Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (2016)

"When Jacob discovers clues to a mystery that stretches across time, he finds Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. But the danger deepens after he gets to know the residents and learns about their special powers."

Really fucking good! I'm amazed at how much I enjoyed this, especially considering that it's a kids' film by Tim Burton.

Obviously, I only watched it because Eva Green is in it, and she does not disappoint. In fact, I don't think I've seen her give a bad performance in anything so far. She's not as sexy as she was in "Dark Shadows", "Sin City 2", or "300: Rise of an Empire", but then again, she's not playing that kind of role this time either.

Even though "Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children" is more or less a ripoff of Marvel's "X-men", it's beautifully filmed, almost flawlessly acted, and has lots of surprises in the casting. Samuel L. Jackson chews scenery brilliantly, Terence Stamp is used far too sparingly, but you can't complain when Rupert Everett is in it too!

As expected, the characters and plot (based on yet another YA novel which I have no intention of ever reading) are a bit weird here and there, and the CGI Slender Man/Jack Skellington-wannabe (a lot like the one in this year's "Blair Witch") makes several appearances (because that's the scary thing now, apparently), but it's not an excessive Tim Burton fantasy. In other words, there's no Johnny Depp or Helena Bonham Carter being overly "eccentric" to spoil it.

I'd even go so far as saying that "Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children" is an "epic" children's adventure. A few nods to (or obvious "borrowings" from) other well known classics for the same age group are noticeable without being cliché, and it all just works. Admittedly, a major part of the story involving "time loops" falls apart under closer scrutiny at the end, as happens with every "time loop" sci-fi or fantasy movie ever made, but the target audience are unlikely to notice.

Highly recommended for all ages, and definitely one to buy when it gets released on DVD and blu-ray. If it's still playing at a cinema near you, catch it while you can.

Oh, and [SPOILER] Judi Dench's character dies in it, which is always a bonus!

54 reasons why Beetlejuice sucks!

Heavily promoted by the blogosphere's Horror Lamers clique as "teh bestest moovee evah", "Beetlejuice" (1988) competes with "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" (1975), "The Addams Family" (1991), "Psycho" (1998), "Shaun of the Dead" (2004), and "Trick 'r Treat" (2007) for the coveted title of my most hated film of all time.

I just can't abide any part of it. Even hearing someone mention the name is enough to get my hackles up, and if they then go on to say that they love the movie, they soon cease to be an associate of mine. I'm not ashamed to say that I've blocked people on Facebook and Twitter because of this piece of crap. If I had my way, all copies of the thing would be rounded-up and burnt on a huge bonfire!

Some would say that I simply have an irrational dislike of "Beetlejuice" based on my equally irrational dislike of all things Tim Burton and Alec Baldwin related, but that's not entirely true. While I freely admit to going out of my way to avoid any Tim Burton or Alec Baldwin movie, I have many good reasons for hating this one—fifty-four of them, in fact—which I now present for you below.

Worst. Movie. Ever.

1. Tim Burton has only directed one good movie in his whole career—"Batman Returns" (1992)—and, obviously, this is not it.

2. "Beetlejuice" was originally meant to be a real horror film, not a crappy comedy. According to the IMDb:

Looking for a project to make after the success of "Pee Wee's Big Adventure," Burton optioned a script by horror author Michael McDowell. Being a horror author, McDowell's script was decidedly non-comedic, and was primarily a horror-thriller with a few minor comic elements. McDowell's story featured no Afterlife sequences, no other ghosts except for the Maitlands, and depicted Beetlejuice as a winged, reptilian demon who co-opted the position of an angel named Swallowtail, who helps ghosts lead peaceful existences while they await entry into their permanent resting places. Beetlejuice's goal is to kill the Deetzes rather than get them out of the house, and once he's dug up by the Maitlands, he cannot be controlled; the idea that he can be summoned and exiled by repeating his name three times was not added to the script until Burton became involved. This Beetlejuice wanders the "living world," assuming a variety of different forms to torment the Deetzes, and in the climax attempts to kill the Deetzes' nine-year-old daughter, Cathy, who was the only person able to see the Maitlands (as opposed to Lydia, who in McDowell's script was a disaffected, sixteen year old punk rocker whom Beetlejuice attempts to rape). The Maitlands then guide Cathy through an exorcism ritual that both allows them to be seen to the Deetzes and banishes Beetlejuice to another realm.

