Search
Search results
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Willy's Wonderland (2021) in Movies
Apr 15, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
I feel I should start this with something like 'I watched this so you don't have to' but that wouldn't be true. I watched this because I love 'So bad they're good' movies, so how could I not watch ' Nicolas Cage vs possessed animatronics in a family restaurant'.
So lets start with the obvious, Yes this is a 'Five nights at Freddy's' clone but that's never hidden, the poster, the trailer and even the films name tells you that.
Next, is it good? Hell yes. There are a lot of people out there who will say NO but that's the point. Willy's Wonderland is a modern 80's B movie and it's down there with the likes of 'Killer Klowns from Outer space' and "the Attack of the killer tomato's' or maybe something from Troma.
The animatronic costumes are creepy, their back story has been done before (but that's the point) and a lot of things make little sense, the restaurant seems to big, especially if you take the size of the air vents into consideration.
Then there's the Janitor, played by Nicolas Cage, who doesn't speak, has an alarm set so he knows when to have his next energy drink and who easily kicks the butt of the animatronics. That's it, there is no back story, almost no motivation and almost no reason for him being there. And we don't need it.
Willy's Wonderland is full of slasher and horror tropes. We have teens having sex and getting killed, we have Satanic cults, blood and creepy animatronics and almost nothing new. Except Nicolas Cage makes it his own. His performance is heading up to 'Mandy' levels but not quite as intense.
So, if you want to see a terrifying, serious horror then this isn't for you but, if you want to see Nicolas Cage beat up and animatronic ostrich then rip out it's spine ala Predator then this is the film for you (not really a spoiler, it's mostly in the trailer.)
So lets start with the obvious, Yes this is a 'Five nights at Freddy's' clone but that's never hidden, the poster, the trailer and even the films name tells you that.
Next, is it good? Hell yes. There are a lot of people out there who will say NO but that's the point. Willy's Wonderland is a modern 80's B movie and it's down there with the likes of 'Killer Klowns from Outer space' and "the Attack of the killer tomato's' or maybe something from Troma.
The animatronic costumes are creepy, their back story has been done before (but that's the point) and a lot of things make little sense, the restaurant seems to big, especially if you take the size of the air vents into consideration.
Then there's the Janitor, played by Nicolas Cage, who doesn't speak, has an alarm set so he knows when to have his next energy drink and who easily kicks the butt of the animatronics. That's it, there is no back story, almost no motivation and almost no reason for him being there. And we don't need it.
Willy's Wonderland is full of slasher and horror tropes. We have teens having sex and getting killed, we have Satanic cults, blood and creepy animatronics and almost nothing new. Except Nicolas Cage makes it his own. His performance is heading up to 'Mandy' levels but not quite as intense.
So, if you want to see a terrifying, serious horror then this isn't for you but, if you want to see Nicolas Cage beat up and animatronic ostrich then rip out it's spine ala Predator then this is the film for you (not really a spoiler, it's mostly in the trailer.)
Lenard (726 KP) rated Voyagers (2021) in Movies
Apr 18, 2021
Voyagers is the story of an 86-year voyage to a life sustaining planet in another galaxy. How did they stock the ship for the crew? When the 1st generation crew dies, who is going to train the next generation? Will the next generation listen since they are the first crew's children? Next question: you are going to bred a crew from intellectual superior Earthlings and keep them isolated in a facility so they will not miss the Sun or anything on Earth. How will these children develop a circadian rhythm since human circadian rhythms are based on the Sun? How do you settle upon 30 crew members? Could you have 60 crew members and give each a different circadian rhythm so you would have 3 shifts of 20 and someone would always be monitoring the vessel? Would that be more efficient and safer than all 30 being on the same cycle? These are just the science-y questions for this story.
Now, the actual film. The writer decides to quickly dispatch the lone "adult" in this cast of YAs. Slowly the crew descends into Lord of the Flies. At one point, I was wondering which one is the Piggy. Hint: brown and male. There is a little twist where one of the crew turns paranoia into a weapon and launches a leadership campaign. I enjoyed the concept of an alien that was not there, but could attack anyone. It never went far as the movie turned into a battle of arms rather than wits. I prefer not to critique films based on what should have been done. But shouldn't the crew have learned at some point that the pressure outside in outer space on a metal tin can travelling at interstellar speeds creates friction which reverbs inside. Then the film could have focused on a more politically tinted parable.
One scene disturbed me. The acting of Lily-Rose and Fionn is so bad that I thought a porn scene had been edited into the space opera.
