Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Midsommar (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Midsommar is listed as "drama, horror, mystery" on IMDb, and you know how I am with horror... but honestly, this is such a bad categorisation to me. If anything it's a psychological drama/thriller. I found nothing in it to be horror-worthy and I definitely wasn't scared at any point. We should probably just create a genre of "weird AF" and put it in that.
Christopher and the lads are planning a trip to Sweden to participate in the mid-summer festival of Pelle's community. After his girlfriend Dani receives some devastating news he invites her along in an empty gesture, the last thing he expects is for her to accept.
When they arrive in the village they're instantly in awe of the idyllic landscape and setting. The community welcomes them with open arms and hallucinogenic substances, but Dani's trip brings up her recent trauma and she's left uneasy. Everything is different here, but they roll with it and try to experience what the members of this community do. As the first ceremony reaches its peak the guests are left shocked and terrified. Can they, should they, battle through their preconceptions and get to the end of the festival? Or should they leave?
Midsommar runs at 2 hours and 27 minutes, that's long for most films. I don't know how this manages to be that long, there really doesn't seem to be enough content for that amount of time. Something worked though, I wasn't bored. Potentially that was through confusion at the bizarreness. I'm hoping someone has worked out how much of the runtime was taken up by silence. It could easily have been cut down. Dani's family issues don't have much of an impact on the story. It certainly didn't need to depict what happened, leaving those bits out would have just meant some changes to imagery later and the beginning would have tightened up a lot.
There's no denying that the setting for the film is beautiful and the sets are intricate and yet understated. It really does illustrate the community's simple living and traditions. That combined with the basic clothing and headdresses all create an innocent and tranquil image for the commune.
Visuals within the film are frustrating, they like a good odd transition. Early on we have a scene that moves from an apartment to an airplane, Dani walks into the apartment's bathroom and we're transitioned into the plane bathroom in a magnificently done shot. It was strange but worked so smoothly. But the transitions eventually became tiring to watch. We also get an overhead sweeping shot of forest that could have been lifted straight from Pet Semetary. Then there's the road shot where the camera turns upside down and films for an inexplicably long amount of time. *sigh*
The audio is something that's interesting to me. At the beginning the music is abrasive and really quite difficult to sit through and that almost certainly, combined with Pugh's wailing, contributed to a couple deciding to leave the screening I was in. There's a significant amount of the film where there's little to no sound at all, but this opening was harsh and while it offers a contrast between the lifestyles in the film it in no way felt beneficial. When we come to Sweden quiet and serene is the overriding sense. The first time we really encounter any noise is during the first ceremony and the audio is muted to reflect the shock of Dani, that felt like it worked. Sadly, that scene had issues for me outside of this moment.
At the festival our group are going to witness an event that only happens every 90 years. This sticks nicely to a life cycle that is explained to them when they're being shown around. Aster did a lot of research on traditions and folklore, lots of it feels authentic if a little busy with different ideas. There are a couple of things that aren't addressed when it comes to their life cycle and the ritual, although this is something that I thought about after seeing it so during the film it's not much of a problem.
I have been trying to finish this review for a week, sometimes I come across ones that are trickier than others and this is one of them. I still don't know how I really feel about Midsommar, what I do know is that I can't rave about it like some people have been. The acting was mediocre, and while the idea was intriguing I feel like the script and the way it was executed didn't appeal to me. I didn't find the brightness of the film and the darkness of the tale combined well to make for a thrilling production. I would much rather see this sort of thing as a grittier crime drama.
As a passing comment though I would like to say that everyone in the screen laughed at the sex scene, and I think everyone should appreciate the penis make-up.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/midsommar-movie-review.html
Christopher and the lads are planning a trip to Sweden to participate in the mid-summer festival of Pelle's community. After his girlfriend Dani receives some devastating news he invites her along in an empty gesture, the last thing he expects is for her to accept.
When they arrive in the village they're instantly in awe of the idyllic landscape and setting. The community welcomes them with open arms and hallucinogenic substances, but Dani's trip brings up her recent trauma and she's left uneasy. Everything is different here, but they roll with it and try to experience what the members of this community do. As the first ceremony reaches its peak the guests are left shocked and terrified. Can they, should they, battle through their preconceptions and get to the end of the festival? Or should they leave?
Midsommar runs at 2 hours and 27 minutes, that's long for most films. I don't know how this manages to be that long, there really doesn't seem to be enough content for that amount of time. Something worked though, I wasn't bored. Potentially that was through confusion at the bizarreness. I'm hoping someone has worked out how much of the runtime was taken up by silence. It could easily have been cut down. Dani's family issues don't have much of an impact on the story. It certainly didn't need to depict what happened, leaving those bits out would have just meant some changes to imagery later and the beginning would have tightened up a lot.
There's no denying that the setting for the film is beautiful and the sets are intricate and yet understated. It really does illustrate the community's simple living and traditions. That combined with the basic clothing and headdresses all create an innocent and tranquil image for the commune.
Visuals within the film are frustrating, they like a good odd transition. Early on we have a scene that moves from an apartment to an airplane, Dani walks into the apartment's bathroom and we're transitioned into the plane bathroom in a magnificently done shot. It was strange but worked so smoothly. But the transitions eventually became tiring to watch. We also get an overhead sweeping shot of forest that could have been lifted straight from Pet Semetary. Then there's the road shot where the camera turns upside down and films for an inexplicably long amount of time. *sigh*
The audio is something that's interesting to me. At the beginning the music is abrasive and really quite difficult to sit through and that almost certainly, combined with Pugh's wailing, contributed to a couple deciding to leave the screening I was in. There's a significant amount of the film where there's little to no sound at all, but this opening was harsh and while it offers a contrast between the lifestyles in the film it in no way felt beneficial. When we come to Sweden quiet and serene is the overriding sense. The first time we really encounter any noise is during the first ceremony and the audio is muted to reflect the shock of Dani, that felt like it worked. Sadly, that scene had issues for me outside of this moment.
At the festival our group are going to witness an event that only happens every 90 years. This sticks nicely to a life cycle that is explained to them when they're being shown around. Aster did a lot of research on traditions and folklore, lots of it feels authentic if a little busy with different ideas. There are a couple of things that aren't addressed when it comes to their life cycle and the ritual, although this is something that I thought about after seeing it so during the film it's not much of a problem.
I have been trying to finish this review for a week, sometimes I come across ones that are trickier than others and this is one of them. I still don't know how I really feel about Midsommar, what I do know is that I can't rave about it like some people have been. The acting was mediocre, and while the idea was intriguing I feel like the script and the way it was executed didn't appeal to me. I didn't find the brightness of the film and the darkness of the tale combined well to make for a thrilling production. I would much rather see this sort of thing as a grittier crime drama.
As a passing comment though I would like to say that everyone in the screen laughed at the sex scene, and I think everyone should appreciate the penis make-up.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/midsommar-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Comedian (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Welcome to the year 2017 …. Another year which promises to bring you HUGE blockbuster theatrical releases including long awaited sequels, groundbreaking independent films, and breakout performances from some of cinemas great veterans as well as its rookie newcomers!
Alright … alright … that’s your standard P.R. HYPE. Not that it’s entirely untrue but let’s face it, we all have a pretty good idea as to what’s in store for us this year am I right?
Today’s film is amongst 2016s ‘leftovers’ if you will. No that that’s a bad thing. Example … leftover pizza. I don’t know one individual who doesn’t like leftover pizza. You can think of this film as such.