3. The opening credits with corny Danny Elfman "oompah" music will set anybody sane's teeth on edge. You just know that this is going to be a comedy rather than a horror movie, and that horrible sick feeling where bile rises up inside you begins.

4. 2:57 - Animal cruelty! Horrible as spiders are anyway, Adam (Alec Baldwin's character) launches a great-big-hairy-one to certain death by throwing it out of the window instead of carefully taking it outside. "If you want to live and thrive, let a spider run alive!" Predictably, poetic justice soon follows.

5. 3:08 - Geena Davis was hotter than hot back in the day, but her character is dressed like a frumpy 80-year-old! What a terrible waste! No wonder Adam would rather play with his lame little model village than his wife. Yeah, right. It's so unrealistic! If you have something which looks like Geena Davis as a wife, there's no way that she's leaving the bedroom again until she really is 80 years old!

6. 5:18 - Adam listens to the crappiest music in the crappiest way possible. Mono cassette recorder! Ugh! At 19:15, you can see that he owns a much better looking stereo to play his fuzzy warbles on in his office.

7. 7:37 - One of the first rules of driving is that you never swerve to avoid hitting anything. Always brake instead! If the Maitlands had braked and run that nasty little yappy-dog over, the movie could have been all about them trying to make a baby for two weeks instead. Now that would have been worth watching!

8. 9:17 - WTF is up with this green screen crap? Dated much?

9. 9:43 - Apparently, ghosts are like vampires and cast no reflections. Gah!

10. 11.08 - The title of the movie is wrong, as you can clearly see. It's supposed to be "Betelgeuse" just like the star!

Candyman... Candyman... Candyman... whatever.

11. 13:46 - Delia Deetz (Catherine O'Hara) is kinda smokin' hot, but she's married to a cardigan-wearing doofus like Charles (Jeffrey Jones)! In what universe would anything like that really happen? Presumably, the same one where Geena Davis is a model village "widow".

12. 14:41 - Winona Ryder, as emo-kid Lydia, can't act!!! And what's with her Victorian funeral clothes? She's too miserable to be a Goth!

13. 15:12 - Introducing Otho (Glenn Shadix) aka a cheap attempt to milk some homophobic humour out of a camp stereotype in a PG-rated movie! And why does he come in through the window rather than using the front door? Apart from using his awkwardness and size to make him look even more ridiculous, it's never explained.

14. 17:44 - Crappy-looking decapitated head effect followed by a even crappier headless body running around. How is this supposed to be funny apart from being inept?

15. 20:18 - Lousy stop-motion sandworm... on Saturn! But Saturn is classified as a gas giant because it's almost completely made of gas and not sand.

16. 23:00 - Adam can't read or pronounce things properly. Typical Yank! Form your own conclusions for why he makes Betelgeuse sound like a Jewish name.

17. 29:59 - Why is sexy Miss Argentina (Patrice Martinez) green with a pinky-orangey wig and cape? What's she meant to be? Did Captain Kirk diddle her in "Star Trek" or something? She slashed her wrists as a suicide; she didn't suffocate!

18. 33:07 - "I've been feeling a little flat." Really? Is that the best joke anyone could come up with? It's also the only actual joke in this so-called comedy. Hilarious if you're still in infant school.

19. 33.27 - There's no greater accomplishment than ripping off the style of "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" (1920) because you have no imagination of your own, is there? How (un)original.

20. 37:56 - Totally unconvincing stop-motion fly. How feeble is it not to use a real house-fly? Wasteful too. Flies are pretty cheap, and there are lots of them around. The Insect Actors Union will hear about this!

21. 38:17 - "Help me! Help meeee!" Because the target audience of 8-year-olds are likely to be familiar with "The Fly" (1958), aren't they?

