Search
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Black Dynamite (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
After his brother is killed, Black Dynamite decides to take matters into his own hands. Just who is Black Dynamite? He's an action legend, a one-man army, and anyone who gets on his bad side is going to wind up dead. Other than struggling with trying to figure out who's responsible for his brother's death, Black Dynamite also has other matters to attend to. There's that new smack being distributed on the street that's even somehow reaching the orphans at the local orphanage and there's something screwy about that Anaconda malt liquor that just doesn't sit well with him. Black Dynamite will do whatever it takes to find out who killed his brother and clean up the streets even if it means going all the way to the Honky House.
Black Dynamite has quite a reputation as just about every article or review that mentioned the film gave it high praise. Is it possible for a film to be incredible while paying homage to the films that inspired it? Sure it is. Directors like Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez make a living doing just that. With Black Dynamite, however, you may not know what to expect. Expect it to parody the blaxploitation films from the 70s, pay homage to classic kung fu films, have ridiculous dialogue, a storyline that hilariously doesn't make sense, and have a funky soundtrack with lyrics that are just as awesome as the rest of the film.
Michael Jai White is really the selling point of the film since he is Black Dynamite and you're with him the entire film. I hadn't seen much of White's work before this, but I'm definitely wanting to see more now. His fight scenes are top notch and from what I could tell, it looked like he did the majority of his own stunts. The word I've been hearing is that he's a fairly impressive actor overall, but has just never really picked the right roles and never really broke into the mainstream. Maybe after playing Gambol in The Dark Knight helped him out a bit because he definitely has a bright future as not only an action star, but an actor as well. Other than his superb martial arts work, White's comedic timing is also really important in a film like this and it really pays off. There's a scene where a boom mic is noticeably in the shot while Black Dynamite is giving a big speech. He draws attention to it by repeatedly glaring at the mic throughout the scene, but doesn't miss a beat of the dialogue. Ridiculous scenes like that were crucial in the overall enjoyment factor of the film.
The dialogue is laugh out loud funny at times. There's a scene where the CIA show up at Black Dynamite's house and Agent O'Leary says to Black Dynamite, "We heard about your brother's death and we don't want you running around turning the streets into rivers of blood." Black Dynamite responds with, "Then tell me who did it and I'll just leave a puddle." The storyline is just as absurd, as well. Other than the film missing scenes that were shown in the trailer and things not fully being resolved with Vincent "The Don" Rafelli, the scene where Black Dynamite and his crew figure out what Anaconda malt liquor's true purpose is is both hilariously long-winded and confusing.
Black Dynamite may not be for everyone, but it will be hilariously awesome for most who actually get to see it. The film somehow manages to blend comedy as absurd and ridiculous as films like Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy or Zoolander and have hard hitting action scenes that are noticeably a tribute to classic Bruce Lee films. This blaxploitation parody comes highly recommended, can you dig it?
Black Dynamite has quite a reputation as just about every article or review that mentioned the film gave it high praise. Is it possible for a film to be incredible while paying homage to the films that inspired it? Sure it is. Directors like Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez make a living doing just that. With Black Dynamite, however, you may not know what to expect. Expect it to parody the blaxploitation films from the 70s, pay homage to classic kung fu films, have ridiculous dialogue, a storyline that hilariously doesn't make sense, and have a funky soundtrack with lyrics that are just as awesome as the rest of the film.
Michael Jai White is really the selling point of the film since he is Black Dynamite and you're with him the entire film. I hadn't seen much of White's work before this, but I'm definitely wanting to see more now. His fight scenes are top notch and from what I could tell, it looked like he did the majority of his own stunts. The word I've been hearing is that he's a fairly impressive actor overall, but has just never really picked the right roles and never really broke into the mainstream. Maybe after playing Gambol in The Dark Knight helped him out a bit because he definitely has a bright future as not only an action star, but an actor as well. Other than his superb martial arts work, White's comedic timing is also really important in a film like this and it really pays off. There's a scene where a boom mic is noticeably in the shot while Black Dynamite is giving a big speech. He draws attention to it by repeatedly glaring at the mic throughout the scene, but doesn't miss a beat of the dialogue. Ridiculous scenes like that were crucial in the overall enjoyment factor of the film.
The dialogue is laugh out loud funny at times. There's a scene where the CIA show up at Black Dynamite's house and Agent O'Leary says to Black Dynamite, "We heard about your brother's death and we don't want you running around turning the streets into rivers of blood." Black Dynamite responds with, "Then tell me who did it and I'll just leave a puddle." The storyline is just as absurd, as well. Other than the film missing scenes that were shown in the trailer and things not fully being resolved with Vincent "The Don" Rafelli, the scene where Black Dynamite and his crew figure out what Anaconda malt liquor's true purpose is is both hilariously long-winded and confusing.
Black Dynamite may not be for everyone, but it will be hilariously awesome for most who actually get to see it. The film somehow manages to blend comedy as absurd and ridiculous as films like Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy or Zoolander and have hard hitting action scenes that are noticeably a tribute to classic Bruce Lee films. This blaxploitation parody comes highly recommended, can you dig it?
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated 28 Weeks Later... (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
After being ravaged by the deadly “Rage” virus in “28 Days Later”, the nation of England is taking it’s first steps towards recovery under a U.S. lead United Nations force.
In 28 Weeks Later, society is slowing starting anew as thanks to a repopulated military zone on the Isle of Dogs. When a plane of natives arrives with two children, a sense of hope accompanies them, as the return of children is seen as a sign that the crisis is over and a better future is at hand.
The children are soon reunited with their father (Robert Carlyle), who is struggling to cope with the death of his wife, lost to the infected hordes months earlier. The fact that he panicked and left his wife to her fate is a secret that he has lived with, still he feels compelled to tell his children that their mother died despite his best efforts to help her.
As children are prone to do, the two children become bored with living in a compound and sneak past the blockade into the outer areas of London, areas that have not been fully reclaimed since the attack, declared off limits due to safety concerns.