The selection we present to you is the dramatic comedy ‘The Comedians’. The latest from film legend Robert De Niro. The film premiered at the AFI Fest on November 11th and will be released in theaters on February 3rd. Directed by Taylor Hackford (An Officer And A Gentleman, RAY) and written by Lewis Friedman, comedian Jeff Ross, Art Linson, and Richard LaGravenese (The Fisher King) the film features an all star cast including Robert DeNiro, Leslie Mann, Harvey Keitel, Danny DeVito, Veronica Ferres, Patti LuPone, Edie Falco, Cloris Leachman, Charles Gordin, Jim Norton, Gilbert Gottfried, Jimmie Walker, Brett Butler, Lois Smith, Happy Anderson, Hannibal Buress, and an appearance by Billy Crystal.
DeNiro is Jack ‘Jackie’ Burke. A comedic legend best known for his iconic T.V. role decades before who has spent the years since then attempting to reinvent himself as an ‘insult’ comic. Despite rave performances and praise from fans and his fellow comedians, he is still frustrated that he cannot escape from the shadow of his television career and the mistakes he made during those years as a husband, father, and brother. During a performance at a comedy club on the outskirts of New York City he berates a husband and wife in the audience who are filming him for their internet show without his permission and later attacks the husband. At his court hearing, he is offered a plea deal but upon learning that part of the plea involves apologizing to the husband and wife he openly berates them in the courtroom and is sentenced to 30 days in jail plus community service. Once out of jail, Jackie begins his community service serving meals to the homeless while fine tuning his act at a local church. However, since he has not worked and has no money he pays a call upon his estranged brother whom he has not visited in ages to ask for a loan.
Jackie’s brother agrees but only if Jackie will appear at his niece’s wedding. Late one evening at the church he meets Harmony (Mann) whom is also serving community service for assault and battery. Shortly after, Harmony and Jackie make the rounds at some of the New York comedy clubs where Jackie is still ‘welcome’ after which Jackie proposes a trade of sorts, Harmony will be Jackie’s date to his niece’s wedding if Jackie will appear at the dinner to celebrate the birthday of Harmony’s father (Keitel) who is a huge fan of Jackie’s television persona. At the wedding, Jackie performed a variation of his stand-up act to the delight of his niece and her fiancé while simultaneously offending the majority of the other family members. A few days later, Jackie accompanies Harmony to her father’s birthday dinner only to become aggravated when Harmony’s father insists Jackie reenact his T.V. character’s. Jackie responds by sarcastically professing his intentions to sleep with Harmony. Without giving everything away, what follows is a re-awakening of sorts in which Jackie comes to terms with the inevitability that he will always be known for the one role he tries so desperately to get away from and realizes that if he wants to distances himself from it, he’s going to have to embrace the character.
Despite the all star cast and the fact there were indeed many laughs in the film, it was honestly a waste at the end. This could’ve been an amazing film but it was lacking in its story. The script just didn’t have the ‘heart’ to combine with the premise and the great performances given by the actors. It’s not that they didn’t try, the film just failed to measure up. The acting was great, the directing was good, and there were indeed a few laughs here and there …. it just didn’t have any life to it. Heaven forbid I criticize a DeNiro film, but I can’t give this one more than two out of five stars. I REALLY wanted to like the film, I just didn’t. If it shows up in your digital cable package, go ahead and give it a try. Rent it on iTunes even. Honestly though, I can’t see myself buying the movie.
Alright … alright … that’s your standard P.R. HYPE. Not that it’s entirely untrue but let’s face it, we all have a pretty good idea as to what’s in store for us this year am I right?
Today’s film is amongst 2016s ‘leftovers’ if you will. No that that’s a bad thing. Example … leftover pizza. I don’t know one individual who doesn’t like leftover pizza. You can think of this film as such.
The selection we present to you is the dramatic comedy ‘The Comedians’. The latest from film legend Robert De Niro. The film premiered at the AFI Fest on November 11th and will be released in theaters on February 3rd. Directed by Taylor Hackford (An Officer And A Gentleman, RAY) and written by Lewis Friedman, comedian Jeff Ross, Art Linson, and Richard LaGravenese (The Fisher King) the film features an all star cast including Robert DeNiro, Leslie Mann, Harvey Keitel, Danny DeVito, Veronica Ferres, Patti LuPone, Edie Falco, Cloris Leachman, Charles Gordin, Jim Norton, Gilbert Gottfried, Jimmie Walker, Brett Butler, Lois Smith, Happy Anderson, Hannibal Buress, and an appearance by Billy Crystal.
DeNiro is Jack ‘Jackie’ Burke. A comedic legend best known for his iconic T.V. role decades before who has spent the years since then attempting to reinvent himself as an ‘insult’ comic. Despite rave performances and praise from fans and his fellow comedians, he is still frustrated that he cannot escape from the shadow of his television career and the mistakes he made during those years as a husband, father, and brother. During a performance at a comedy club on the outskirts of New York City he berates a husband and wife in the audience who are filming him for their internet show without his permission and later attacks the husband. At his court hearing, he is offered a plea deal but upon learning that part of the plea involves apologizing to the husband and wife he openly berates them in the courtroom and is sentenced to 30 days in jail plus community service. Once out of jail, Jackie begins his community service serving meals to the homeless while fine tuning his act at a local church. However, since he has not worked and has no money he pays a call upon his estranged brother whom he has not visited in ages to ask for a loan.
Jackie’s brother agrees but only if Jackie will appear at his niece’s wedding. Late one evening at the church he meets Harmony (Mann) whom is also serving community service for assault and battery. Shortly after, Harmony and Jackie make the rounds at some of the New York comedy clubs where Jackie is still ‘welcome’ after which Jackie proposes a trade of sorts, Harmony will be Jackie’s date to his niece’s wedding if Jackie will appear at the dinner to celebrate the birthday of Harmony’s father (Keitel) who is a huge fan of Jackie’s television persona. At the wedding, Jackie performed a variation of his stand-up act to the delight of his niece and her fiancé while simultaneously offending the majority of the other family members. A few days later, Jackie accompanies Harmony to her father’s birthday dinner only to become aggravated when Harmony’s father insists Jackie reenact his T.V. character’s. Jackie responds by sarcastically professing his intentions to sleep with Harmony. Without giving everything away, what follows is a re-awakening of sorts in which Jackie comes to terms with the inevitability that he will always be known for the one role he tries so desperately to get away from and realizes that if he wants to distances himself from it, he’s going to have to embrace the character.
Despite the all star cast and the fact there were indeed many laughs in the film, it was honestly a waste at the end. This could’ve been an amazing film but it was lacking in its story. The script just didn’t have the ‘heart’ to combine with the premise and the great performances given by the actors. It’s not that they didn’t try, the film just failed to measure up. The acting was great, the directing was good, and there were indeed a few laughs here and there …. it just didn’t have any life to it. Heaven forbid I criticize a DeNiro film, but I can’t give this one more than two out of five stars. I REALLY wanted to like the film, I just didn’t. If it shows up in your digital cable package, go ahead and give it a try. Rent it on iTunes even. Honestly though, I can’t see myself buying the movie.
Once Upon a Time in High School: The Spirit of Jeet Kune Do (2004)
Movie
By "Fist of Fury", Kim Hyun-Soo (Sang-Woo Kwone) addicted to Bruce Lee. Year 1978. Hyun-Soo moved to...