22. 40:30 - Oh, how risque! Meh.

23. 41:52 - Because the target audience of 8-year-olds are likely to be familiar with "Night of the Living Dead" (1968) too?

24. 43:32 - Awful incongruous background music.

25. 44:35 - Even more ill-fitting (that means the same as "incongruous", just so you know) background music.

26. 46:03-46:56 - Why is Betelgeuse in a coffin, and why do the Maitlands need to dig him up? What's the point? Shouldn't he just appear when summoned like Candyman? A minute's worth of padding. Gah!

27. 47:46 - More animal cruelty! No need to throw the poor little mousey like that! That's a long drop for a tiny rodent!

28. 48:25 - "I've seen 'The Exorcist' about 167 times..." just like the target audience haven't, but 167 times more than the Horror Lamers have.

29. 48:27 - "And it keeps getting funnier every time I see it!" Exactly what's wrong with today's retarded "yukyukyuk" horror fans who would laugh to see a pudding crawl. "The Exorcist" is certainly not comedy, but now they will think it is because Betelgeuse says so. Ironically, however, it is funnier than "Beetlejuice".

30. 48:41 - Jerk-off gesturing is a bit much for a little kids' comedy, isn't it? I'm no prude, but WTF? Followed by a bit of upskirt perving at 49:00. Again, WTF?

31. 50:22 - The infamous F-bomb is dropped with a honking crotch-grab! Oh dear. Tim Burton really does have no idea who his target audience is meant to be.

32. 50:32 - "He seemed awfully pissed off," as the potty-mouthing continues. Oh, how boundary-pushing! Not. Did Tim Burton help Rob Zombie out with dialogue later?

33. 51:32 - A little bit of homophobia directed at Otho in a particularly unpleasant manner by Beryl (Adelle Lutz). Not even delivered in a joking way. Otho's witty "The Wizard of Oz" referencing comeback is, unfortunately, the most memorable line in the whole movie. Had to be "The Wizard of Oz" too, didn't it? Because we all know who stereotypically loves Judy Garland musicals!

34. 52:34-54:24 - The self-indulgent, incongruent and absolutely cringeworthy lip-syncing musical interlude.



Obviously this occurs for padding and because nobody could think of anything better to put in. On a deeply personal level, I detest this "possession" scene more than any other in any movie ever.

35. 59:46 - Pitiful Betelgeuse-snake stop-motion animation. Almost as bad as something Ray Harryhausen would have done 7 years earlier. So unrealistic.

36. 1:01:37 - "Edgar Allan Poe's daughter". Only a couple of things wrong with that reference and its implications.

37. 1:01:57 - Crappy misquoted "Dirty Harry" line for no laughs whatsoever.

38. 1:02:27 - A whorehouse in a kids' film? Not only age-inappropriate, but in this case, suggestive of necrophilia too. This is a PG! It's not even a PG-13!

39. 1:06:14-1:06:51 - The surreal (and poorly done) stop-motion metamorphoses of the Maitlands into God knows what their heads are supposed to be. Too weird. Too much of what Tim Burton was to become.

40. 1:07:18 - Further proof that Winona Ryder can't act. Exceedingly flat line delivery even for a depressive teenager with Asparagus Syndrome. She has less expression changes than Liv Tyler or Kristen Stewart put together!

41. 1:08:02 - A gross-out cockroach-eating moment. Animal cruelty!

42. 1:08:49 - "...and shit like that..." Oh, who even cares at this point?

43. 1:10:13 - Stupid unconvincing masks. What's the point when Barbara changes back (at 1:10:44) before the Maitlands get chance to use their "fright faces" on their intended victims anyway?

44. 1:14:14 - The whole atmosphere of what could be a chillingly tense seance/conjuring scene is completely ruined by more of Danny Elfman's music overpowering everything.

45. 1:17:37 - The two decaying-corpse ghosts hovering over the dining table could be one of the most horrific images ever... except that it's in a shitty kiddified comedy! Waste!

