "horror buffs", traditional Arnie fans, or for anyone expecting lots of action. It's not even badly done enough to laugh at in a sneering way like so many scathing reviewers love to do.
Supposedly a character driven piece and an allegory about terminal illness, the dialogue is so lame and the execution so ploddingly dull that "Maggie" fails to deliver the goods there too. With or without the zombie gimmick, "Maggie" is simply null and void on all emotional levels.
For something more invigorating, I suggest that you go old school and watch some vintage Romero or Italian zombie movies instead. Vote with your wallets and give this one a miss unless you've exhausted everything else to watch.
"A medical engineer and an astronaut work together to survive after an accident leaves them adrift in space."
I don't know about you, but the thought of being stranded in space gives me the heebies. The mixture of claustrophobia, agoraphobia, and vertigo would drive most people insane, and let's not forget about the possibility of being captured and tortured by aliens! Unfortunately, "Gravity" doesn't go into those areas, so it's not very satisfying for horror or sci-fi fans.
"Gravity" is a disaster movie for science nerds who love movies such as "The Right Stuff" (1983) or "Apollo 13" (1995) and believe that there really are space labs orbiting Earth, Man landed on the moon, and all that other rubbish. It's not another "Event Horizon" (1997), "Mission to Mars" (2000), or even "Armageddon" (1998), except for some very superficial similarities and, of course, being set in space. Thus, if you're expecting something other than a potential Oscar winner, look elsewhere.
To say that I wasn't impressed by "Gravity" is the understatement of the year. I was, by turns, bored out of my mind, nauseated by the shocking waste of money that went into something which the BBC could have filmed for the price of a couple of bags of prawn cocktail crisps back in the days of "Blakes 7", and because it's hard to tell what's going on unless you have some kind of astronautical doctorate degree, I was even more confused by all the confusing things which Sandra Bullock was confused by. Basically, I hated it.
Maybe it's also because I read Ray Bradbury's short sci-fi story "Kaleidoscope"—which everyone claims isn't the inspiration for "Gravity" until they are blue in the face (even though it clearly is!)—when I was a teenager, and it stayed with me. Or maybe it's just because I can't abide movies about astronauts in the first place. Either way, I felt like I'd seen the best and worst parts of it before.
Here come the spoilers!
What a load of Bullocks!
I have no idea how much of "Gravity" is CGI or filmed against a green screen, nor do I care about the smoke and mirrors behind the scenes. The result is very clever, and with such great effects now available, I'm sure we'll get a fake Mars landing from NASA eventually. What I do know is that Sandra Bullock is hot for her age, and her 3D acrobatics look cool, but neither is enough to make any of this movie exciting.
Using the "running out of air" trope is the closest that "Gravity" gets to having any tension, and a couple of dead astronauts provide the only horror. If only Sandra Bullock could've been persuaded to strip completely like Barbarella rather than just down to her t-shirt and underpants like Ripley, it would have perked things up a bit. Alas, this is a PG-13, and she doesn't do anything particularly sexy apart from grunting, groaning and gasping. Okay, so she also barks and howls like a dog at one point, but you have your fetishes and I'll have mine.
What really pissed me off, however, was the lack of scientific accuracy about how things work in space. Not only does the whooshing and swooshing make no sense in a vacuum where sound doesn't carry, the biggest cock-up is that Sandra Bullock could have just given George Clooney a little tug (no, not THAT kind of little tug!), and there would have been no need for his predictable self-sacrifice. I've seen this cliché done to death (quite literally) in American movies so many times that it's guaranteed to make me cringe and grind my teeth in anger now. In this case, it's also a terrible waste of George Clooney!
"Look, Mom, look! A falling star!"
Frustratingly, George Clooney doesn't ever get to finish his Mardi Gras story about the "hairy guy", although I've got a feeling that the punchline would have involved some kind of monkey. I just thought I'd throw that in here because I'm sure everyone else with a normal brain felt cheated by the lack of closure too. I even Googled it to see if it was an old joke by a comedian who I've never heard of, but I couldn't find anything.