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
You probably already know the story of Michael Myers and the horror that took place in Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night. How Michael Myers became one of the biggest slasher icons in horror movie history. Now we get to hear the story told by Rob Zombie, the man who brought us House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. He gives us some insight as to why Michael Myers is the way he is by showing us some of his childhood, the environment he grew up in, and how his family was. After he's institutionalized, we see how his progress continues to deteriorate as Dr. Samuel Loomis tries to do everything he can to save this young boy. Fifteen years go by when Loomis finally throws in the towel and Myers escapes Smith's Grove. Now on his way back to Haddonfield, Myers seeks his sister, Laurie, to finish what he started almost two decades ago.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Oh. My. This was always going to be a tough one for me, and I've been thinking long and hard about how on earth I was going to review this. I love the original, anyone who even remotely enjoys it would be able to sing you at least one of the songs, and therein lies one of the problems. Would I have had a different opinion about some of the elements had I not seen the original so many times? After a lot of contemplating I think the answer in most cases is no.
Note: I went to see this for a second time so I'm going to edit what I previously wrote up as I go because on second viewing it was better. Once the initial shock and annoyance had passed after seeing it the first time it was much easier to watch for the second time.
Remaking something that's peak Disney has so many issues, recasting roles, changing social views and cultural sensitivities, are probably the biggest ones.
Let's talk about the (blue) elephant in the room... although I guess that phrase isn't really accurate as we all want to talk about it. Oh Genie, my Genie. I don't think anyone would have been able to fill that lamp the way Robin Williams did, he was larger than life and brought such a sense of fun whenever he did roles like this. The man is a comedic legend. Recasting this was always going to be difficult, and honestly, I don't know if there's anyone I would have been happy with taking over the mantle.
When I found out that Will Smith was on board I wasn't completely put off. On paper he's got everything you'd need for this role. He had one of two choices, stick to the original faithfully or take it your own way. I just don't think Smith actually had a choice though, he was going to have to do a reinterpretation of the role, but how could you ever follow Williams?
The thing I'm most surprised about with Genie is just how bad the CGI is. It's not like this is something Disney are unfamiliar with. Why did some of it even need to be CGId? I obviously don't know the ins and outs of these techniques or options, but if people can make Robbie Coltrane look larger than life in Harry Potter without mucking it up then why aren't they smurfing Will Smith up and doing the same?
Casting across the rest of the film wasn't such an epic task, Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Navid Negahban as the Sultan hit exactly the right spot. I had issues with Jafar, that's nothing to do with Marwan Kenzari's acting which was very good, but it was the fact that in my head Jafar should have been older. (Dream casting: Ben Kingsley.) I'm sure I won't be popular saying this but I didn't really like Naomi Scott as Jasmine, I don't think she brought enough sass to the role, I also felt that some of the new inclusions into the film around Jasmine negatively affected my view of her.
By far and away my favourite from the live action cast was Nasim Pedrad as Dalia, Jasmine's lady in waiting. I don't know why they felt the need to bring this character in, but I'm really glad they did. She's funny and a welcome break in some scenes. She completely outshines Jasmine as almost every point in the film... actually, I retract the word "almost". While I might not be happy about part of her character's story (ask me for the spoilers) she was definitely the best added extra in the film.
Our group of sidekicks, Abu, Iago, Rajah and Carpet all come out with varying degrees of success. Abu wasn't entirely lucky with the CGI and didn't get such a fun part as before. Iago was much more bird-like than previously which meant less actual talking so I have to wonder why they hired Alan Tudyk if they weren't going to use him properly. Rajah while less quizzical than in the original was entertaining and luckily wasn't mutilated by the CGI. Carpet though, I loved Carpet. He was super cute and absolutely adorable with Abu.
I'm not going to go over every change they made to the original, but one tweak particularly bugged me. They change the way that Aladdin gets out of the cave of wonders. The verbal trickery that Aladdin uses in the original is gone and they switch it out for a much more deceitful moment. The idea isn't as clever as its predecessor and also means that later in the film when Aladdin tricks Jafar you don't get that same connection, watching Genie working out what was going on was painful viewing.
I can't really put off talking about the songs anymore.
As trailers and sneak peeks appeared online I became increasingly nervous about the songs. Prince Ali seemed to be less upbeat than before, and while the sequence looked like it had potential all of it together didn't feel as vibrant. I appreciate that they tried to keep all those little Genie added extra in but it felt like they went with a "safe" option.
I enjoy Will Smith's singing, but I'm not a fan of it in this. I don't think the change in style is suited to these songs. I've seen people saying about how he's rapping in it... but I wouldn't have identified it as rapping. If anything it felt like they went "you should get some rapping in there, but we're Disney so tone it down... a lot."
We get a new offering on the soundtrack in the shape of Speechless, Jasmine's empowering song. I like the song, it certainly has the Disney vibe, and Scott sings it beautifully... but it didn't give me those goosebumps that I expect from power songs. I probably would have given the song a pass had it not been for the way it was included in the film. The frozen scenes with Jasmine dramatically moving in and out of the cast and set... ugh... that just didn't work for me.
Massoud had originally given me so much hope for the music when I heard One Jump Ahead at the beginning. It was excellent, and throughout the film I loved his singing.
Here's where my opinion changed a bit after my second visit... the songs weren't all as bad as I'd felt after the first viewing. I still didn't enjoy Genie's offering, but Aladdin and Jasmine both felt like an excellent choice. The main thing that didn't change was the fact that I didn't feel the songs fit well into the scenes. Part of the draw of Disney is the toe-tapping singalong vibe you get from the music, and there was a lack of pizzaz in most of the sequences that left my toes untapped.
I could probably go on for a very long time about this film. (I already have.) Ultimately, I don't think it's an improvement on the original, I don't think these modern rehashes really add a lot when you have to adjust for the modern culture. I'm not saying that you shouldn't take the changing times into consideration, I just think you should do it in a way that doesn't just come across as trying to score points with the audience to prove how "with it" you are. I also don't think that coming up with 30 minutes of extra footage is ever a sensible idea. If that's what you want to do then perhaps you need to really mix things up and come up with a whole new concept for the story.
What you should do
You're either a Disney nut or you're not. Personally, I would recommend staying at home and having a binge of old Disney classics, starting with the one true Genie.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Could I get Genie powers without the itty-bitty living space?
Note: I went to see this for a second time so I'm going to edit what I previously wrote up as I go because on second viewing it was better. Once the initial shock and annoyance had passed after seeing it the first time it was much easier to watch for the second time.
Remaking something that's peak Disney has so many issues, recasting roles, changing social views and cultural sensitivities, are probably the biggest ones.
Let's talk about the (blue) elephant in the room... although I guess that phrase isn't really accurate as we all want to talk about it. Oh Genie, my Genie. I don't think anyone would have been able to fill that lamp the way Robin Williams did, he was larger than life and brought such a sense of fun whenever he did roles like this. The man is a comedic legend. Recasting this was always going to be difficult, and honestly, I don't know if there's anyone I would have been happy with taking over the mantle.
When I found out that Will Smith was on board I wasn't completely put off. On paper he's got everything you'd need for this role. He had one of two choices, stick to the original faithfully or take it your own way. I just don't think Smith actually had a choice though, he was going to have to do a reinterpretation of the role, but how could you ever follow Williams?
The thing I'm most surprised about with Genie is just how bad the CGI is. It's not like this is something Disney are unfamiliar with. Why did some of it even need to be CGId? I obviously don't know the ins and outs of these techniques or options, but if people can make Robbie Coltrane look larger than life in Harry Potter without mucking it up then why aren't they smurfing Will Smith up and doing the same?
Casting across the rest of the film wasn't such an epic task, Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Navid Negahban as the Sultan hit exactly the right spot. I had issues with Jafar, that's nothing to do with Marwan Kenzari's acting which was very good, but it was the fact that in my head Jafar should have been older. (Dream casting: Ben Kingsley.) I'm sure I won't be popular saying this but I didn't really like Naomi Scott as Jasmine, I don't think she brought enough sass to the role, I also felt that some of the new inclusions into the film around Jasmine negatively affected my view of her.