Undaunted, the duo return to their former home to collect some of their personal items and there they make a startling discovery. Their mother is alive, and has been holding up inside their house since being left for dead by their father.
Once returned to the compound, it’s discovered the mother is a carrier of the virus, but does not manifest the disease nor it’s symptoms. Fascinated that they may have found a way to create a vaccine for the virus, the leader of the military medical community passes along her findings to her commanding officer. Unswayed by the possibility of creating a vaccine should future outbreaks occur, the commanding officer decides to follow standing orders and eradicate all signs of the virus which means killing the children’s’ mother.
Before the military can take action, a chance encounter causes the virus to spread and before long, the military is taking up arms in an effort to control the disease that is spreading like wildfire amongst the survivors. In short order, it becomes impossible to control the
infected, and the decision is made to kill anything that moves, infected or not in an effort to contain the outbreak.
During the chaos, the children are taken under protective care of a lone soldier and the doctor who is convinced that the children may hold the key to defeating the virus in their blood and must be protected at all costs. What follows is a chaotic race to get the children to safety while avoiding the infected and the soldiers in a deadly race against time for their very survival.
Following up the classic first film is a difficult task, and while not as good as the original, the sequel for the most part works. The characters and plot are paper thin, even by horror film standards, and there is little effort made to give the characters any back story or motivation beyond survival. The film is essentially one long segment of characters fleeing, yet there are some amazing visuals and chilling moments that will delight fans of the series and genre.
The images of London in desolation and of gas and fire flowing through the streets are haunting, and provide a none to subtle reference to the situation in Iraq, of a nation out of control.
Director has done a solid job of crafting a modern horror tale of a world gone mad, that raises ethical questions that will stay with viewers after the films conclusion.
In 28 Weeks Later, society is slowing starting anew as thanks to a repopulated military zone on the Isle of Dogs. When a plane of natives arrives with two children, a sense of hope accompanies them, as the return of children is seen as a sign that the crisis is over and a better future is at hand.
The children are soon reunited with their father (Robert Carlyle), who is struggling to cope with the death of his wife, lost to the infected hordes months earlier. The fact that he panicked and left his wife to her fate is a secret that he has lived with, still he feels compelled to tell his children that their mother died despite his best efforts to help her.
As children are prone to do, the two children become bored with living in a compound and sneak past the blockade into the outer areas of London, areas that have not been fully reclaimed since the attack, declared off limits due to safety concerns.
Undaunted, the duo return to their former home to collect some of their personal items and there they make a startling discovery. Their mother is alive, and has been holding up inside their house since being left for dead by their father.
Once returned to the compound, it’s discovered the mother is a carrier of the virus, but does not manifest the disease nor it’s symptoms. Fascinated that they may have found a way to create a vaccine for the virus, the leader of the military medical community passes along her findings to her commanding officer. Unswayed by the possibility of creating a vaccine should future outbreaks occur, the commanding officer decides to follow standing orders and eradicate all signs of the virus which means killing the children’s’ mother.
Before the military can take action, a chance encounter causes the virus to spread and before long, the military is taking up arms in an effort to control the disease that is spreading like wildfire amongst the survivors. In short order, it becomes impossible to control the
infected, and the decision is made to kill anything that moves, infected or not in an effort to contain the outbreak.
During the chaos, the children are taken under protective care of a lone soldier and the doctor who is convinced that the children may hold the key to defeating the virus in their blood and must be protected at all costs. What follows is a chaotic race to get the children to safety while avoiding the infected and the soldiers in a deadly race against time for their very survival.
Following up the classic first film is a difficult task, and while not as good as the original, the sequel for the most part works. The characters and plot are paper thin, even by horror film standards, and there is little effort made to give the characters any back story or motivation beyond survival. The film is essentially one long segment of characters fleeing, yet there are some amazing visuals and chilling moments that will delight fans of the series and genre.
The images of London in desolation and of gas and fire flowing through the streets are haunting, and provide a none to subtle reference to the situation in Iraq, of a nation out of control.
Director has done a solid job of crafting a modern horror tale of a world gone mad, that raises ethical questions that will stay with viewers after the films conclusion.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Skinwalkers (2007) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Skinwalkers starts as Varek (Behr) leads the hunt for a young boy for his werewolf pack, joined by Sonja (Malthe) he learns the location of Timothy (Knight) which takes him to small town to collect him.
Varek didn’t count on Timothy being under the watch of another prepared werewolf pack led by Jonas (Koteas) and his daughter-in-law Rachel (Mitra) who wasn’t ready to learn the truth that on Tim’s 13th birthday everything changes in the battle.
Thoughts on Skinwalkers
Characters – Varek is the leader of the werewolf pack that wants Timothy dead to stop the event he will cause, he hunts calmly through the film knowing how to get ahead of his enemies, though he is unaware of his connection to the child. Jonas has been protecting his nephew for years now, knowing what he means to the species, he has built the team his truss around him to make sure he is safe. Rachel is the mother of Timothy, she thinks he is just a normal kid and that she lives in a normal town, he must learn fast how to cope in this world filled with werewolves and protect her son. Sonja is the deadliest fighter on Varek side of the war, she enjoys hurting people and we see her take pleasure in this.
Performances – Jason Behr as the conflicted werewolf is good to watch, he shines on the bad boy side of this story, though when he must show the other side of the emotions we see him struggle at times. Elias Koteas is strong for his role which is one that we often see him in. Rhona Mitra does well in the reluctant heroes being the strong need to learn to battle mother figure in the film. everyone else in the film is fine without needing to be anything special, they fit their roles well to help the story flow.
Story – The story here follows two warring werewolf packs that know the importance of a child for both their existences, so basically something we have seen before only with a modern style to it. The fact the story does feel like an introduction to a much big world building idea is promising and while it isn’t the film’s fault we didn’t see the next chapter, it does show us how story telling can think ahead of time. If we are being honest this is a by the book storyline, it doesn’t bring us anything new to the werewolf mythology it just tries to keep it in the modern world.
