Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Last Time I Saw You in Books
Aug 23, 2019
Dr. Kate English's glamorous life comes to a screeching halt when her mother, Lily, dies--brutally murdered in her own home. At the funeral, Kate reunites with her close college friend, Blaire Barrington, whom she hasn't seen in fifteen years, since the two had a falling out. But Kate's grief and shock get even worse when she receives a text, "You think you're sad now, just wait. By the time I'm finished with you, you'll wish you had been buried today." Soon she finds herself threatened, wondering if she's being watched and targeted in her own home. She asks Blaire to help look into her mother's death. But Blaire's aggressive questions alienate Kate's friends, and all the while, Kate feels increasingly afraid for her own life. Who killed Lily, and are they coming for Kate next?
"Only days ago, Kate had been mulling over what to get her mother for Christmas. She couldn't have known that instead of choosing a gift, she'd be picking out a casket."
This was a creepy enough thriller, but boy, it was chock full of a cast of unlikable characters. It was impossible to find much sympathy for Kate, despite her grief over her mother. She was an irrational, annoying, wealthy woman and a terrible mother to her young daughter, whom she foisted on the nanny every chance she got. Blaire had few redeeming qualities; same with Kate's philandering husband, Simon. It seemed like poor Lily was probably the best in the bunch, but she was dead.
The writing in this one was tough for me. A lot of simplistic words and style, which was filled with much telling, but little showing. Stop telling me how everyone feels and let it all unfold naturally. This was coupled with a ton of very short, fake red herrings that kept getting thrown in every few chapters. I'm all for a red herring, but let it fully play out. Instead, it would be tossed in and then almost immediately ruled out, leaving you with the equivalent of literary whiplash.
There were also a lot of pretty major "coincidences" that left me feeling a bit dubious. Seriously, this is really happening? Many of the plot points were rather predictable, though there were a couple of good twists. It was a creepy read, though seemed oddly simple (I can't think of another way to describe it), and it did keep me reading.
Overall, not my favorite read, and doesn't motivate me to read the previous Liv Constantine book that much. My notes say "good enough," which is probably the best description I can come up with. I kept reading, but I didn't love it. 2.5 stars.
"Only days ago, Kate had been mulling over what to get her mother for Christmas. She couldn't have known that instead of choosing a gift, she'd be picking out a casket."
This was a creepy enough thriller, but boy, it was chock full of a cast of unlikable characters. It was impossible to find much sympathy for Kate, despite her grief over her mother. She was an irrational, annoying, wealthy woman and a terrible mother to her young daughter, whom she foisted on the nanny every chance she got. Blaire had few redeeming qualities; same with Kate's philandering husband, Simon. It seemed like poor Lily was probably the best in the bunch, but she was dead.
The writing in this one was tough for me. A lot of simplistic words and style, which was filled with much telling, but little showing. Stop telling me how everyone feels and let it all unfold naturally. This was coupled with a ton of very short, fake red herrings that kept getting thrown in every few chapters. I'm all for a red herring, but let it fully play out. Instead, it would be tossed in and then almost immediately ruled out, leaving you with the equivalent of literary whiplash.
There were also a lot of pretty major "coincidences" that left me feeling a bit dubious. Seriously, this is really happening? Many of the plot points were rather predictable, though there were a couple of good twists. It was a creepy read, though seemed oddly simple (I can't think of another way to describe it), and it did keep me reading.
Overall, not my favorite read, and doesn't motivate me to read the previous Liv Constantine book that much. My notes say "good enough," which is probably the best description I can come up with. I kept reading, but I didn't love it. 2.5 stars.
EMPIRE: The Deck Building Strategy Game
Games and Entertainment
App
“Empire is so tight it squeaks, and I suspect it’s the best game I’ve played this year.” -...
Lee (2222 KP) rated She Dies Tomorrow (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
Pretentious waste of time
On paper, the concept behind She Dies Tomorrow is an intriguing one – “Amy thinks she’s dying tomorrow…and it’s contagious..”. And the trailer provided just enough mystery to make me want to seek it out too. Is it a portrayal of paranoia and anxiety, or is there something more sinister or supernatural at work, that they carefully and cleverly avoided showing us in the trailer?
We join Amy, already convinced that she is going to die tomorrow. She wanders aimlessly around her flat at night, drinking wine. Lying on the wooden floor, she traces her finger along the wood veins in the floorboards and presses herself against the wall, as if she is at one with the world and her surroundings. She also repeatedly drops the needle on a score by Mozart – a piece of music that I do not initially dislike, but come to loathe by the end of the movie.