By far and away my favourite from the live action cast was Nasim Pedrad as Dalia, Jasmine's lady in waiting. I don't know why they felt the need to bring this character in, but I'm really glad they did. She's funny and a welcome break in some scenes. She completely outshines Jasmine as almost every point in the film... actually, I retract the word "almost". While I might not be happy about part of her character's story (ask me for the spoilers) she was definitely the best added extra in the film.
Our group of sidekicks, Abu, Iago, Rajah and Carpet all come out with varying degrees of success. Abu wasn't entirely lucky with the CGI and didn't get such a fun part as before. Iago was much more bird-like than previously which meant less actual talking so I have to wonder why they hired Alan Tudyk if they weren't going to use him properly. Rajah while less quizzical than in the original was entertaining and luckily wasn't mutilated by the CGI. Carpet though, I loved Carpet. He was super cute and absolutely adorable with Abu.
I'm not going to go over every change they made to the original, but one tweak particularly bugged me. They change the way that Aladdin gets out of the cave of wonders. The verbal trickery that Aladdin uses in the original is gone and they switch it out for a much more deceitful moment. The idea isn't as clever as its predecessor and also means that later in the film when Aladdin tricks Jafar you don't get that same connection, watching Genie working out what was going on was painful viewing.
I can't really put off talking about the songs anymore.
As trailers and sneak peeks appeared online I became increasingly nervous about the songs. Prince Ali seemed to be less upbeat than before, and while the sequence looked like it had potential all of it together didn't feel as vibrant. I appreciate that they tried to keep all those little Genie added extra in but it felt like they went with a "safe" option.
I enjoy Will Smith's singing, but I'm not a fan of it in this. I don't think the change in style is suited to these songs. I've seen people saying about how he's rapping in it... but I wouldn't have identified it as rapping. If anything it felt like they went "you should get some rapping in there, but we're Disney so tone it down... a lot."
We get a new offering on the soundtrack in the shape of Speechless, Jasmine's empowering song. I like the song, it certainly has the Disney vibe, and Scott sings it beautifully... but it didn't give me those goosebumps that I expect from power songs. I probably would have given the song a pass had it not been for the way it was included in the film. The frozen scenes with Jasmine dramatically moving in and out of the cast and set... ugh... that just didn't work for me.
Massoud had originally given me so much hope for the music when I heard One Jump Ahead at the beginning. It was excellent, and throughout the film I loved his singing.
Here's where my opinion changed a bit after my second visit... the songs weren't all as bad as I'd felt after the first viewing. I still didn't enjoy Genie's offering, but Aladdin and Jasmine both felt like an excellent choice. The main thing that didn't change was the fact that I didn't feel the songs fit well into the scenes. Part of the draw of Disney is the toe-tapping singalong vibe you get from the music, and there was a lack of pizzaz in most of the sequences that left my toes untapped.
I could probably go on for a very long time about this film. (I already have.) Ultimately, I don't think it's an improvement on the original, I don't think these modern rehashes really add a lot when you have to adjust for the modern culture. I'm not saying that you shouldn't take the changing times into consideration, I just think you should do it in a way that doesn't just come across as trying to score points with the audience to prove how "with it" you are. I also don't think that coming up with 30 minutes of extra footage is ever a sensible idea. If that's what you want to do then perhaps you need to really mix things up and come up with a whole new concept for the story.
What you should do
You're either a Disney nut or you're not. Personally, I would recommend staying at home and having a binge of old Disney classics, starting with the one true Genie.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Could I get Genie powers without the itty-bitty living space?
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Marvel United in Tabletop Games
Sep 1, 2021
This has probably been mentioned before, but I love Marvel superheroes. My favorite has got to be Spider-Man, hands down. Feel free to send me an email if you’d like to hear my thoughts on who is the best Spider-Man – Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield, or Tom Holland. I’m getting off topic here… Anyway – when I saw the massive Kickstarter campaign for Marvel United, I knew it was going to be big. Admittedly, I didn’t join in on the campaign (teacher salaries, amiright?), but I did snag a copy of the base game post-campaign. Does the game live up to my expectations? Or does it fall flat, like a DC movie? (OOOOOOH BURN)
Disclaimer: This review encompasses only the base game of Marvel United. There are a number of expansions, but they will not be addressed in this review. -L
Marvel United is a cooperative game in which players take on the roles of various Marvel superheroes tasked with stopping the main Villain from completing their Villainous Plot. Follow the setup instructions detailed in the rulebook, selecting a Villain with whom to battle, 6 random Locations, and whichever Heroes you decide to use to fight the big bad. Place Threat cards, Civilians, and Thugs on the various Locations as indicated, and place the Villain and Heroes as described in the rules. Shuffle the Master Plan deck and respective Hero decks, and each player draws a hand of 3 cards. Choose a Hero as the ‘starting’ Hero, and the game is now ready to begin!
Over a series of turns, players will be resolving Villain effects and playing Hero cards to perform actions. The game always begins with a Villain turn, and the first step is to reveal a Master Plan card, adding it to the Storyline (table). Master Plan cards have different effects to be resolved – move the Villain to a new Location, BAM! effects (usually attacking Heroes or advancing their Villainous Plot towards victory), and adding Civilians/Thugs to surrounding Locations. Once all effects on the Master Plan card are dealt with, the game moves to a Hero turn. During a Hero turn, the player will perform 4 steps: Draw a card, Play a Card, Resolve Actions, and Location Effects. To start, the player will draw a card from their Hero deck and add it to their hand. They then select a card from their hand to play, adding it to the end of the Storyline.
Looking at the symbols at the bottom of their played card, the Hero will now resolve their actions. Actions could be Movement (to an adjacent Location), Attack (Thugs/Henchmen or the Villain in their current Location), Heroic Actions (rescuing Civilians or working to clear the Threat on their current Location), or Wild (any of the previous actions). During this step, a cool twist comes into play – after all, the game is called Marvel United, right? When a Hero plays a card, they resolve the symbols on the bottom of their card AND the symbols on the bottom of the previously played Hero card! This simulates the various Heroes uniting their efforts to take down the Villain! So when selecting your card, be sure to check out the last card to see if you can create a sweet chain of actions for maximum benefit. The final step is to use Location effects, if applicable. Location effects are only available after the Threat to the Location has been cleared, and allows the player to perform special actions (draw extra cards, move to other Locations, etc.). If you end your turn on a Location that has been cleared, you may use its ability if you so choose.
In order to defeat the Villain, the Heroes must complete Missions. The 3 Missions in each game are to Rescue Civilians, Defeat Thugs, and Clear Threats. So with their actions on their turns, Heroes will be working to complete these Missions, moving them closer to victory. The turn sequence of the game is unique as well – the Villain will take a turn after every 3rd Hero turn, not opposite every single Hero. Keep that in mind as you decide which card to play when! The game essentially continues in this fashion (with a few extra effects) until either the Heroes win or they lose. Heroes win if they defeat the Villain! The Villain is defeated when at least 2 Missions are completed, and the Villain has been sufficiently damaged by Attacks. Heroes lose if the Villain completes their Villainous Plot, the deck of Master Plan cards has run out, or if any Hero starts their turn with no cards left to play. The Heroes either win together or lose together.
So I know that kind of sounds like a lot, but I promise that once you get playing, the game flows really well and is pretty intuitive. Marvel United can basically be broken down into 2 steps: Villain turn and Hero turn. All you are doing is playing cards and resolving actions to complete your goals. One of the coolest things about this gameplay is the fact that on your turn you resolve not only your played card, but also the previously played Hero card as well. It does a good job emulating the Heroes working together, and adds a strategic element to the overall gameplay. Maybe you wanted to play a certain card, but based on the last Hero card, you should play this one to benefit the group the most. Players really are all working together to defeat the Villain, instead of each playing their own Hero and going in for the fight one-on-one.