Action/Fantasy/Horror – The action sequences are mixed bag because we have shoot-out which are routine and lack the peril for certain characters, while the fights show the effects that two werewolves fighting would have on each other. The fantasy world of werewolves living among humans is nicely done, showing two sides to them, though the horror does seem weak because we never feel terrified by what we are seeing.
Settings – The film uses the settings in a mix of quality and generic, the small town gets the big surprise with everyone being part of the protection, then we hit the road and its nothing we haven’t seen before.
Special Effects – The effects for the werewolves and wounds look nice, its just most are hidden from the full effect of the shock.
Scene of the Movie – Town stand off.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – There are a few blink and you miss it moments.
Final Thoughts –This is a by the book werewolf film, it has good moments, it has forgettable moments and ends up feeling like the pilot for a television show.
Overall: The werewolf genre done safely.
Varek didn’t count on Timothy being under the watch of another prepared werewolf pack led by Jonas (Koteas) and his daughter-in-law Rachel (Mitra) who wasn’t ready to learn the truth that on Tim’s 13th birthday everything changes in the battle.
Thoughts on Skinwalkers
Characters – Varek is the leader of the werewolf pack that wants Timothy dead to stop the event he will cause, he hunts calmly through the film knowing how to get ahead of his enemies, though he is unaware of his connection to the child. Jonas has been protecting his nephew for years now, knowing what he means to the species, he has built the team his truss around him to make sure he is safe. Rachel is the mother of Timothy, she thinks he is just a normal kid and that she lives in a normal town, he must learn fast how to cope in this world filled with werewolves and protect her son. Sonja is the deadliest fighter on Varek side of the war, she enjoys hurting people and we see her take pleasure in this.
Performances – Jason Behr as the conflicted werewolf is good to watch, he shines on the bad boy side of this story, though when he must show the other side of the emotions we see him struggle at times. Elias Koteas is strong for his role which is one that we often see him in. Rhona Mitra does well in the reluctant heroes being the strong need to learn to battle mother figure in the film. everyone else in the film is fine without needing to be anything special, they fit their roles well to help the story flow.
Story – The story here follows two warring werewolf packs that know the importance of a child for both their existences, so basically something we have seen before only with a modern style to it. The fact the story does feel like an introduction to a much big world building idea is promising and while it isn’t the film’s fault we didn’t see the next chapter, it does show us how story telling can think ahead of time. If we are being honest this is a by the book storyline, it doesn’t bring us anything new to the werewolf mythology it just tries to keep it in the modern world.
Action/Fantasy/Horror – The action sequences are mixed bag because we have shoot-out which are routine and lack the peril for certain characters, while the fights show the effects that two werewolves fighting would have on each other. The fantasy world of werewolves living among humans is nicely done, showing two sides to them, though the horror does seem weak because we never feel terrified by what we are seeing.
Settings – The film uses the settings in a mix of quality and generic, the small town gets the big surprise with everyone being part of the protection, then we hit the road and its nothing we haven’t seen before.
Special Effects – The effects for the werewolves and wounds look nice, its just most are hidden from the full effect of the shock.
Scene of the Movie – Town stand off.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – There are a few blink and you miss it moments.
Final Thoughts –This is a by the book werewolf film, it has good moments, it has forgettable moments and ends up feeling like the pilot for a television show.
Overall: The werewolf genre done safely.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Unbreakable (The Legion, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Obviously choosing to dissect Kami Garcia's solo series as my next audiobook victim was a bad idea... a very bad idea...
Basically, I'm saying I give up on Kami Garcia. No offense, but after my horrid experience with the first couple of books of her <i>Beautiful Creatures</i> series she wrote with Margaret Stohl and then <i>Unbreakable</i>, I'm not sure I want to read another of her books (aside from maybe reading <i>Dangerous Creatures</i>).
<i>Unbreakable</i> sort of has a good idea – emphasis on sort of. Garcia's first debut solo novel follows Kennedy Waters, a girl who doesn't actually believe in ghosts until she finds her mother dead. Shortly after, a ghost makes an attempt to kill her as well, and is stopped by Lukas and Jared Lockhart, two brothers who are part of a centuries-old secret society made up of five members trying to stop a demon released by their ancestors hundreds of years ago. However, Kennedy isn't entirely too sure about whether or not she really belongs with this secret society called the Legion of the Black Dove.
For a person who doesn't watch <i>Supernatural</i> much, it's really weird when I get though, oh... 33 pages, that I realize a book is almost an exact carbon copy of the few episodes I watched.
For instance, there are two brothers in <i>Supernatural</i> and there are two brothers in <i>Unbreakable</i>. Are Sam and his brother identical? No.... not that I'm aware, which is only a small difference between the two books. Brother Pair 1 (<i>Supernatural</i>) and Brother Pair 2 (Unbreakable) apparently hunt demons for a living. At least, that's what I think Pair 1 did – correct me if I'm wrong, avid fans who are bound to be more accurate than me.
Oh, and there's a demon hunting around for a certain person... or a certain group of people. I'm pretty sure there was a demon hunting Brother Pair 1 for quite awhile in the episodes I actually watched (give me a break. I was bored. <i>Supernatural</i> just seemed interesting). Fun fact: possession involved in both TV show and book.
The mere fact that <i>Unbreakable</i> matched the few episodes (I believe they were reruns) I watched didn't bother me too much – it was a potential love triangle between Kennedy, Jared, and Lukas that eventually drove me up the wall. If Garcia isn't careful enough, the tension between Jared and Lukas could eventually set the book on fire – Lukas spends a good part of his time between fighting vengeful spirits and other things rubbing something that Jared did wrong in his face. It gets bad enough that both brothers reach the point of throttling each other's throats and Kennedy going between them and stopping them.
I felt like I was watching a scene from a <i>Twilight</i> (I'm starting to appreciate this series). <i>Lux</i> (because I totally snuck a few peeks in the third one), and pretty much any other book that has a love triangle in which 66% of them nearly start a brawl while the rest of the 33% pretty much yells, "STOP!"