46. 1:18:46 - Betelgeuse's WTF fairground costume jumps the shark into cartoon land! It makes no sense, it looks stupid, and it's a precursor to everything which will ever become nauseating about Tim Burton's movies. There's surreal and then there's total bollocks, and this is firmly in the latter category!

47. 1:20:07 - Another homophobic joke as Otho's horror at magically being forced to wear an unfashionable '70s leisure suit plays on the stereotype about gay dress sense. Way over the heads of most children, but shame on you, Tim Burton!

48. 1:20:38 - What happened to the snakes which Betelgeuse put into Charles Deetz's hand at 1:20:33? Continuity!!!

49. 1:21:13 - Predictably, Delia's weird-ass sculptures just have to come to stop-motion animated life and join in the craziness. We're now in Tim Burton's whacked-out, arty-farty imagination, and it's not a pleasant place to be.

50. 1:21:45 - What the bloody Hell is that thing which comes through the "Dr. Caligari" doorway? An alien-corpse preacher? A deformed dwarf-corpse with macrocephalus? Whatever Tim Burton was drinking or smoking at the time, I don't want any! This whole scene is far too weird for anybody in their right mind to enjoy.

51. 1:24:17 - Barbara riding a sandworm across time and space to save the day! Well, of course! You couldn't make this shit up! Okay, you could if you couldn't come up with a better ending. Don't forget to laugh at the dated effects. No? Please yourself.

52. 1:24:46 - A happy ending for everyone then, except Maxie (Robert Goulet) and Sarah Dean (Maree Cheatham) who must have had their necks broken when they were violently launched through the ceiling at 1:19:24.

53. Another cringeworthy lip-syncing routine at the end.



54. If you add up all of Michael Keaton's time on screen, the title character only has 17 out of 92 minutes! That really sucks!


So there you have it. "Beetlejuice" isn't horror. It's not even a proper horror-comedy. It's not scary, it's not funny. It's embarrassing, dated, and cringeworthy, but it's definitely not funny.

What audience is this really meant for? It's a PG with normally R-rated language, adult situations, sexual innuendoes, animal cruelty, homophobia, a smidgen of (debatable) racism, attempted paedophilia, suicide, images of death and the dead, and so much cigarette smoking that it's almost an advertisement for the tobacco industry!

How the Hell did the MPAA pass "Beetljuice" as a PG when something like "The Conjuring" (2013)—which is clearly a PG-13—gets an R? If this isn't proof that the MPAA is corrupt, it's still food for thought, eh?

Is "Beetlejuice" something that 'ickle kids should watch? Based on the damage that it's done to the minds of the tasteless plebs in the Horror Lamers clique, I don't think so. It's not because of the rating though, it's just because the movie totally sucks.

Something that's been bugging me for a while

As much as I hate to break up my "Hallowe'en Countdown", I just thought I'd share a couple of grammatical problems which have arisen since I began doing my reviews as a blog back in June 2006.

When I still had a "real" website but was using MySpace to blog on, I wrote small capsule reviews in the "literary present" tense, and didn't really think about it too much. Many websites and academics will tell you that all movie reviews should be written in the present tense. That way of doing things has even become a universally accepted convention.

As I've been blogging, however, I've found myself increasingly writing more in the past tense than the present. This is mainly due to writing about older films which I've already watched rather than them being something current.

I'm not sure when my style changed, and now it's become a difficult habit to break. Looking back on my earlier reviews which were written far too quickly, contained many punctuation errors, and were, quite frankly, embarrassing anyway, I don't see any way back to how I did things before. I'm not sure that I'd even want to go there.

When I read other people's "reviews" which are written in the present tense, they don't come across as correct. I'll just explain what I mean with a snippet of one of Roger Ebert's recent reviews:

In 1984, Tim Burton launched his career with a live-action short named "Frankenweenie," and now he returns to that material for the new "Frankenweenie," a stop-motion, black-and-white animated comedy inspired by "The Bride of Frankenstein" and countless other classic horror films in which science runs amok.