Another neat aspect of the game is the inclusion of the Missions. Heroes are not allowed to directly attack the Villain until at least 2 Missions have been completed. This ups the gameplay because it stops players from just going straight for the Villain from the start, not taking anything else into account. In ‘real life,’ Heroes are also concerned with saving Civilians and neutralizing threats, so the Mission requirement makes the gameplay feel more authentic. Well, as authentic as a superhero game can feel…. The variability of Locations and the random setup of Threats each game means that you likely won’t play the same game twice. Add in expansions too and you’ve got even more scenarios. With different Hero choices, you get to try out different combinations and find out which Heroes really work well together. The gameplay itself may be simple (draw cards, play cards, resolve cards) but the variety of Heroes, Villains, Locations, Threats, etc. keeps it engaging and entertaining.
As for components, I only have positive things to say. The Villain/Hero minis are chunky and cute, the artwork is all colorful and fun to look at, and the cardboard tokens are thick and crisp. All the symbolism in the game is clear, and the text is legible and easy to comprehend. One thing to consider is that this game can be a bit of a table hog if you let it. So just be prepared for a bit of a bigger footprint with this one. Overall, great production quality of the base game, and from what I’ve seen of the expansions, those are top notch as well.
Don’t let the cutesy artwork fool you – Marvel United isn’t an easy game by any means. It takes a decent amount of strategy to be successful, and it does really take a team effort. You stay engaged in the gameplay right up until the very end, and it’s more involved than you would think for being a lighter game. I am also a big fan of Marvel Legendary, and I have to say that this gives me those vibes, but in a more simplified and streamlined way. I’m not sure I would go as far as to call Marvel United “Marvel Legendary Jr.,” but it’s also not entirely a bad idea….. Overall though, I really liked Marvel United way more than I first anticipated. It’s light, yet strategic, and has some unique elements that keep you on your toes. I can’t wait to get my hands on some of the expansions to see how I can mix and match and create even more awesome scenarios! Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a heroic 16 / 18.
Disclaimer: This review encompasses only the base game of Marvel United. There are a number of expansions, but they will not be addressed in this review. -L
Marvel United is a cooperative game in which players take on the roles of various Marvel superheroes tasked with stopping the main Villain from completing their Villainous Plot. Follow the setup instructions detailed in the rulebook, selecting a Villain with whom to battle, 6 random Locations, and whichever Heroes you decide to use to fight the big bad. Place Threat cards, Civilians, and Thugs on the various Locations as indicated, and place the Villain and Heroes as described in the rules. Shuffle the Master Plan deck and respective Hero decks, and each player draws a hand of 3 cards. Choose a Hero as the ‘starting’ Hero, and the game is now ready to begin!
Over a series of turns, players will be resolving Villain effects and playing Hero cards to perform actions. The game always begins with a Villain turn, and the first step is to reveal a Master Plan card, adding it to the Storyline (table). Master Plan cards have different effects to be resolved – move the Villain to a new Location, BAM! effects (usually attacking Heroes or advancing their Villainous Plot towards victory), and adding Civilians/Thugs to surrounding Locations. Once all effects on the Master Plan card are dealt with, the game moves to a Hero turn. During a Hero turn, the player will perform 4 steps: Draw a card, Play a Card, Resolve Actions, and Location Effects. To start, the player will draw a card from their Hero deck and add it to their hand. They then select a card from their hand to play, adding it to the end of the Storyline.
Looking at the symbols at the bottom of their played card, the Hero will now resolve their actions. Actions could be Movement (to an adjacent Location), Attack (Thugs/Henchmen or the Villain in their current Location), Heroic Actions (rescuing Civilians or working to clear the Threat on their current Location), or Wild (any of the previous actions). During this step, a cool twist comes into play – after all, the game is called Marvel United, right? When a Hero plays a card, they resolve the symbols on the bottom of their card AND the symbols on the bottom of the previously played Hero card! This simulates the various Heroes uniting their efforts to take down the Villain! So when selecting your card, be sure to check out the last card to see if you can create a sweet chain of actions for maximum benefit. The final step is to use Location effects, if applicable. Location effects are only available after the Threat to the Location has been cleared, and allows the player to perform special actions (draw extra cards, move to other Locations, etc.). If you end your turn on a Location that has been cleared, you may use its ability if you so choose.
In order to defeat the Villain, the Heroes must complete Missions. The 3 Missions in each game are to Rescue Civilians, Defeat Thugs, and Clear Threats. So with their actions on their turns, Heroes will be working to complete these Missions, moving them closer to victory. The turn sequence of the game is unique as well – the Villain will take a turn after every 3rd Hero turn, not opposite every single Hero. Keep that in mind as you decide which card to play when! The game essentially continues in this fashion (with a few extra effects) until either the Heroes win or they lose. Heroes win if they defeat the Villain! The Villain is defeated when at least 2 Missions are completed, and the Villain has been sufficiently damaged by Attacks. Heroes lose if the Villain completes their Villainous Plot, the deck of Master Plan cards has run out, or if any Hero starts their turn with no cards left to play. The Heroes either win together or lose together.
So I know that kind of sounds like a lot, but I promise that once you get playing, the game flows really well and is pretty intuitive. Marvel United can basically be broken down into 2 steps: Villain turn and Hero turn. All you are doing is playing cards and resolving actions to complete your goals. One of the coolest things about this gameplay is the fact that on your turn you resolve not only your played card, but also the previously played Hero card as well. It does a good job emulating the Heroes working together, and adds a strategic element to the overall gameplay. Maybe you wanted to play a certain card, but based on the last Hero card, you should play this one to benefit the group the most. Players really are all working together to defeat the Villain, instead of each playing their own Hero and going in for the fight one-on-one.
Another neat aspect of the game is the inclusion of the Missions. Heroes are not allowed to directly attack the Villain until at least 2 Missions have been completed. This ups the gameplay because it stops players from just going straight for the Villain from the start, not taking anything else into account. In ‘real life,’ Heroes are also concerned with saving Civilians and neutralizing threats, so the Mission requirement makes the gameplay feel more authentic. Well, as authentic as a superhero game can feel…. The variability of Locations and the random setup of Threats each game means that you likely won’t play the same game twice. Add in expansions too and you’ve got even more scenarios. With different Hero choices, you get to try out different combinations and find out which Heroes really work well together. The gameplay itself may be simple (draw cards, play cards, resolve cards) but the variety of Heroes, Villains, Locations, Threats, etc. keeps it engaging and entertaining.
As for components, I only have positive things to say. The Villain/Hero minis are chunky and cute, the artwork is all colorful and fun to look at, and the cardboard tokens are thick and crisp. All the symbolism in the game is clear, and the text is legible and easy to comprehend. One thing to consider is that this game can be a bit of a table hog if you let it. So just be prepared for a bit of a bigger footprint with this one. Overall, great production quality of the base game, and from what I’ve seen of the expansions, those are top notch as well.