By then, I was definitely not sticking around for five to go down to four just because of a mistake.
I did, however, like the world of Legion. It's certainly not a life I would want, but I definitely enjoyed the basic idea behind the series, Candice Accola's narration of <i>Unbreakable</i>, and the sound effects used in the audiobook.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-audiobook-review-unbreakable-by-kami-garcia/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Basically, I'm saying I give up on Kami Garcia. No offense, but after my horrid experience with the first couple of books of her <i>Beautiful Creatures</i> series she wrote with Margaret Stohl and then <i>Unbreakable</i>, I'm not sure I want to read another of her books (aside from maybe reading <i>Dangerous Creatures</i>).
<i>Unbreakable</i> sort of has a good idea – emphasis on sort of. Garcia's first debut solo novel follows Kennedy Waters, a girl who doesn't actually believe in ghosts until she finds her mother dead. Shortly after, a ghost makes an attempt to kill her as well, and is stopped by Lukas and Jared Lockhart, two brothers who are part of a centuries-old secret society made up of five members trying to stop a demon released by their ancestors hundreds of years ago. However, Kennedy isn't entirely too sure about whether or not she really belongs with this secret society called the Legion of the Black Dove.
For a person who doesn't watch <i>Supernatural</i> much, it's really weird when I get though, oh... 33 pages, that I realize a book is almost an exact carbon copy of the few episodes I watched.
For instance, there are two brothers in <i>Supernatural</i> and there are two brothers in <i>Unbreakable</i>. Are Sam and his brother identical? No.... not that I'm aware, which is only a small difference between the two books. Brother Pair 1 (<i>Supernatural</i>) and Brother Pair 2 (Unbreakable) apparently hunt demons for a living. At least, that's what I think Pair 1 did – correct me if I'm wrong, avid fans who are bound to be more accurate than me.
Oh, and there's a demon hunting around for a certain person... or a certain group of people. I'm pretty sure there was a demon hunting Brother Pair 1 for quite awhile in the episodes I actually watched (give me a break. I was bored. <i>Supernatural</i> just seemed interesting). Fun fact: possession involved in both TV show and book.
The mere fact that <i>Unbreakable</i> matched the few episodes (I believe they were reruns) I watched didn't bother me too much – it was a potential love triangle between Kennedy, Jared, and Lukas that eventually drove me up the wall. If Garcia isn't careful enough, the tension between Jared and Lukas could eventually set the book on fire – Lukas spends a good part of his time between fighting vengeful spirits and other things rubbing something that Jared did wrong in his face. It gets bad enough that both brothers reach the point of throttling each other's throats and Kennedy going between them and stopping them.
I felt like I was watching a scene from a <i>Twilight</i> (I'm starting to appreciate this series). <i>Lux</i> (because I totally snuck a few peeks in the third one), and pretty much any other book that has a love triangle in which 66% of them nearly start a brawl while the rest of the 33% pretty much yells, "STOP!"
By then, I was definitely not sticking around for five to go down to four just because of a mistake.
I did, however, like the world of Legion. It's certainly not a life I would want, but I definitely enjoyed the basic idea behind the series, Candice Accola's narration of <i>Unbreakable</i>, and the sound effects used in the audiobook.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-audiobook-review-unbreakable-by-kami-garcia/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Parker (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
So I, being the girl that I am, wasn’t exactly keyed up to go and see a “shoot-em up” style action flick — you know, the kind that Jason Statham excels at? My boyfriend, however, is like most red-blooded men and found this movie right up his alley. Perhaps it was due to the fact I “owed” him from cashing in my chick-flick points and making him watch “the Painted Veil” with me the other day; perhaps it was because my choice of Redbox rentals had been rather lackluster in comparison. Either way, he was looking forward the the prospect of this movie review far more than I.
“Parker” starts off in Ohio where Jason Statham’s character (Parker) is working a job with four other men. The job seems to go off without a hitch until the end when Parker discovers an innocent man died in the process, thus starting “beef” between he and one of his partners. The apparent boss of the crooks then asks Parker to join them in another job, requiring him to give up his share of the loot to contribute to the upcoming job. Parker politely declines and, of course, this doesn’t sit too well with the crooks. As predicted, they then turn on him and Parker is left for dead on the side of the road.
As we know, Jason Statham’s characters are indestructible. I mean, this was covered in both “Crank” movies so the audience should be well-versed in how this goes down, right? Of course, Parker survives and thus starts on a path of revenge. Mob bosses are involved, hits are put out, etc. Regardless, his journey takes him to Palm Springs where the four crooks who betrayed him are preparing for their next big job.
Now, you’re probably wondering where Jennifer Lopez is in all of this (yes, JLo has a part in this movie – I know, I feel your pain too). Given that her last decent flick was “the Cell” and “Selena,” I wasn’t expecting too much from her character. As Parker is making his way down to Palm Springs, the movie then focuses on JLo’s character, a depressed and rather broken divorcee living with her mother and desperate for a commission from her job as a real-estate agent. Cue in Parker, dressed as a wealthy Texan, and looking to buy a home in Palm Springs. Of course we see JLo checking him out and basically throwing herself at him because, well, that’s what all us desperate women do, right? We throw ourselves at rich men when times are hard without taking much else into consideration (like, say the cop – who comes across as a decent guy – who wants nothing else but to date her. But hey, he’s not Jason Statham, right? Pfft!). Regardless, JLo finds a way to weasel herself into helping Parker’s character and thwarting the four thieves who betrayed Parker. Luckily for all of us, JLo advances are shut down and we don’t have to fall witness to another “Gigli”.
Is the movie some amazing cinematic masterpiece? Absolutely not. Are Parker’s flashbacks cheesy and annoying? Of course. But we are talking about an action flick and one that doesn’t disappoint in lots of blood, gun fights, knifing action, and Jason Statham being an overall badass.