Nerds will probably love "Gravity" for the various spaceships with their big boards of switches and flashing lights, but I couldn't make head nor tail of which was which or how they are supposed to work. Apart from the Cyrillic in one and Kanji in another, everything looks the same to me. You also have to laugh at how years of training and millions of tax-payers' dollars are proven to be completely wasted when Sandra Bullock makes her "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe" choices. I guess that NASA will be changing their astronaut training program accordingly, unless of course, that is their astronaut training program already. Mind you, it's not as if man (or woman) has ever managed to leave this planet in any way other than a coffin, so it's all bullshit.
My biggest complaint about this whole boring mess, however, is that there are no apes riding horses and catching humans in nets when Sandra Bullock finally gets back to Earth and crawls out of the lake. I'll never understand why they left out that very important detail, but hopefully, it'll be available as an extra on the DVD and Blu-ray later.
The alternative DVD ending.
As far as anything called "Gravity" goes, I still prefer Zlata Ognevich's sexy Eurovision video.
"In a remote town in Ireland, eleven-year-old Neve [sic] finds herself the sole survivor of a bloody massacre that killed her parents and younger brother. Suspecting a gang of homicidal vandals, the police ignore Neve's [sic] explanation that the house is the culprit."
If you're silly enough to read any other horror blog except mine, you'll probably see a lot of people praising how cerebral "Dark Touch' is and how it's meant to have a big message about the trauma caused by child abuse or some such unhappy horseshit at the heart of it. What a load of crap! I wanted it to be a ghost story, especially as the official IFC Films synopsis suggests a haunted house, so let the hate commence!
For those of us who can see through the fluff and arty-farty edits, "Dark Touch" is nothing more than a slow-paced clone of Stephen King's "Carrie" and "Firestarter", but it's set in the Irish countryside to make it look better. Give or take a few more disturbed children, it's kind of like how "Wake Wood" (2011) was a rip-off of "Pet Sematary" (1989) in a similar location, and it sucks just as much.
Nice cinematography using every method of filming from handheld camerawork to tripod-mounted long shots doesn't make up for the story being boring as buggery apart from two lush moments of goriness. Once you've seen them, it's not worth waiting for more unless clichés such as exploding windows, treading in broken glass with bare feet, or laconic little girls with Asperger's Syndrome float your boat. Even if they do, the cheap CGI fire effects will probably sink it.
Among the lameness, adults being pinned to walls by kitchen tables or chests of drawers against their thighs is a recurring theme in this movie which has very little to do with anything other than being another cheap and easy effect. I think it happens three or four times, but it may be more. What the significance of these repetitive scenes is, I have no idea. It can join the list of questions I have such as why does the hotter-looking mother suffer from bouts of tinnitus every time little Niamh throws a tantrum? And what kind of dyslexia causes the name Niamh to be pronounced "Neeve"?
"I'm a firestarter, twisted firestarter."
As Irish horror movies go, "Dark Touch" isn't the worst I've ever seen, but it's not even close to being up to the same high standard as "Dorothy Mills" (2008). The creepy atmosphere promises more than it delivers, and the eclectic mixture of regional Irish accents (which range from mild to harsh and unintelligible) cause it to be only a donkey or two short of another "Rawhead Rex" (1986). Having said that, I do quite like "Rawhead Rex" in spite of Clive Barker disowning it, and I'm not even sure if it has any donkeys in it anyway. If it didn't, it should have done. But I've digressed.
The acting in "Dark Touch" is fine given that character development is almost non-existent, and Swedish import Charlotte Flyvholm has a filler part as a heavily pregnant school counsellor to justify the Swedish financial investment. Out of all the characters, she stood out most for me by being the third pregnant blonde that I've seen in a movie this week, the other two being Detective Inspector Sarah Clayton (Joanne Froggatt) in "uwantme2killhim?" and Barb's mother also called Sarah (played by Chantal Quesnelle) in "Curse of Chucky".