Don’t let the cutesy artwork fool you – Marvel United isn’t an easy game by any means. It takes a decent amount of strategy to be successful, and it does really take a team effort. You stay engaged in the gameplay right up until the very end, and it’s more involved than you would think for being a lighter game. I am also a big fan of Marvel Legendary, and I have to say that this gives me those vibes, but in a more simplified and streamlined way. I’m not sure I would go as far as to call Marvel United “Marvel Legendary Jr.,” but it’s also not entirely a bad idea….. Overall though, I really liked Marvel United way more than I first anticipated. It’s light, yet strategic, and has some unique elements that keep you on your toes. I can’t wait to get my hands on some of the expansions to see how I can mix and match and create even more awesome scenarios! Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a heroic 16 / 18.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Mass Effect: Andromeda in Video Games
Jul 25, 2017
An Example Of Why There Is No Longer A Place For Mediocrity In The Video Game Industry
For those of you that are Mass Effect fans and are worried after reading the title of the essay that I am going to spend the rest of the essay bashing the game, you can rest easy put your pitchfork down. The only reason that Mass Effect is on the receiving end of my criticism today, is because it is simply the most recent example of a major game being released that doesn’t meet the high standard that we have come to expect from videogames in 2017. Don’t get me wrong though, I think that we should expect a high level of production standard in our games and frankly I think the fact that Bioware have released this game in this abysmal state is nothing less than unacceptable.
If you have been generous enough to read any of my other stuff, you may have seen a piece I wrote around a year ago, where I loosely reviewed the Amazing Spiderman 2 on PS4, but really I just used the review as an excuse to talk about the place for mediocrity in the modern gaming landscape. This essay will essentially be an updated version of that piece, because every now and again something comes along and reminds me that mediocrity is still a present factor in modern gaming. I am aware that not every game released can be a 10/10 masterpiece at the level of The Last Of Us, but gaming has came such a long way in the last few decades that in my eyes there is a standard that must be met at this point and there is no room for mediocrity anymore.
As a quick disclaimer, let me say that I love and miss the mid tier section of the video game market. I love so many Codemasters, Midway and THQ games and the mid tier is the main reason that the PS2 is my favourite console. With that out of the way; in theory, mediocrity in gaming should have went away altogether when the mid tier crumbled in the dying days of the PS2. What we should have been left with is incredible AAA experiences and smaller, innovative indie experiences.
Excuses can be made for some examples of recent mediocre games. Liquid Entertainment and Beenox games are mostly movie tie ins, developed quickly and released to make a fast buck off of the back of another property. Hello Games were a small studio that bit off more than they could chew. Sega is a big studio, but they have been slowly going downhill and losing respect at a steady rate for a while now. Bioware aren’t a mid tier developer, they are one of the biggest game developers on the planet. Mass Effect Andromeda had a budget of 40 million dollars and a five year development cycle, that is where most of the shock regarding the state of this game comes from.
Nonetheless, Andromeda will still go on to sell millions of copies, EA will make their money back and more games will be developed in the series. This is because the majority of fans of the previous Mass Effect games will have already pre ordered the newest entry and hype alone with carry this game through any turmoil it faces. Frankly I don’t specifically care about the future of Mass Effect as I have never really been a fan of that series, but if you are a Mass Effect fan this should concern you greatly. If you are unhappy with the state that this game has been released in, don’t buy it and if you really can’t resist playing it at some point, wait a while and buy it used from a Mom and Grop Shop. That way you aren’t giving EA your money and you aren’t allowing them to continue to rely on reaching their profit goals via a lackluster game. That is how you change the future of your favourite franchise; never underestimate the power that you possess as a consumer.
Like I said though, Mass Effect has never been my thing, my concern lies more on the overall gaming market and the worry that this will bleed out and affect the mindset of other developers. Using a big franchise name alone to sell your game and forfeiting any attempt at creating a well made experience for your audience.
This is an issue that we have to stamp out now, it may sound petty or harsh, but this is how we make gaming better for all of us. There is no longer a place in the industry for mediocrity and it is up to us, the consumers to prove that to developers.
The message that I keep reiterating is backed up again by this topic, stop being an apologist, stop settling for less, don’t be afraid to demand a higher standard. Spreading negativity isn’t necessarily a bad thing if it has a legitimate basis. This is how we push mediocrity out of gaming. Playstation’s best slogan is still, ‘Expect Greatness,’ because we should expect greatness from developers; don’t be afraid to call a spade a spade. The most powerful voice of all lives in your back pocket; your hard earned cash and that is what gives you the right to call for better experiences.
If you have been generous enough to read any of my other stuff, you may have seen a piece I wrote around a year ago, where I loosely reviewed the Amazing Spiderman 2 on PS4, but really I just used the review as an excuse to talk about the place for mediocrity in the modern gaming landscape. This essay will essentially be an updated version of that piece, because every now and again something comes along and reminds me that mediocrity is still a present factor in modern gaming. I am aware that not every game released can be a 10/10 masterpiece at the level of The Last Of Us, but gaming has came such a long way in the last few decades that in my eyes there is a standard that must be met at this point and there is no room for mediocrity anymore.
As a quick disclaimer, let me say that I love and miss the mid tier section of the video game market. I love so many Codemasters, Midway and THQ games and the mid tier is the main reason that the PS2 is my favourite console. With that out of the way; in theory, mediocrity in gaming should have went away altogether when the mid tier crumbled in the dying days of the PS2. What we should have been left with is incredible AAA experiences and smaller, innovative indie experiences.
Excuses can be made for some examples of recent mediocre games. Liquid Entertainment and Beenox games are mostly movie tie ins, developed quickly and released to make a fast buck off of the back of another property. Hello Games were a small studio that bit off more than they could chew. Sega is a big studio, but they have been slowly going downhill and losing respect at a steady rate for a while now. Bioware aren’t a mid tier developer, they are one of the biggest game developers on the planet. Mass Effect Andromeda had a budget of 40 million dollars and a five year development cycle, that is where most of the shock regarding the state of this game comes from.
Nonetheless, Andromeda will still go on to sell millions of copies, EA will make their money back and more games will be developed in the series. This is because the majority of fans of the previous Mass Effect games will have already pre ordered the newest entry and hype alone with carry this game through any turmoil it faces. Frankly I don’t specifically care about the future of Mass Effect as I have never really been a fan of that series, but if you are a Mass Effect fan this should concern you greatly. If you are unhappy with the state that this game has been released in, don’t buy it and if you really can’t resist playing it at some point, wait a while and buy it used from a Mom and Grop Shop. That way you aren’t giving EA your money and you aren’t allowing them to continue to rely on reaching their profit goals via a lackluster game. That is how you change the future of your favourite franchise; never underestimate the power that you possess as a consumer.
Like I said though, Mass Effect has never been my thing, my concern lies more on the overall gaming market and the worry that this will bleed out and affect the mindset of other developers. Using a big franchise name alone to sell your game and forfeiting any attempt at creating a well made experience for your audience.
This is an issue that we have to stamp out now, it may sound petty or harsh, but this is how we make gaming better for all of us. There is no longer a place in the industry for mediocrity and it is up to us, the consumers to prove that to developers.
The message that I keep reiterating is backed up again by this topic, stop being an apologist, stop settling for less, don’t be afraid to demand a higher standard. Spreading negativity isn’t necessarily a bad thing if it has a legitimate basis. This is how we push mediocrity out of gaming. Playstation’s best slogan is still, ‘Expect Greatness,’ because we should expect greatness from developers; don’t be afraid to call a spade a spade. The most powerful voice of all lives in your back pocket; your hard earned cash and that is what gives you the right to call for better experiences.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) and her friends have more on their plate to worry about than typical high school drama. A child murderer named Fred Krueger (Robert Englund) was killed by the parents residing on Elm Street after they took matters into their own hands when the justice system failed to get the redemption the parents so desperately seeked. That was thought to be the end of it and everyone tried to move on with their lives. That is until Nancy, her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp), her best friend Tina (Amanda Wyss), and Tina's boyfriend Rod (Jsu Garcia) begin having nightmares about the same man. A man wearing a red and green striped sweater, brown fedora, and a four finger-bladed leather glove. Could Fred Krueger really be exacting his revenge from beyond the grave and in the dreams of his victims?