Do you see anything wrong with this other than it was written by Roger Ebert and nobody cares about what he has to say anyway? I do. To me, it reads as if Tim Burton is returning right now (at the present time) to create "Frankenweenie" when, in reality, he has already made this film. It's completed and ready to watch so he's not returning to anything. He already returned to his older material, remade it, and now he's sitting back waiting for the money to come rolling in from his fans. He's not still returning to it. Therein lies the danger of always tring to use the present tense for a movie review.

Given how he began, wouldn't Ebert's sentence have read better the following way?

In 1984, Tim Burton launched his career with a live-action short named "Frankenweenie," and he returned to that material for the new "Frankenweenie," a stop-motion, black-and-white animated comedy inspired by "The Bride of Frankenstein" and countless other classic horror films in which science ran amok.

Some people have argued that writing reviews in the present tense is closer to how conversations are in real life, but I don't see it. People don't use the present tense when they've just seen a movie, do they? Here's an example of a typical conversation that I'm likely to have:

"So what did you do last night?"
"I watched a horror movie."
"Was it any good?"
"Not really. A load of people who I've never heard of were in it and none of them could act. It was crap."

See what I mean? It's all past tense. If you turn it into the present tense, it makes the person sound like a moron and you need to add a contraction to the final part:

"Is it any good?"
"Not really, A load of people who I don't know are in it and none of them can act. It's crap."

In my opinion (and logically), any discussion about something which you've seen should be in the form of a report and be written in the past tense. Some say that is just for writing about history, but if you've watched a movie and it's over then surely it is history. It's part of your history. That specific act and your reactions during it are never going to happen again.

Although you can rewatch a movie at any time, does that really bring it back into the present tense? The very medium which you are observing is also just a recording of something which has already happened. Confusing, isn't it?

Another problem which I've found with present tense movie reviews is that many people fall into the trap of retelling the story in their own words. That isn't a review, it's a synopsis. A synopsis should be written in the present tense because it's paraphrasing something which continues to exist, but a synopsis is not a review.

A movie review is supposed to be all about emotional reactions, technical deconstruction, and such like. Simply retelling the story in the present tense with occasional asides works occasionally too, but it's messier that way.

The other danger is coming across like a Bulgarian used car salesman if you choose to overwrite praise-laden movie reviews in the present tense. Everything sounds sycophantic and affected plus it makes the reader wonder if the subject matter is about a newly released movie or an upcoming release even if the title clearly states that the movie was made, for example, in 1941.

Even as someone who got the highest grades possible at University, I can't remember being formally taught anything about tenses other than in Latin classes. I still don't actually know which is the best method. My own writing sucks because I don't invest enough time manipulating the words into the best possible order, and I rarely have the patience to go back and correct my mistakes. I only write blogs (like a diary) not books which will last forever or anything important. If I use one tense over the other, it's merely the result of trying to keep things consistent rather than any other reason. It's not as if I'm earning millions of dollars from my ramblings.

It's all food for thought though. Maybe you have an opinion about this? If you do, please leave a comment below.

Dark Shadows (2012)

"An imprisoned vampire, Barnabas Collins, is set free and returns to his ancestral home, where his dysfunctional descendants are in need of his protection."

There are some films which you have to be bored out of your mind to watch, and, unfortunately, I was that bored enough today to see if I could find anything enjoyable in Tim Burton's version of "Dark Shadows".

I'm glad that I have no sense of humour because "Dark Shadows" failed completely as a comedy. It also failed to be anything other than an all-star cast playing dress-up. If the intention was simply to destroy any nostalgic admiration anyone could have for the original Dan Curtis series with a load of silliness and superficiality, it certainly succeeded there.

I've only ever seen a few episodes of the TV series and one of the films (I forget which one), but they were a lot more entertaining than this hack job. Although Johnny Depp was slightly comical, Eva Green was sexy as Hell, and I now know what happened to Jonny Lee Miller, it was just a lot of high production values layered over a weak script.

Having watched a lot of these over-produced and under-written movies this week, I'm beginning to wonder if this is the thing now. Nobody seems to care about providing any kind of engrossing or cohesive story as long as they can stick a few big name actors in costumes up on screen and grab some quick cash from the kids who don't know any better.