Since there's unlikely to be a theatrical release of "Dark Touch" near you, it's available for half the price of a cinema ticket through the various VOD services. At $6.99, I think it's still way too much for a pre-pubuscent "Carrie" clone, and you'd be better off saving your money for the official "Carrie" remake in a few weeks.
And I couldn't care less. I hate that stupid '80s crap.
All you're going to hear about today is "Friday the 13th" this and "Jason Voorhees" that until you're sick to death of it too. "Don't forget to buy the new overpriced Blu-ray boxset with crappy packaging that scratches the discs inside!" etc., etc., etc.
Part 1 - Jason's mom kills people, and she is beheaded at the end.
Part 2 - Jason wants revenge and starts killing people, and survives a machete to the shoulder at the end.
Part 3 - Jason still wants revenge and keeps killing, and survives an axe to the face/skull at the end.
Part 4 - Jason still wants revenge, and young Tommy Jarvis kills him by putting a knife through his eye that comes out the back of his skull. At this point Jason is dead and gone.
Part 5 - Since Jason is dead, a copycat killer wears Jason's mask and starts killing people, and he gets killed at the end by being impaled on spikes.
Part 6 - Even though Jason is dead, Tommy Jarvis wants to destroy him by digging up his body and setting it on fire. But for some reason, he sticks a metal pole in Jason's chest during a storm. Lightning strikes it and brings back a zombie Jason, who still wants revenge. At the end, Jason is chained to a rock at the bottom of the lake.
Part 7 - Girl has psychic powers. Her dad dies by mistake. She tries to resurrect her dad with her powers, but accidentally breaks open Jason's chains, and Jason comes out still looking for revenge. At the end, she brings her dad back with her powers, and her dad drops Jason to the bottom of the lake once again just like the end of Part 6.
Part 8 - A power line gets hit by a boat and causes electrical currents to flow through Jason's body, and he's back once again for revenge. He gets killed by toxic waste at the end.
Part 9: Jason Goes to Hell - ignored all the previous parts since the franchise was sold to New Line Cinema.
Part 10: Jason X - ignored Part 9.
Part 11: Freddy vs Jason - ignored Part 10.
Part 12 - reboot, ignored everything.
If you really must watch something about "Friday the 13th", here's Paul Zamarelli's video instead. It's informative but slightly incorrect. "Friday the 13th" jumped the shark long before New Line Cinema took over the franchise!
"When the Davison family comes under attack during their wedding anniversary getaway, the gang of mysterious killers soon learns that one of victims harbors a secret talent for fighting back."
I thought it best to wait until the other horror bloggers exhausted their overpraise before watching "You're Next". It's been described as everything under the Sun including a parody and a comedy, but I can't see how this low-budget crap could be either of the latter except unintentionally.
Basically, "You're Next" is a mixture of Mario Bava's "A Bay of Blood" (1971) and Dae-wung Lim's "To Sir with Love" aka "Bloody Reunion" (2006). Despite the masks which the bad guys wear, it's not overly similar to "Ils" (2006), "The Strangers" (2008), or "The Purge" (2013) apart from the home invasion aspect. Hell, if it wasn't being classed as such, I wouldn't even call this a horror movie. It's more of a crime drama with horror elements than anything else.
After 25 minutes of boredom, which was made worse by everything being filmed with a handheld camera, all the shouting and screaming over the top of each other just made me want to walk out. I didn't, of course, because that would be wasteful, but I didn't enjoy anything which followed either.
I wonder what this movie is called?
While "You're Next" might be fine for teenagers who want the kills to occur off camera with only the aftermath shown, I prefer to see the brutality in all its glory. Unfortunately, every time there's the potential for something to be "lush", the punches are pulled. Whether that's due to the budget or because Adam Wingard is a shitty filmmaker is anyone's guess.