Wes Craven is probably best known for the Scream franchise since it's the most successful set of films he's ever been a part of, at least as far as the box office is concerned, but there was another film that he created that spawned seven sequels and a remake. A film that is looked at as a horror classic and is considered to be the first commercially successful release from New Line Cinema. That film is A Nightmare on Elm Street.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is looked at by some (including myself) as the best film in the franchise. While most of the sequels feature a Freddy that is more interested in cracking a joke than being an intimidating serial killer, the original film is where he seems to shine brightest. He seems to always be lurking in the shadows making it nearly impossible to get a clear look at his face. Remember when films left a bit of a mystery to things rather than being entirely realistic and showing every little detail when it came to gore? Well, this is a good example.
The deaths of Tina and Glen could arguably be reason alone to watch the film. Tina's death is so original and so well done. One of the reasons it still holds up today is because it was done with practical effects. The same can be said about Glen's death. The only thing more impressive than his death is the fact that it's Johnny Depp's debut. Both deaths are two of the most memorable in horror film history.
Despite A Nightmare on Elm Street being one of the most influential horror films of our time, it still has that cheesiness associated with most horror films that come out of the eighties. Bad acting (Heather Langenkamp especially. The "Screw your pass!" scene is a good example, but is hilarious in its own right) and dated special effects being the best examples. While the practical effects are a good thing and are much preferred over CGI, some of them haven't aged well over the past 26 years. The scene of Freddy chasing Tina is probably the best example of this. His arms stretching inhuman lengths to scratch the walls and Tina ripping off his face just didn't hold up as well as other effects in the film.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a beloved horror classic that gave birth to one of the most iconic serial killers in the genre. The original film features some of the most creative deaths and practical effects (seeing Freddy in the wall above Nancy's bed in the beginning of the film is one of the best scenes) to come out of any horror film held in such high regard. The film's charm will go over a lot of people's heads who look into it for the first time after seeing the remake which will probably result in the film getting more flack than it deserves. But nevertheless, it's hard to deny the impact Freddy and Wes Craven have had on this genre thanks to this film.
Special Features: The two-disc Infinifilm is packed with extras including:
Feature commentary including a variety of topics: the financial problems the film had with writer/director Wes Craven, producer Bob Shaye, actor John Saxon, and cinematographer Jacques Haitkin sharing their thoughts, Heather Langenkamp and Wes Craven talk about how great it was to work with Johnny Depp, Amanda Wyss goes into detail about not knowing much about the horror genre before taking her role as Tina, a discussion of how Robert Englund got the role of Fred Krueger and Englund shares his thoughts on the Fred Krueger character. Everything from the problems the film had to Freddy's popularity to the film's reputation and more are discussed by the cast and crew.
Original commentary includes Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Wes Craven, and Jacques Haitkin.
Beyond the Movie Features include The House That Freddy Built: The Legacy of New Line Horror and Night Terrors: The Origins of Wes Craven's Nightmares.
All Access Pass Features include three alternate endings, Never Sleep Again: The making of A Nightmare on Elm Street, a trivia challenge and the theatrical trailer.
There's also Infinifilm bonus features that can be accessed while the film is playing and the original screenplay can be viewed as a DVD-ROM feature.
The film is remastered and restored from the original film negative and is presented in both Dolby Digital 5.1-EX surround sound and DTS-ES 6.1 Surround Sound.
Wes Craven is probably best known for the Scream franchise since it's the most successful set of films he's ever been a part of, at least as far as the box office is concerned, but there was another film that he created that spawned seven sequels and a remake. A film that is looked at as a horror classic and is considered to be the first commercially successful release from New Line Cinema. That film is A Nightmare on Elm Street.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is looked at by some (including myself) as the best film in the franchise. While most of the sequels feature a Freddy that is more interested in cracking a joke than being an intimidating serial killer, the original film is where he seems to shine brightest. He seems to always be lurking in the shadows making it nearly impossible to get a clear look at his face. Remember when films left a bit of a mystery to things rather than being entirely realistic and showing every little detail when it came to gore? Well, this is a good example.
The deaths of Tina and Glen could arguably be reason alone to watch the film. Tina's death is so original and so well done. One of the reasons it still holds up today is because it was done with practical effects. The same can be said about Glen's death. The only thing more impressive than his death is the fact that it's Johnny Depp's debut. Both deaths are two of the most memorable in horror film history.
Despite A Nightmare on Elm Street being one of the most influential horror films of our time, it still has that cheesiness associated with most horror films that come out of the eighties. Bad acting (Heather Langenkamp especially. The "Screw your pass!" scene is a good example, but is hilarious in its own right) and dated special effects being the best examples. While the practical effects are a good thing and are much preferred over CGI, some of them haven't aged well over the past 26 years. The scene of Freddy chasing Tina is probably the best example of this. His arms stretching inhuman lengths to scratch the walls and Tina ripping off his face just didn't hold up as well as other effects in the film.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a beloved horror classic that gave birth to one of the most iconic serial killers in the genre. The original film features some of the most creative deaths and practical effects (seeing Freddy in the wall above Nancy's bed in the beginning of the film is one of the best scenes) to come out of any horror film held in such high regard. The film's charm will go over a lot of people's heads who look into it for the first time after seeing the remake which will probably result in the film getting more flack than it deserves. But nevertheless, it's hard to deny the impact Freddy and Wes Craven have had on this genre thanks to this film.
Special Features: The two-disc Infinifilm is packed with extras including:
Feature commentary including a variety of topics: the financial problems the film had with writer/director Wes Craven, producer Bob Shaye, actor John Saxon, and cinematographer Jacques Haitkin sharing their thoughts, Heather Langenkamp and Wes Craven talk about how great it was to work with Johnny Depp, Amanda Wyss goes into detail about not knowing much about the horror genre before taking her role as Tina, a discussion of how Robert Englund got the role of Fred Krueger and Englund shares his thoughts on the Fred Krueger character. Everything from the problems the film had to Freddy's popularity to the film's reputation and more are discussed by the cast and crew.
Original commentary includes Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Wes Craven, and Jacques Haitkin.
Beyond the Movie Features include The House That Freddy Built: The Legacy of New Line Horror and Night Terrors: The Origins of Wes Craven's Nightmares.
All Access Pass Features include three alternate endings, Never Sleep Again: The making of A Nightmare on Elm Street, a trivia challenge and the theatrical trailer.
There's also Infinifilm bonus features that can be accessed while the film is playing and the original screenplay can be viewed as a DVD-ROM feature.
The film is remastered and restored from the original film negative and is presented in both Dolby Digital 5.1-EX surround sound and DTS-ES 6.1 Surround Sound.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Good Boys (2019) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Repetitive. (1 more)
Too similar to other R-rated teen comedies.
Thor Casts Anal Bead Nunchucks
“Bean Bag Boys for life!” In Good Boys, that’s the motto for three 12-year-old best friends that are finding the sixth grade way more profound and coercing than the fifth grade or any other grade before it ever was. Max (Jacob Tremblay) is at the age where girls aren’t so gross and are actually quite arousing, Thor (Brady Noon) is giving up on who he is and what he loves in a bold attempt to try to fit in with kids who he thinks are cool, and Lucas (Keith L. Williams) mostly just loves Magic: The Gathering, treating women with respect, and being honest.