Will your girlfriend love this movie? Probably not. Will you, you red-blooded hunk of testosterone, love this movie? Probably. It is, after all, geared towards your sex. And, just in case the blood and fights don’t do it for you, there are more than enough exposed breasts throughout the film keep your interest piqued.
So if you’re looking for a good revenge-style action flick, this one is decent enough. It won’t win any awards, but it won’t leave your poor girlfriend screaming for the hills either. JLo’s performance, however, that’s just inexcusible….
“Parker” starts off in Ohio where Jason Statham’s character (Parker) is working a job with four other men. The job seems to go off without a hitch until the end when Parker discovers an innocent man died in the process, thus starting “beef” between he and one of his partners. The apparent boss of the crooks then asks Parker to join them in another job, requiring him to give up his share of the loot to contribute to the upcoming job. Parker politely declines and, of course, this doesn’t sit too well with the crooks. As predicted, they then turn on him and Parker is left for dead on the side of the road.
As we know, Jason Statham’s characters are indestructible. I mean, this was covered in both “Crank” movies so the audience should be well-versed in how this goes down, right? Of course, Parker survives and thus starts on a path of revenge. Mob bosses are involved, hits are put out, etc. Regardless, his journey takes him to Palm Springs where the four crooks who betrayed him are preparing for their next big job.
Now, you’re probably wondering where Jennifer Lopez is in all of this (yes, JLo has a part in this movie – I know, I feel your pain too). Given that her last decent flick was “the Cell” and “Selena,” I wasn’t expecting too much from her character. As Parker is making his way down to Palm Springs, the movie then focuses on JLo’s character, a depressed and rather broken divorcee living with her mother and desperate for a commission from her job as a real-estate agent. Cue in Parker, dressed as a wealthy Texan, and looking to buy a home in Palm Springs. Of course we see JLo checking him out and basically throwing herself at him because, well, that’s what all us desperate women do, right? We throw ourselves at rich men when times are hard without taking much else into consideration (like, say the cop – who comes across as a decent guy – who wants nothing else but to date her. But hey, he’s not Jason Statham, right? Pfft!). Regardless, JLo finds a way to weasel herself into helping Parker’s character and thwarting the four thieves who betrayed Parker. Luckily for all of us, JLo advances are shut down and we don’t have to fall witness to another “Gigli”.
Is the movie some amazing cinematic masterpiece? Absolutely not. Are Parker’s flashbacks cheesy and annoying? Of course. But we are talking about an action flick and one that doesn’t disappoint in lots of blood, gun fights, knifing action, and Jason Statham being an overall badass.
Will your girlfriend love this movie? Probably not. Will you, you red-blooded hunk of testosterone, love this movie? Probably. It is, after all, geared towards your sex. And, just in case the blood and fights don’t do it for you, there are more than enough exposed breasts throughout the film keep your interest piqued.
So if you’re looking for a good revenge-style action flick, this one is decent enough. It won’t win any awards, but it won’t leave your poor girlfriend screaming for the hills either. JLo’s performance, however, that’s just inexcusible….
The Poetry Deal
Book
"The Poetry Deal: San Francisco Poet Laureate Series No. 5 gives us di Prima's vision as she looks...
HerCrazyReviews (247 KP) rated Rent: The Complete Book and Lyrics of the Broadway Musical in Books
Aug 24, 2019
AIDs Representation (1 more)
LGBTQIA+ Representation
Great Representation, Horrible Characters
I have never seen the musical Rent nor have I ever seen the movie (though I heard it is not as good and different from the musical). Therefore, my rating is based solely on this book and because of that, I may not be able to understand or enjoy it as much as I would have if I had watched the movie or musical first.
First off, I loved that the book (or rather, musical) was set during the AIDS crisis and showed LGBTQIA+ representation. I think that is fantastic because (a.) we are lacking in our current day representation of LGBTQIA+ characters (though, we are slowly beginning to have this become the norm.) and (b.) the AIDS crisis was not a good time in history. The American government was not doing much to help with this crisis and seemed to sort of sweep it aside. Now, I was not alive during the beginning of this crisis and therefore have learned from sources and not with my own experiences, but not much was being done and this was mostly because this was originally considered a “gay disease” and, sadly, people in the past have not treated the LGBTQIA+ community with the respect they deserve. Instead, because this was considered a “gay disease” it was considered unimportant and therefore the AIDS epidemic was ignored. Luckily, today we have better people who are trying their best to find a cure.
Second, while I extremely enjoyed the representation and awareness this book (or musical) brought I did not enjoy most of the characters. While I do believe that characters should have flaws (after all no one is perfect and that is part of what make us human) I did not appreciate the way the characters in the book seemed to make excuses. Especially the fact that they used others difficulties to try and better themselves. Not to mention, most of the characters seemed to accentuate their poorness and use it as a way to better themselves. One scene that really got to me was when Mark was starting to film a homeless person. He did save them from the police but even they said “My life’s not for you to make a name for yourself on” and “Hey artist you gotta dollar? I thought not,” (Pg.38). It literally stated that these people who claim themselves to be “artists” use this as an excuse to exploit others.
Another huge part of what I did not appreciate about this book would be the harmful relationship that most of the characters seem to be in. Most of these relationships seemed too toxic and seemed to revolve around awful and sometimes disgusting circumstances.
Maureen (Cheater) + Joanne = 💔
Maureen and Joanne were repeatedly arguing, breaking it off, then getting back together. Now, that alone already seems like it’s not a healthy foundation for any relationship but then we find out that Maureen is a HUGE cheater. Mark himself told Joanne that she used to cheat on him when they were together and even had a bit of evidence that she was doing it again.
Roger (Past Drug Addict) + Mimi (Drug User) = 💔
Now, Roger is one of the many characters in this musical to have AIDS and because he is a past drug user we can infer that he got AIDS from drugs, or from his ex-girlfriend. Anyway, his goal before he dies from AIDS is to write one last song so that his life could mean something. To make sure that his life was worth it (to have glory), and I actually admire him for that. Lots of people would give up and I think it’s amazing that he wants to continue to try to make his life worth living. However, Mimi comes in and started to spark a flame (or light a candle) with Roger. There’s just one problem. Mimi is a drug user. Plus, it seems like she is trying to get Roger to get back on drugs. Definitely not something a healthy and loving relationship would have.