Out of the not very inventive deaths, only two deliver a decent amount of blood, and their repetitive nature gets old pretty fast. I suppose stabbing someone in the head either with a crossbow bolt, a screwdriver, or a knife is the quickest way to finish the job, but it doesn't make interesting viewing. It also takes considerably more force to stab anything through someone's skull than some tiny Australian girl is capable of, so there's that too. Female empowerment, my arse!
Even though nearly everybody knows about the twists now, I'm not going to spoil it more for you except to say that the reveal comes far too early at around the 50 minute mark. Thus, there's another 40 minutes of clichés, poorly written dialogue, and bad acting to get through afterwards which I can't be bothered to talk about. As thrillers go, "Panic Room" (2002) is infinitely more entertaining, tense, and scarier than this drivel.
"Our target for this year's purge is hiding in your home."
The only character who I almost liked was Zee played by Wendy Glenn, simply because she's hot! There's no depth of characterisation to anyone though. In generic slasher-style, they only exist to die as quickly and as unpleasantly as possible.
At the end of the day, "You're Next" is just another overhyped home invasion movie in an oversaturated subgenre. No wonder it sat on the shelf for two years. In better days, this would have been straight-to-DVD fodder rather than being worthy of a theatrical release.
"In 1885, a female doctor helping a group of people with their phobias becomes embroiled in a murder mystery surrounding a patient that may or may not be a vampire."
What the Hell did I just watch? It's not often that a movie is so soulless and ineptly made that it leaves me speechless, but this is one of those times. After "Phobia" ended, I sat staring at the blank page on my computer screen for three hours afterwards waiting for the neurons in my brain to reconnect, and then I had to go to bed for a long depression nap before I could bear thinking about it again.
Even though it's only 90 minutes long, "Phobia" feels several times longer because of how dialogue heavy and boring it is. When I say boring, I mean really boring in the way that watching an amateur dramatics production or a high school play is boring. Actually, no, this is worse than either of those; "Phobia" is seven-year-olds-performing-a-nativity-play-boring but in a foreign language which you don't understand. I was familiar with the subject matter, I knew what was intended, but I couldn't process it because it was so shit.
How any movie could be both overwritten and overacted but contain characters so underdeveloped at the same time is a mystery to me, although I'd hazard a guess that it must take some severely misplaced genius to create such a thing and a lot of luck to get it distributed. Maybe not so much luck since "Phobia" is only another one of many Gravitas Ventures VOD movies which I've written off this year, but still... I can't even... I don't know... my head is full of FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU! Sorry for writing like a fifteen-year-old, but honestly, this movie was probably written by a teenager too. With no nudity, swearing, or anything more gory than you'd see in an episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", it's definitely PG-13 all the way, and it's impossible to call it horror with a straight face.
She's dressed as a man, but he's wearing a fake beard. WTF?
If you can concentrate on anything in the first half-hour without being distracted by Erica Leerhsen's thumbsucker-mouth which stands out more because she's supposed to be disguised as a man (à la "Yentl") then you're a slightly better person than me. But if you don't wonder why she still wears a girl's wig, or notice that Sigmund Freud (played by Matt Moore) has a ridiculous fake beard, there's no hope for you as a movie critic. I know this is a low-budget B movie of sorts, but what the bloody Hell were they thinking?
Also how can anyone hire Eric Leerhsen—the only girl in "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2" (2000) who gets naked—and not ask her to get naked again? Wouldn't a clichéd and gratuitous nude shower/bath scene being overlooked by another character make a better reveal of her gender than removing a stupid black wig which doesn't match her ginger eyebrows? It's not as if you can't see that she's a woman anyway, but... oh my God!