Two weeks into sixth grade and the boys find themselves invited to their first party, but the catch is that it’s a kissing party and none of them know how to kiss. They use Max’s dad’s drone to spy on high school girls Hannah (Molly Gordon) and Lily (Midori Francis), but the girls end up capturing the drone and holding it for ransom. After a face-to-face meeting goes south, Thor steals Hannah’s purse which includes two capsules of Molly/ecstasy in a kid’s chewy vitamins bottle. Now in possession of illegal drugs after skipping school and using Max’s dad’s drone without permission while he’s out of town, the boys need to figure out a way to get the drone back home without his dad knowing so Max won’t get grounded all so they can still attend the kissing party and become legends of the sixth grade.
Good Boys is co-written and co-directed (only Stupnitsky received credit) by Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg (writers of Year One and Bad Teacher). The film is produced by Seth Green’s Point Grey Pictures and Good Universe (both Neighbors films, The Disaster Artist, Long Shot). This is all worth mentioning to get an idea of what you’re diving into if you plan on seeing this film. The R-rated comedy attempts to capture what Superbad did for teenagers over a decade ago, but replaces the teenage element with tweens. Whether they’re successful or not is entirely up to you.
There are some decent laugh-out-loud moments in Good Boys, but their long-lasting effect is short-lived because Stupnitsky and Eisenberg decided to repeat those laugh out loud moments over and over again to the point of annoyance. The main laughs of the film come from the boys trying to talk about adult things they don’t fully understand (cum pronounced as koom, a sex doll being a CPR dummy, a nymphomaniac is someone who likes to have sex at sea and on land, etc), thinking sex toys are weapons, and still not being able to get past the child proof lid on a vitamin bottle. These are all funny at first, but all the gags in the film fall under the same handful of categories and essentially feel like Stupnitsky and Eisenberg didn’t have enough creativity in the script writing process to think outside a smattering of raunch.
The typo’d “porb” sequence where the boys attempt to look up how to kiss on the internet, the crossing the busy highway on the way to the mall sequence, and Lucas being so adamant about a woman’s consent are more humorous elements because they’re not as overplayed into the ground; even the opening where Max is on the verge of masturbation seems like a cheap knock off of what Not Another Teen Movie did in its opening sequence nearly 20 years ago. In comparison, Olivia Wilde’s Booksmart from earlier this year was labeled as a female version of Superbad. The Superbad influence is there, but Booksmart adds a refreshing female perspective and explores what the future means for the main characters to a more satisfying extent.
Growing up and what that means to a 12-year-old is explored in Good Boys, but it seems awkward. You’re on the verge of becoming a teenager, which shouldn’t mean all that much for you other than attending a new school. Lucas’ parents are in the middle of a divorce and Thor is trying to be something he isn’t just for his reputation. The characters learn something over the course of the film because of this, but the entire maturing angle doesn’t feel right. Part of it is meant to be ridiculous, especially after Lucas says something like, “I’ve grown up a lot in the past two hours,” and it’s cool that the film goes out of its way to tell the audience to never be ashamed of what you love, but it all feels sloppy and thrown together at the last minute.
This is the first R-rated film to ever have a rating that includes, “all involving tweens,” and this could be seen as the Superbad of this generation, but Good Boys simply doesn’t differentiate itself from the high school and college R-rated comedies that came before it to be memorable or enjoyable. It will likely be a crowd pleaser anyway since the theater I was in was full of laughs from the general public, but its charm is ruined so early on and that’s a painful thing to say when your film is only 90 minutes long. Good Boys may be outrageous and funny at times, but its generic formula destroys what little entertainment value it potentially had.
Two weeks into sixth grade and the boys find themselves invited to their first party, but the catch is that it’s a kissing party and none of them know how to kiss. They use Max’s dad’s drone to spy on high school girls Hannah (Molly Gordon) and Lily (Midori Francis), but the girls end up capturing the drone and holding it for ransom. After a face-to-face meeting goes south, Thor steals Hannah’s purse which includes two capsules of Molly/ecstasy in a kid’s chewy vitamins bottle. Now in possession of illegal drugs after skipping school and using Max’s dad’s drone without permission while he’s out of town, the boys need to figure out a way to get the drone back home without his dad knowing so Max won’t get grounded all so they can still attend the kissing party and become legends of the sixth grade.
Good Boys is co-written and co-directed (only Stupnitsky received credit) by Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg (writers of Year One and Bad Teacher). The film is produced by Seth Green’s Point Grey Pictures and Good Universe (both Neighbors films, The Disaster Artist, Long Shot). This is all worth mentioning to get an idea of what you’re diving into if you plan on seeing this film. The R-rated comedy attempts to capture what Superbad did for teenagers over a decade ago, but replaces the teenage element with tweens. Whether they’re successful or not is entirely up to you.
There are some decent laugh-out-loud moments in Good Boys, but their long-lasting effect is short-lived because Stupnitsky and Eisenberg decided to repeat those laugh out loud moments over and over again to the point of annoyance. The main laughs of the film come from the boys trying to talk about adult things they don’t fully understand (cum pronounced as koom, a sex doll being a CPR dummy, a nymphomaniac is someone who likes to have sex at sea and on land, etc), thinking sex toys are weapons, and still not being able to get past the child proof lid on a vitamin bottle. These are all funny at first, but all the gags in the film fall under the same handful of categories and essentially feel like Stupnitsky and Eisenberg didn’t have enough creativity in the script writing process to think outside a smattering of raunch.
The typo’d “porb” sequence where the boys attempt to look up how to kiss on the internet, the crossing the busy highway on the way to the mall sequence, and Lucas being so adamant about a woman’s consent are more humorous elements because they’re not as overplayed into the ground; even the opening where Max is on the verge of masturbation seems like a cheap knock off of what Not Another Teen Movie did in its opening sequence nearly 20 years ago. In comparison, Olivia Wilde’s Booksmart from earlier this year was labeled as a female version of Superbad. The Superbad influence is there, but Booksmart adds a refreshing female perspective and explores what the future means for the main characters to a more satisfying extent.
Growing up and what that means to a 12-year-old is explored in Good Boys, but it seems awkward. You’re on the verge of becoming a teenager, which shouldn’t mean all that much for you other than attending a new school. Lucas’ parents are in the middle of a divorce and Thor is trying to be something he isn’t just for his reputation. The characters learn something over the course of the film because of this, but the entire maturing angle doesn’t feel right. Part of it is meant to be ridiculous, especially after Lucas says something like, “I’ve grown up a lot in the past two hours,” and it’s cool that the film goes out of its way to tell the audience to never be ashamed of what you love, but it all feels sloppy and thrown together at the last minute.
This is the first R-rated film to ever have a rating that includes, “all involving tweens,” and this could be seen as the Superbad of this generation, but Good Boys simply doesn’t differentiate itself from the high school and college R-rated comedies that came before it to be memorable or enjoyable. It will likely be a crowd pleaser anyway since the theater I was in was full of laughs from the general public, but its charm is ruined so early on and that’s a painful thing to say when your film is only 90 minutes long. Good Boys may be outrageous and funny at times, but its generic formula destroys what little entertainment value it potentially had.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 11, 2019 (Updated Aug 11, 2019)
The monsters. (1 more)
Special effects - blend of CG and practical.
The Pale Lady. (2 more)
Basic rinse and repeat horror formula.
No emotional attachment to characters.
Fishing for Turds
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is probably considered the introduction to horror fiction for anyone who was in middle school in the mid to late 1990s. I distinctly remember checking out at least one of the books before I was a teenager, but the story that has stuck with me multiple decades later has and always will be, “The Red Spot.” The thing about the Scary Stories books is that they were just these random collections of creepy tales meant to make the reader anxious, uneasy, or even frightened, so the fact that somebody attempted to make a coherent film out of a jumbled mix of stories from all three books is kind of incredible.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