Now, the actual film. The writer decides to quickly dispatch the lone "adult" in this cast of YAs. Slowly the crew descends into Lord of the Flies. At one point, I was wondering which one is the Piggy. Hint: brown and male. There is a little twist where one of the crew turns paranoia into a weapon and launches a leadership campaign. I enjoyed the concept of an alien that was not there, but could attack anyone. It never went far as the movie turned into a battle of arms rather than wits. I prefer not to critique films based on what should have been done. But shouldn't the crew have learned at some point that the pressure outside in outer space on a metal tin can travelling at interstellar speeds creates friction which reverbs inside. Then the film could have focused on a more politically tinted parable.
One scene disturbed me. The acting of Lily-Rose and Fionn is so bad that I thought a porn scene had been edited into the space opera.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated When Will I Be Loved (2004) in Movies
Jul 4, 2021 (Updated Jul 4, 2021)
"๐ ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ณ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ ๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐ต๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐บ'๐ด ๐จ๐ช๐ณ๐ญ, ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ง๐ถ๐ค๐ฌ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ? ๐๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ฅ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ท๐ฐ๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ช๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ด!"
A deeply, *deeply* misogynistic, artsy-fartsy disaster of stratospheric proportions where every slimebag man has some idiotic 'philosophical' defense as to why they need to manipulate this woman into letting them fuck her - made by a known serial sexual predator. I felt complicit for even entertaining the idea to watch such dogshit, like I needed a military-grade chemical shower after seeing it. Or to at least bleach my eyes. Might be the worst movie I've ever seen, if not then certainly somewhere down in the bottom 5 or 10. Written, edited, and shot like a bad high school student project with this unbearable non-story which rips off - of all movies - ๐๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ค๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ด๐ข๐ญ (by name, in fact)? Neve Campbell has sex with another women (without showing any skin of course) behind a transparent mesh curtain scored to a shitty Bach cover - imagine if that episode from "South Park" where the people smelled their own farts was real and you'd get this depth-free piece of shit. As cynical, uninvolved, and up-its-own-ass as ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด is, at least that one actually went through with its promise of provocation. ๐๐ช๐ง๐ต๐บ ๐๐ฉ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐บ is unironically more provocative than this. Effectively just a series of bullshit conversations that go nowhere and shit-tier sex scenes more poorly thrown together than that one from Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part I. And then it also features horrible ass songs on the soundtrack because of course it does. One of the rare movies to bag Roger Ebert's highest rating... which was also 'earned' by fellow turds ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ข๐ด๐ด and ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ณ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ (which - awful as they are - are masterpieces compared to this) so it shows how much that distinction is worth lmao. Shoot me now.
A deeply, *deeply* misogynistic, artsy-fartsy disaster of stratospheric proportions where every slimebag man has some idiotic 'philosophical' defense as to why they need to manipulate this woman into letting them fuck her - made by a known serial sexual predator. I felt complicit for even entertaining the idea to watch such dogshit, like I needed a military-grade chemical shower after seeing it. Or to at least bleach my eyes. Might be the worst movie I've ever seen, if not then certainly somewhere down in the bottom 5 or 10. Written, edited, and shot like a bad high school student project with this unbearable non-story which rips off - of all movies - ๐๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ค๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ด๐ข๐ญ (by name, in fact)? Neve Campbell has sex with another women (without showing any skin of course) behind a transparent mesh curtain scored to a shitty Bach cover - imagine if that episode from "South Park" where the people smelled their own farts was real and you'd get this depth-free piece of shit. As cynical, uninvolved, and up-its-own-ass as ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด is, at least that one actually went through with its promise of provocation. ๐๐ช๐ง๐ต๐บ ๐๐ฉ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐บ is unironically more provocative than this. Effectively just a series of bullshit conversations that go nowhere and shit-tier sex scenes more poorly thrown together than that one from Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part I. And then it also features horrible ass songs on the soundtrack because of course it does. One of the rare movies to bag Roger Ebert's highest rating... which was also 'earned' by fellow turds ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ข๐ด๐ด and ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ณ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ (which - awful as they are - are masterpieces compared to this) so it shows how much that distinction is worth lmao. Shoot me now.