Bearing in mind that director Jon Keeyes is only a couple of weeks younger than me and hasn't directed anything worthwhile other than "American Nightmare" (2002), a few shorts, and a couple of horror TV shows for kids, he should still know better. Exactly what age group is "Phobia" intended for? It's too talky for kids and too tame for adults. And what's with all the badly spoken French with subtitles? It's distancing, alienating, and irritating. It certainly doesn't make the period setting more realistic.
You just have to have a bald Nosferatu guy called Guy!
Once there are no more scenes of Americans butchering the French language, things improve slightly, but just to redress the balance towards crap again, half of them now need to have fake Romanian accents which are more like Russian. Has no one ever heard a Romanian speak before? They usually sound Latin (for obvious reasons including Romanian being a Romance language) not Russian! Jesus wept! And was it really necessary to have a bald-headed Nosferatu lookalike just so that everyone knows that this is a vampire movie? Seriously?
Beautiful Tiffany Lonsdale spices the eyecandy up a bit as bald Guy's sister with claustrophobia, but the lack of any family resemblance is uncanny. She doesn't even look like anyone in the family portraits or her cousin Val Drakul! Maybe she was adopted or a lusty milkman paid her mother a visit? Casting decisions were clearly not a strong point, so it's probably better to not overthink these things.
At least everything improves considerably after the location change from Paris to California (although it's really Texas). Once Erica Leerhsen starts wearing big Victorian dresses, lets her hair out, puts on some lipstick, and looks like a woman again, she's actually quite pretty. She's still not believable as a doctor, and her relationship with Nicholas Brendon lookalike Chase Ryan Jeffery lacks chemistry, but to give credit where it's due, her performance gets much better as the story progresses. The fact that Dr. Lesley doesn't get the chance to cure her patients' phobias is relatively unimportant.
Stephanie Rhodes (the Camp Counselor in the "Friday the 13th" remake) steals the show completely in her scenes as sexy Elizabeth, the ward of agoraphobic Annabel Lee (Carolyn Wickwire), but not enough is made of her to be memorable overall. Without any eroticism or some desperately needed sex scenes, why even add a lesbian facet to Elizabeth's character? What's the point? Again, who are the target audience?
The saddest thing is that everyone in "Phobia" can act! They've all been in other things before, whether TV shows or movies, and they don't disgrace themselves once you take into account what they had to work with. The fault rests almost entirely with the script despite annoying background music which outstays its welcome, lethargic pacing, cheap-looking camerawork, and a lot of staginess which doesn't help. Whatever clever period mystery Anne Gibson may have thought she was creating, it would have been better as a pulp YA novel than a movie. To say that "Phobia" is reminiscent of Kim Newman would be an insult more than a compliment, however, since I can't stand that grinnygog or his books.
Okay, she does look a bit better in a dress.
On the plus side, the way the use of hypnotism and vampires are combined into a mystery seems to be fairly original. If my mind wasn't still numb, I'm sure that I could find better examples than "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" or "The Vampire Lovers" to prove myself wrong, but as all roads lead back to Hammer and Bram Stoker's "Dracula", I'm positive that there's nothing new here other than the way it's presented. A couple of homages to Edgar Allan Poe are harmless additions.
Before I wrap this up, I have to mention the effects. Apart from the wig and beard fiasco, the make-up is generally good and a couple of torn throats look the part. Inevitably, there are some very cheap "Buffy-esque" CGI effects near the end which place this movie in the "Syfy Original wannabe" category and will doom it to appearing in Echo Bridge or Mill Creek multipacks one day, but they do provide some horror action. I doubt that "Phobia" will ever been shown on TV unless Chiller (or Zone Horror/The Horror Channel in the UK) get it for next to nothing though.
According to the IMDb, the ensemble cast from "Phobia" is due to reappear in "The Harrowing" (2014) but with the addition of Debbie Rochon instead of Erica Leerhsen. As I'm done with being a masochist after suffering through this borefest, I think it'll be another good one to miss.
- as if that'll make them magically better. Yawn! I don't think so.