Benny (At least 30yrs.) + Mimi (Younger than 19) = 💔
Now, this has to be the most disgusting relationship in the book. While I don’t mind couples having age differences I am one-hundred percent NOT behind underage people dating men who are at least thirty, if not forty, years old. This was revealed when we got told that Mimi use to date Benny before she met Roger. Mimi was nineteen when she met Roger and if she had a prior relationship with Benny she was most likely eighteen or under.
Finally, I wasn’t very happy with the ending of the book. Mimi’s sort-of “death” scene just wasn’t my thing. It seemed to be that the situation as a whole seemed too excessive. She was dead, then she was back, then she was dead again, and she managed to come back because Angel told her too. While Mimi is a main character and main character deaths are extremely sad this story was supposed to make people more aware of AIDS and it just seemed to be too fanciful for me. This is an extremely deadly disease and just because someone told you that it was not your time to die yet does not mean that you are not going to yet pass. However, this is fiction and this does happen.
Would I Recommend? No. I really enjoyed the representation this showed within the LGBTQIA+ community and the awareness it would bring to people about the AIDS crisis, but I thought the story itself was bad. The characters, in my opinion, were not written well and I especially did not enjoy their actions or choices.
First off, I loved that the book (or rather, musical) was set during the AIDS crisis and showed LGBTQIA+ representation. I think that is fantastic because (a.) we are lacking in our current day representation of LGBTQIA+ characters (though, we are slowly beginning to have this become the norm.) and (b.) the AIDS crisis was not a good time in history. The American government was not doing much to help with this crisis and seemed to sort of sweep it aside. Now, I was not alive during the beginning of this crisis and therefore have learned from sources and not with my own experiences, but not much was being done and this was mostly because this was originally considered a “gay disease” and, sadly, people in the past have not treated the LGBTQIA+ community with the respect they deserve. Instead, because this was considered a “gay disease” it was considered unimportant and therefore the AIDS epidemic was ignored. Luckily, today we have better people who are trying their best to find a cure.
Second, while I extremely enjoyed the representation and awareness this book (or musical) brought I did not enjoy most of the characters. While I do believe that characters should have flaws (after all no one is perfect and that is part of what make us human) I did not appreciate the way the characters in the book seemed to make excuses. Especially the fact that they used others difficulties to try and better themselves. Not to mention, most of the characters seemed to accentuate their poorness and use it as a way to better themselves. One scene that really got to me was when Mark was starting to film a homeless person. He did save them from the police but even they said “My life’s not for you to make a name for yourself on” and “Hey artist you gotta dollar? I thought not,” (Pg.38). It literally stated that these people who claim themselves to be “artists” use this as an excuse to exploit others.
Another huge part of what I did not appreciate about this book would be the harmful relationship that most of the characters seem to be in. Most of these relationships seemed too toxic and seemed to revolve around awful and sometimes disgusting circumstances.
Maureen (Cheater) + Joanne = 💔
Maureen and Joanne were repeatedly arguing, breaking it off, then getting back together. Now, that alone already seems like it’s not a healthy foundation for any relationship but then we find out that Maureen is a HUGE cheater. Mark himself told Joanne that she used to cheat on him when they were together and even had a bit of evidence that she was doing it again.
Roger (Past Drug Addict) + Mimi (Drug User) = 💔
Now, Roger is one of the many characters in this musical to have AIDS and because he is a past drug user we can infer that he got AIDS from drugs, or from his ex-girlfriend. Anyway, his goal before he dies from AIDS is to write one last song so that his life could mean something. To make sure that his life was worth it (to have glory), and I actually admire him for that. Lots of people would give up and I think it’s amazing that he wants to continue to try to make his life worth living. However, Mimi comes in and started to spark a flame (or light a candle) with Roger. There’s just one problem. Mimi is a drug user. Plus, it seems like she is trying to get Roger to get back on drugs. Definitely not something a healthy and loving relationship would have.
Benny (At least 30yrs.) + Mimi (Younger than 19) = 💔
Now, this has to be the most disgusting relationship in the book. While I don’t mind couples having age differences I am one-hundred percent NOT behind underage people dating men who are at least thirty, if not forty, years old. This was revealed when we got told that Mimi use to date Benny before she met Roger. Mimi was nineteen when she met Roger and if she had a prior relationship with Benny she was most likely eighteen or under.
Finally, I wasn’t very happy with the ending of the book. Mimi’s sort-of “death” scene just wasn’t my thing. It seemed to be that the situation as a whole seemed too excessive. She was dead, then she was back, then she was dead again, and she managed to come back because Angel told her too. While Mimi is a main character and main character deaths are extremely sad this story was supposed to make people more aware of AIDS and it just seemed to be too fanciful for me. This is an extremely deadly disease and just because someone told you that it was not your time to die yet does not mean that you are not going to yet pass. However, this is fiction and this does happen.
Would I Recommend? No. I really enjoyed the representation this showed within the LGBTQIA+ community and the awareness it would bring to people about the AIDS crisis, but I thought the story itself was bad. The characters, in my opinion, were not written well and I especially did not enjoy their actions or choices.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022) in Movies
Feb 19, 2022 (Updated Feb 19, 2022)
Wasted backstories that go nowhere. (3 more)
Rehashes and recreates the original film while not offering much of its own material.
New characters fall flat.