BookInspector (124 KP) rated Purgatory Road in Books
Sep 24, 2020
From the first pages I had creeps running down my spine. This story is a nerve - racking, blood โ curdling, fearsome piece of art. It started like every second horror movie, coupleโs car broke in the middle of nowhere and they need to survive but eventually they will meet someone who wants to kill them. Heard that before, right? But this novel is something different. There is something else lurking around, where it is very hard to explain what it is, and author kept it for your own imagination till the very last page. Was it real or was it just a fruit of imagination, I honestly donโt know. The plot of this book is really disturbing and filled with lots of violence and disturbed characters so if u have weak nerves and fear of violence save yourself from nightmares. I know I had few even though I like these kind of books.
I really enjoyed what author did with the characters, they are very mysterious and all of them have their own secrets which author helps to untangle slowly, torturing with every chapter. There are amazing insights of coupleโs relationship problems and hidden feelings towards each other and helps discover their own most secret realisations which they tried to suppress for some time. Characters manipulate with these feelings magnificently. The book is really fast paced and these chapters are so short, that it grips you so bad that all I could think was โOK, just one moreโฆโ and I couldnโt put it down. It is really easy to read this book, because the language used is not difficult so it just flies through. There are a lot of things going on in the book with a lot of turns and twists which made it even more interesting and gripping. The ending was really enjoyable as well not like the ones you see in horror movies. To conclude, I would strongly recommend this book to all out there who got strong nerves and would like some spine โ chilling story to read.
I really enjoyed what author did with the characters, they are very mysterious and all of them have their own secrets which author helps to untangle slowly, torturing with every chapter. There are amazing insights of coupleโs relationship problems and hidden feelings towards each other and helps discover their own most secret realisations which they tried to suppress for some time. Characters manipulate with these feelings magnificently. The book is really fast paced and these chapters are so short, that it grips you so bad that all I could think was โOK, just one moreโฆโ and I couldnโt put it down. It is really easy to read this book, because the language used is not difficult so it just flies through. There are a lot of things going on in the book with a lot of turns and twists which made it even more interesting and gripping. The ending was really enjoyable as well not like the ones you see in horror movies. To conclude, I would strongly recommend this book to all out there who got strong nerves and would like some spine โ chilling story to read.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Babysitter: Killer Queen (2020) in Movies
Sep 12, 2020
I have a soft spot for The Babysitter. It's a little middle of the road and has some flaws but it's fun, it's gory, and just a good time.
The sequel, The Babysitter: Killer Queen, is pretty much more of the same, albeit with a few more issues that render it inferior to it's predecessor.
The main problem is the absence of Samara Weaving. Her screentime in this probably totals around the 5 minute mark.
Judah Lewis returns as Cole, and takes the lead this time around. He's a decent enough lead for sure, but the chemistry between him and Weaving is what made the first movie stand out.
Elsewhere, some hastily explained exposition explains the return of the other members of the cult that were all offed in the first one, and it's a little hit and miss. Robbie Amell is pretty entertaining once again, but the screenplay doubles down on constant jokes, to the point where a lot of them don't land, and it feels like each character is just trying to out-edge the others with their edginess, and relentless pop culture references.
Another issue I found was the increase in role for Cole's Dad, played by Ken Marino. I tend to like him in most things he's in but he's given too much screentime this time around, and it doesn't take long for his character to wear thin. Same goes for Chris Wylde's character.
Apart from all that though, it's still fun to a degree. There's plenty of gore on display - a mix of so so CGI and practical effects by the looks of it - and it's suitably over the top. It pushes this sequel into more schlocky territory than the first, which isn't necessarily a bad thing and the two likable protagonists (Judah Lewis and Jenna Ortega) ensure that it's still a watchable comedy horror, even if it does have a gaping Samara Weaving shaped hole.
The sequel, The Babysitter: Killer Queen, is pretty much more of the same, albeit with a few more issues that render it inferior to it's predecessor.
The main problem is the absence of Samara Weaving. Her screentime in this probably totals around the 5 minute mark.
Judah Lewis returns as Cole, and takes the lead this time around. He's a decent enough lead for sure, but the chemistry between him and Weaving is what made the first movie stand out.
Elsewhere, some hastily explained exposition explains the return of the other members of the cult that were all offed in the first one, and it's a little hit and miss. Robbie Amell is pretty entertaining once again, but the screenplay doubles down on constant jokes, to the point where a lot of them don't land, and it feels like each character is just trying to out-edge the others with their edginess, and relentless pop culture references.
Another issue I found was the increase in role for Cole's Dad, played by Ken Marino. I tend to like him in most things he's in but he's given too much screentime this time around, and it doesn't take long for his character to wear thin. Same goes for Chris Wylde's character.