Even if I was the right age to be part of the targeted PG-13 audience, I'm sure I would still have been disappointed with "Dark Shadows". It started off too fast, then wasted a lot of time on unnecessary details and characters who didn't really do anything, while, at the same time, it badly mixed fish-out-of-water, "Austin Powers"-style humour with a feeble attempt at a Gothic love story.

After sitting through nearly two hours of this dreck, I really don't want to waste any more time talking about it. "Dark Shadows" looked extremely good, the 1970's music was better, the couple of surprise cameos were okay, but it was a whole load of nothing really.

Batman (1989)

"The Dark Knight of Gotham City begins his war on crime with his first major enemy being the clownishly homicidal Joker."

Back in 1989, when this movie was being shown theatrically, I had more important things on my mind such as girlfriends, boozing every weekend, and studying for my first year of University exams. I had no interest in stupid superhero movies meant for little kids, had no idea who Michael Keaton or Tim Burton were, and really didn't have much knowledge about Jack Nicholson except that he was a big name as a Hollywood actor.

It was probably at least another three years before I saw this version of "Batman" for the first time on television. I wasn't overly impressed by it either; in fact, it bored me. I tried to concentrate on it, tried to enjoy Jack Nicholson as The Joker, but, alas, I just wrote it off as a load of old crap.

Having rewatched it this afternoon, I'm still not overly impressed by Tim Burton's "Batman". Given that it's supposed to be a darker and more gothic version of the comic book, it failed miserably at being either.

For a start, Michael Keaton was all wrong for the role. I think any fool could dress up in the stiff, rubber Batman costume and make that part work, but Michael Keaton was way too inconsistent as Bruce Wayne. One minute, he was all jokey and comedic; the next, he was supposed to be resourceful and tough. There's no brooding, no sense of grief about him, and he wasn't very attractive either even for the late '80s. He looked like a dweeb.

Many people have said over the years that "Batman" was really Jack Nicholson's show all the way with Michael Keaton being little more than a supporting player. While there was an element of truth in that, the poorly worked love story between Bruce Wayne and Vicky Vale was supposed to even the balance. Michael Keaton seemed to have as much time on screen as Jack Nicholson, but, because of the lack of chemistry between him and the rather plain-looking Kim Basinger, none of it was particularly memorable. The Joker's side of the story (and his character) was simply a lot more interesting.

Apart from the quite powerful music by Danny Elfman and the look of the movie, there really wasn't a lot to praise in "Batman". Any of the other actors' performances were either too weak or too short to even notice. While Billy Dee Williams almost stood out in a bad way as a totally miscast Harvey Dent, Michael Gough as Alfred just got lost in the maelstrom of weirdness. I'm still not entirely sure what happened to Jerry Hall either.

Jack Nicholson's more horrific and psychotic moments nearly elevated my viewing pleasure to a more adult level, but then too much early Tim Burton-ness crept in and ruined it all. There was a definite lag in the middle of the movie from around the point where The Joker decided to terrorize Vicky Vale for no good reason right up until the useless Batplane scenes. All this, coupled with the shitty pop music by Prince, should have caused me to switch "Batman" off and never return to it. I would have done too if I hadn't wanted to write this review.

When The Joker turned out to be the criminal who killed Bruce Wayne's parents, not only was it unbelievably clichéd, but I could feel my will to not kick the TV screen in slipping away. When the big clown balloons appeared looking like prototypes for things from "A Nightmare Before Christmas", I decided to start clipping my own toenails because I knew that would be more beneficial to me than what I was seeing on screen, and would also prevent me from doing what I really wanted to do with my feet.

Having stayed with it until the rather predictable and "Die Hard" inspired end, I feel like I deserve some kind of medal. I hated over 50% of "Batman" with every fibre of my being.

I hate Tim Burton, I hate Michael Keaton, I hate stupid rubber Batman suits which don't allow an actor to move his head, I hate the weather, and, most of all, right now, I really hate "Batman".