Feels like a half-cocked attempt at a new "film. "
Tearing the Face Off of a Horror Franchise
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a direct sequel to the original 1974 film nearly 50 years later. Directed by David Blue Garcia with a screenplay by Chris Thomas Devlin and a story by Fede Alvarez (co-writer and director of the 2013 Evil Dead remake) and Rodo Sayagues (Don’t Breathe 1 & 2), Texas Chainsaw Massacre follows a group of young 20-somethings as they venture from Austin to Harlow, TX; a seven hour drive.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melody’s teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Dante’s fiancé Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, “her boys.” Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen Fouéré) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. She’s meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesn’t work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. It’s young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melody’s leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connor’s showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like it’s trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. There’s a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audience’s imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isn’t the point. When there’s this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. There’s nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When it’s not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, it’s just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but it’s not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lila’s backstory about why she’s so quiet doesn’t add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; it’s just a repetition of what we’ve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melody’s teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Dante’s fiancé Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, “her boys.” Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen Fouéré) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. She’s meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesn’t work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. It’s young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melody’s leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connor’s showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like it’s trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. There’s a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audience’s imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isn’t the point. When there’s this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. There’s nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When it’s not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, it’s just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but it’s not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lila’s backstory about why she’s so quiet doesn’t add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; it’s just a repetition of what we’ve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
KittyMiku (138 KP) rated What I've Done in Books
May 23, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
As with the previous books in the Morgan Dane series, we are able to see the romance grow between Lance and Morgan, have the suspense of the case and the ever lying danger that awaits our characters as they investigate for the truth. I found that it was enjoyable to see some more of Sharp's past as well. After all, he is the one character you don't see a whole lot about and to have a case that gives you some insight to the man behind a lot of support to Morgan and Lance is always a bonus. I enjoyed how characters in the book, though creepy, gave off how some people think and act in times of chaos. To see how everything plays out when you have psychopaths and innocents involved is always interesting.
In this particular book, I enjoyed how technology, though doesn't always help, was used to manipulate people's images and how some people react. Though, Haley, the woman being convicted for murder, was ill and traumatized, I enjoyed the strength she was given to protect herself and those who are close to her. To watch her struggle through discovering the guy she liked to be dead, while she slept and have no recollection how it happened, was truly heart wrenching. Then to watch her have nightmares about it because she couldn't remember what happened was able to show how post-traumatic stress disorder can affect after a traumatic event, made it harder but kept you wondering if her nightmares were memories resurfacing in an unpleasant way. With so many potential suspects coming and going in the book, you can't help but to continuously wonder what is causing the nightmares and if they are memories or not. It definitely kept you question until the very end.
It was also made clear how easy it is to cause people to doubt someone's skill or distort their image through social media. I thoroughly enjoyed, seeing this aspect. After all, though it isn't nice or even ethical, it happens all the time to people who do what they are good, and sometimes bad, at for a living. Though meme's and gifs are made to amuse and create laughter and joy, too often is it used to hurt someone without a whole lot of people truly understanding the whole meaning behind it. To have something aimed at Morgan, to make a threat and humiliate her, caused me to get angry. I enjoyed it in the aspect it raises the issue of gifs and memes being used to hurt and humiliate other, rather than spread joy. This particular piece, though not extremely important, had indeed stuck with me through out the whole book, I couldn't shake the feeling that it happens to us all at some point, even if we never see it. It had also brought up how hard it was to contain something once it goes viral. To track down the source can be impossible when everyone is sharing it on their social medias.
To get away with a crime doesn't mean to repeat it, but it you are never caught, wouldn't you be tempted to do it again? That was a question raised about some characters in this book. The crime doesn't have to illegal to be a crime. Disrespecting people's privacy, trust, and tampering with drinks are just a few crimes that aren't always caught, or even punishable. However, What I've Done, highlighted how people who may have gotten away with a crime once (whether punishable or not), they often feel they can repeat it and never get caught. Even though we all know eventually you will get caught, it was quite nice to see it highlighted in the fictional world as well. It was just a nice surprise that some of the characters thought and felt that way.
However, my absolute favorite thing was the ending. This I will not even attempt to spoil, but I will say that this ending left me wanting so much more. I expect the next book to give us some juicy information about our favorite characters, Lance, Sharp, and Morgan. I do look forward to it. I would definitely rate this book 5 stars out of 5 stars. It was entertaining, highlighted things that not everyone pay attention to, and kept me turning the pages.
In this particular book, I enjoyed how technology, though doesn't always help, was used to manipulate people's images and how some people react. Though, Haley, the woman being convicted for murder, was ill and traumatized, I enjoyed the strength she was given to protect herself and those who are close to her. To watch her struggle through discovering the guy she liked to be dead, while she slept and have no recollection how it happened, was truly heart wrenching. Then to watch her have nightmares about it because she couldn't remember what happened was able to show how post-traumatic stress disorder can affect after a traumatic event, made it harder but kept you wondering if her nightmares were memories resurfacing in an unpleasant way. With so many potential suspects coming and going in the book, you can't help but to continuously wonder what is causing the nightmares and if they are memories or not. It definitely kept you question until the very end.
It was also made clear how easy it is to cause people to doubt someone's skill or distort their image through social media. I thoroughly enjoyed, seeing this aspect. After all, though it isn't nice or even ethical, it happens all the time to people who do what they are good, and sometimes bad, at for a living. Though meme's and gifs are made to amuse and create laughter and joy, too often is it used to hurt someone without a whole lot of people truly understanding the whole meaning behind it. To have something aimed at Morgan, to make a threat and humiliate her, caused me to get angry. I enjoyed it in the aspect it raises the issue of gifs and memes being used to hurt and humiliate other, rather than spread joy. This particular piece, though not extremely important, had indeed stuck with me through out the whole book, I couldn't shake the feeling that it happens to us all at some point, even if we never see it. It had also brought up how hard it was to contain something once it goes viral. To track down the source can be impossible when everyone is sharing it on their social medias.
To get away with a crime doesn't mean to repeat it, but it you are never caught, wouldn't you be tempted to do it again? That was a question raised about some characters in this book. The crime doesn't have to illegal to be a crime. Disrespecting people's privacy, trust, and tampering with drinks are just a few crimes that aren't always caught, or even punishable. However, What I've Done, highlighted how people who may have gotten away with a crime once (whether punishable or not), they often feel they can repeat it and never get caught. Even though we all know eventually you will get caught, it was quite nice to see it highlighted in the fictional world as well. It was just a nice surprise that some of the characters thought and felt that way.