Apart from all that though, it's still fun to a degree. There's plenty of gore on display - a mix of so so CGI and practical effects by the looks of it - and it's suitably over the top. It pushes this sequel into more schlocky territory than the first, which isn't necessarily a bad thing and the two likable protagonists (Judah Lewis and Jenna Ortega) ensure that it's still a watchable comedy horror, even if it does have a gaping Samara Weaving shaped hole.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Rings (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Going in I have to admit I had the lowest expectations for this movie. And indeed it starts off seeming like a complete joke with a scene on a plane that is reminiscent of โSnakes on Planeโ but with an evil spirit, flies, and black sludge instead of snakes. The theater filled with laughter for the first five minutes.
A plot about a film that kills people who watch it is in itself offputtingly hokey. Previously I was never a fan of โThe Ringโ or โThe Ring 2,โ and I did not find either of them memorable to say the least. But, this sequel starts off in such a comedic fashion that most people will no longer have expectations to be scared. But this may not be a bad thing at all.
After the first few scenes something happens, and the film begins to be more artsy rather than hokey. Trippy effects like rain flowing upward or weird black liquid that almost looks like melted latex flowing out each time the evil spirit is coming, make this a surreal piece of entertainment. This film is actually best described as a modern day dark fairy tale and not a horror film.
Parts of the plot are very dark as you learn the complete story of Samara. Themes of captivity, murder, infanticide, and child molestation subtly peak into the plot. But it does not delve too far into these aspects which could have been truly twisted, instead it veers off into a more modern theme.
A college professor, Gabriel (Johnny Galecki), who teaches an experimental biology course and studies the afterlife, discovers the deadly film when he buys an old VCR. After watching it himself he comes up with a creative way of keeping himself and others who watch it alive. Hint โ it involves a selfish pattern of sacrifice, which is a bit darkly comedic but also a realistic and shadowy reflection of human nature.
โRingsโ is no horror masterpiece, but it is entertaining, unique, and a tad bit creepy.
A plot about a film that kills people who watch it is in itself offputtingly hokey. Previously I was never a fan of โThe Ringโ or โThe Ring 2,โ and I did not find either of them memorable to say the least. But, this sequel starts off in such a comedic fashion that most people will no longer have expectations to be scared. But this may not be a bad thing at all.
After the first few scenes something happens, and the film begins to be more artsy rather than hokey. Trippy effects like rain flowing upward or weird black liquid that almost looks like melted latex flowing out each time the evil spirit is coming, make this a surreal piece of entertainment. This film is actually best described as a modern day dark fairy tale and not a horror film.
Parts of the plot are very dark as you learn the complete story of Samara. Themes of captivity, murder, infanticide, and child molestation subtly peak into the plot. But it does not delve too far into these aspects which could have been truly twisted, instead it veers off into a more modern theme.
A college professor, Gabriel (Johnny Galecki), who teaches an experimental biology course and studies the afterlife, discovers the deadly film when he buys an old VCR. After watching it himself he comes up with a creative way of keeping himself and others who watch it alive. Hint โ it involves a selfish pattern of sacrifice, which is a bit darkly comedic but also a realistic and shadowy reflection of human nature.
โRingsโ is no horror masterpiece, but it is entertaining, unique, and a tad bit creepy.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Ghoul (2016) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
Characters โ Chris is an undercover detective that starts seeing a psychotherapist to help solve the latest case, but the more time he spends in therapy the thinner the line between reality and the truth come from. Kathleen is an old friend from university that supports Chris, while also having him when she needs help. We have other characters that come into the life of Chris, the therapists trying to help him, the fellow patient trying to warn him, the film does keep the character numbers down with each posing a potential end of the investigation for Chris.
Performances โ Tom Meeten appears in every scene and his performances needs to be great to carry the film, he is wonderful through the film as we feel his confusion through it all. Going into the supporting cast, we do have good performances for Tom to bounce off too.
Story โ The story is the hardest thing to describe, it will keep you guessing from start to finish as you wait to see where the film will go next. This is both a good thing and a bad thing, because you will need to give the film 100% attention to make sure you donโt miss anything and even if you blink you might miss an important clue.
Thriller โ This has tension driven through the film as we can see how thing could end up becoming something shocking.
Settings โ The film is set in London which helps us se the busy street feel to the busy lives that the people are living.
Scene of the Movie โ The final reveal.
That Moment That Annoyed Me โ It is slightly too confusing.
Final Thoughts โ This is a real mind bender, I always enjoy seeing film makers push things to the limits even if I donโt personally enjoy the film as much as I should have.
Overall: Real mind bender for all.
Performances โ Tom Meeten appears in every scene and his performances needs to be great to carry the film, he is wonderful through the film as we feel his confusion through it all. Going into the supporting cast, we do have good performances for Tom to bounce off too.
Story โ The story is the hardest thing to describe, it will keep you guessing from start to finish as you wait to see where the film will go next. This is both a good thing and a bad thing, because you will need to give the film 100% attention to make sure you donโt miss anything and even if you blink you might miss an important clue.
Thriller โ This has tension driven through the film as we can see how thing could end up becoming something shocking.
Settings โ The film is set in London which helps us se the busy street feel to the busy lives that the people are living.
Scene of the Movie โ The final reveal.
That Moment That Annoyed Me โ It is slightly too confusing.
Final Thoughts โ This is a real mind bender, I always enjoy seeing film makers push things to the limits even if I donโt personally enjoy the film as much as I should have.
Overall: Real mind bender for all.
Supertext Messenger - gruppchatt, stickers
Social Networking
App
Group chat with friends and family instantly - for free. It's just like texting but you don't have...
Drake (Twilight Falls #5)
10.0
Rate It
Book
Roman Campbell. Wild Child. Rebel. Rockstar. Broken. At the age of twenty-eight, Roman Campbell...
Contemporary MM Romance Trigger Warning
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 65 (2023) in Movies
May 8, 2023
Driver is Heads and Shoulders above this material
Whoever decided to cast Adam Driver as an alien spaceperson (who looks and acts suspiciously like a 21st Century American) who crash-lands on prehistoric Earth and has to battle Dinosaurs equipped with only his alien technology (including his laser-blaster) is a GENIUS for Driver is EXTREMELY watchable in this film - the best thing (by far) in this so-so sci-fi/dinosaur mash-up.
The rest of the movie? Not so much.
Basically Jurassic Park with a spaceman twist, 65 (so named for the spaceman that crash lands on Earth at around 65 million years B.C. - just before the โdinosaur killingโ asteroid hits the Earth) tells the tale of said Spaceman, MIlls (Driver) who crashes on Earth and (along with another survivor, Koa played by Ariana Greenblatt) must make their way across unfriendly, hungry Dinosaur territory to their escape ship and get off the planet before the asteroid hits.
Youโve seen the humans vs. dinosaur action before in all of the Jurassic Park films - so thereโs nothing new here. Writer/Directors Scott Beck and Bryan Woods put together a fairly standard โman vs. beastโ action flick. It felt like that these two were playing with their Jurassic Park and Astronaut toys in their bedroom and this was the adventure they came up with.
The differentiator in this film is the performance of Driver who puts his all into his portrayal of Mills as he (mostly) silently, but professionally, makes his way across hostile territory to gain access to rescue. Driver (who I donโt think has ever given a bad performance) is head and shoulders above the material here and he, alone, is worth spending an hour and a 1/2 of your time on this film.
Roll your eyes at the Dinosaur action, marvel at the Adam Driver performance.
Letter Grade: C+ (Driver โAโ, the rest of the film โDโ)
6 stars (out of 10) - and thatโs being generous - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
The rest of the movie? Not so much.
Basically Jurassic Park with a spaceman twist, 65 (so named for the spaceman that crash lands on Earth at around 65 million years B.C. - just before the โdinosaur killingโ asteroid hits the Earth) tells the tale of said Spaceman, MIlls (Driver) who crashes on Earth and (along with another survivor, Koa played by Ariana Greenblatt) must make their way across unfriendly, hungry Dinosaur territory to their escape ship and get off the planet before the asteroid hits.
Youโve seen the humans vs. dinosaur action before in all of the Jurassic Park films - so thereโs nothing new here. Writer/Directors Scott Beck and Bryan Woods put together a fairly standard โman vs. beastโ action flick. It felt like that these two were playing with their Jurassic Park and Astronaut toys in their bedroom and this was the adventure they came up with.
The differentiator in this film is the performance of Driver who puts his all into his portrayal of Mills as he (mostly) silently, but professionally, makes his way across hostile territory to gain access to rescue. Driver (who I donโt think has ever given a bad performance) is head and shoulders above the material here and he, alone, is worth spending an hour and a 1/2 of your time on this film.
Roll your eyes at the Dinosaur action, marvel at the Adam Driver performance.
Letter Grade: C+ (Driver โAโ, the rest of the film โDโ)
6 stars (out of 10) - and thatโs being generous - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)