However, my absolute favorite thing was the ending. This I will not even attempt to spoil, but I will say that this ending left me wanting so much more. I expect the next book to give us some juicy information about our favorite characters, Lance, Sharp, and Morgan. I do look forward to it. I would definitely rate this book 5 stars out of 5 stars. It was entertaining, highlighted things that not everyone pay attention to, and kept me turning the pages.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
I was introduced to Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (the amazing book series written by Alvin Schwartz back in 1981) in my Junior High history class. An odd place for sure to listen to this amazing collection of stories, and yet it displayed how these stories are impactful even if you aren’t reading them around a campfire in the middle of the woods. Schwartz had written two additional sequels to his stories in 1984 and 1991 and the incredibly creepy illustrations (by Stephen Gammell) helped to complete a collection of books that are at home in anyone’s collection both young and old.
The 80’s was a decade obsessed with the occult and works of fiction that parents thought were written to corrupt the minds of the youth of the age. Before video games were blamed for all the evil in the world there was Heavy Metal music, the fantastical role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons and books such as these that parents rallied around and attempted to ban from schools and after school functions. Looking back now at the hysteria that this caused is almost laughable, but for those of us growing up in that time it was a very real threat to the imaginations of youth around the globe. Outside of this brief history lesson however, I wondered how the books would translate into a movie.
Our story begins on Halloween night, the year is 1968 and the Vietnam War and the upcoming presidential elections are on everyone’s mind. Stella (Zoe Colletti) and her nerd friends Chuck (Austin Zajur) and Auggie (Gabriel Rush) decide that this will be the year that they get revenge on the local bully Tommy (Austin Abrams) for all his years of stealing candy from them on Halloween. After things go predictably wrong, the young group of kids are pursued to a drive-in theater where they seek refuge in a car that is owned by another out-of-town youngster named Ramon (Michael Garza). As thanks for “saving” them from a certain beating, Stella and the group decide to take Ramon to a real-life haunted house. A place where a young Sarah Bellows would tell stories to frighten children only for them to end up dead days later. While exploring the house the young group discover the hidden room of young Sarah Bellows and come across her book of “Scary Stories”. Unable to contain her own curiosity, Stella takes the book home with her and watches as the words on the pages turn into living nightmares of their own darkest fears.
Produced by Guillermo del Toro, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, Scary Stories takes a handful of fan favorites and weaves them into a “scary” story of their very own. Instead of simply being a collection of haunting tales, each one serves a purpose, whether it’s the “Red Dot” or “Harold”, each one is used to drive the story even further along. While at first, I was hoping that it would be a collection of short stories featuring these timeless classics, the way in which each individual story progresses the plot leads to a far more interesting experience overall.
Those looking for a movie filled with frightening tales that will have you reaching for the closest shoulder (whether you know who it belongs to or not) will be in for a bit of disappointment. That’s not to take away from the incredible amount of vision needed to bring these classic stories to life, but it takes on a far more contemporary feel, then the dark stories and supernatural visions of the books that came before it. The film comes away feeling more like Goosebumps and less like Freakshow which makes sense given its PG-13 rating and its obvious pre-teen to teen demographic. The movie is still fun however, particularly for those who fondly remember the stories from their youth and is one that will proudly sit beside the likes of Hocus Pocus when it comes to network television down the road as part of its likely Halloween line-up.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/08/scary-stories-to-tell-in-the-dark/
The 80’s was a decade obsessed with the occult and works of fiction that parents thought were written to corrupt the minds of the youth of the age. Before video games were blamed for all the evil in the world there was Heavy Metal music, the fantastical role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons and books such as these that parents rallied around and attempted to ban from schools and after school functions. Looking back now at the hysteria that this caused is almost laughable, but for those of us growing up in that time it was a very real threat to the imaginations of youth around the globe. Outside of this brief history lesson however, I wondered how the books would translate into a movie.
Our story begins on Halloween night, the year is 1968 and the Vietnam War and the upcoming presidential elections are on everyone’s mind. Stella (Zoe Colletti) and her nerd friends Chuck (Austin Zajur) and Auggie (Gabriel Rush) decide that this will be the year that they get revenge on the local bully Tommy (Austin Abrams) for all his years of stealing candy from them on Halloween. After things go predictably wrong, the young group of kids are pursued to a drive-in theater where they seek refuge in a car that is owned by another out-of-town youngster named Ramon (Michael Garza). As thanks for “saving” them from a certain beating, Stella and the group decide to take Ramon to a real-life haunted house. A place where a young Sarah Bellows would tell stories to frighten children only for them to end up dead days later. While exploring the house the young group discover the hidden room of young Sarah Bellows and come across her book of “Scary Stories”. Unable to contain her own curiosity, Stella takes the book home with her and watches as the words on the pages turn into living nightmares of their own darkest fears.
Produced by Guillermo del Toro, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, Scary Stories takes a handful of fan favorites and weaves them into a “scary” story of their very own. Instead of simply being a collection of haunting tales, each one serves a purpose, whether it’s the “Red Dot” or “Harold”, each one is used to drive the story even further along. While at first, I was hoping that it would be a collection of short stories featuring these timeless classics, the way in which each individual story progresses the plot leads to a far more interesting experience overall.
Those looking for a movie filled with frightening tales that will have you reaching for the closest shoulder (whether you know who it belongs to or not) will be in for a bit of disappointment. That’s not to take away from the incredible amount of vision needed to bring these classic stories to life, but it takes on a far more contemporary feel, then the dark stories and supernatural visions of the books that came before it. The film comes away feeling more like Goosebumps and less like Freakshow which makes sense given its PG-13 rating and its obvious pre-teen to teen demographic. The movie is still fun however, particularly for those who fondly remember the stories from their youth and is one that will proudly sit beside the likes of Hocus Pocus when it comes to network television down the road as part of its likely Halloween line-up.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/08/scary-stories-to-tell-in-the-dark/