Her close friend Jane pays a visit, but is dismissive of Amy and her insistence that tomorrow she will die. However, after Jane returns home to continue working, a sudden realisation crosses her face, and she also then has the feeling that she will die tomorrow. When Jane later joins a small party at her brother’s house, a similar pattern occurs, with everyone thinking she’s gone crazy. But eventually, they all start to think the same, with each realisation accompanied by a strange neon purple light flashing across their faces. It certainly does seem to be contagious…
The remainder of the movie deals with each character coming to terms with their impending death and passing the feeling onto a few other people. We see Amy trying to make the most of her remaining time, and we also flip back a few days to learn a bit more about her in the run up to today.
As I mentioned earlier – on paper, there’s definitely a great idea at the heart of She Dies Tomorrow, and reading back through my review certainly confirms that. Unfortunately though, nothing about this movie worked for me at all. I found the acting terrible, and was unable to connect with any of the characters. It’s less than 90 minutes long, but is such a dull, pretentious and badly written slow-burn that all mystery and intrigue generated by that trailer quickly vanishes. For a movie that wants you to ponder on your remaining time on this earth, it certainly does a pretty good job of wasting it. Oh and if you’re expecting some kind of explanation and ending that might help redeem the painful build-up, you’re going to be seriously disappointed.
We join Amy, already convinced that she is going to die tomorrow. She wanders aimlessly around her flat at night, drinking wine. Lying on the wooden floor, she traces her finger along the wood veins in the floorboards and presses herself against the wall, as if she is at one with the world and her surroundings. She also repeatedly drops the needle on a score by Mozart – a piece of music that I do not initially dislike, but come to loathe by the end of the movie.
Her close friend Jane pays a visit, but is dismissive of Amy and her insistence that tomorrow she will die. However, after Jane returns home to continue working, a sudden realisation crosses her face, and she also then has the feeling that she will die tomorrow. When Jane later joins a small party at her brother’s house, a similar pattern occurs, with everyone thinking she’s gone crazy. But eventually, they all start to think the same, with each realisation accompanied by a strange neon purple light flashing across their faces. It certainly does seem to be contagious…
The remainder of the movie deals with each character coming to terms with their impending death and passing the feeling onto a few other people. We see Amy trying to make the most of her remaining time, and we also flip back a few days to learn a bit more about her in the run up to today.
As I mentioned earlier – on paper, there’s definitely a great idea at the heart of She Dies Tomorrow, and reading back through my review certainly confirms that. Unfortunately though, nothing about this movie worked for me at all. I found the acting terrible, and was unable to connect with any of the characters. It’s less than 90 minutes long, but is such a dull, pretentious and badly written slow-burn that all mystery and intrigue generated by that trailer quickly vanishes. For a movie that wants you to ponder on your remaining time on this earth, it certainly does a pretty good job of wasting it. Oh and if you’re expecting some kind of explanation and ending that might help redeem the painful build-up, you’re going to be seriously disappointed.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Last House on the Left (1972) in Movies
Sep 3, 2020
To Avoid Fainting Keep Repeating...Its Only A Movie
The Last House on the Left- was wes's directoral debut and what a start. Its a disturbing, psychological, graphic, exploitation horror film.
The plot: Teenagers Mari (Sandra Cassel) and Phyllis (Lucy Grantham) head to the city for a concert, then afterward go looking for drugs. Instead, they find a gang of escaped convicts who subject them to a night of torture and rape. The gang then kills the girls in the woods, not realizing they're near Mari's house. When they pose as salesmen and are taken in by Mari's mother (Cynthia Carr) and father (Gaylord St. James), it doesn't take the parents long to figure out their identities and plot revenge.
Wes Craven, who had no money at the time, was put on the job of synchronizing dailies for Cunningham's re-shoot. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham and they became good friends. Hallmark bought the film for $10,000, and it was considered a "hit"; this prompted Hallmark to persuade them to make another film with a bigger budget, and gave them $90,000 to shoot a horror film.
This script, written under the title Night of Vengeance, has never been released; only a brief glimpse is visible in the featurette Celluloid Crime of the Century (a 2003 documentary on the making of the film).
The majority of the cast of The Last House on the Left were inexperienced or first-time actors, with the exception of Richard Towers, Eleanor Shaw, and Sandra Peabody who were all soap opera regulars and had prior film roles.
The film underwent multiple title changes, with its investors initially titling it Sex Crime of the Century. However, after test screenings were completed, it was decided to change the title to Krug and Company; however, this title was found to have little draw during test screenings. A marketing specialist who was an acquaintance of Cunningham's proposed the title The Last House on the Left. Craven initially thought the title was "terrible."
Due to its graphic content, the film sparked protests from the public throughout the fall of 1972 who called for its removal from local theaters.
Promotional material capitalized on the film's graphic content and divisive reception, featuring the tagline: "To avoid fainting, keep repeating 'It's only a movie' ..." advertising campaign. Under the Last House... title, the film proved to be a hit.
Though the film passed with an R-rating by the Motion Picture Association of America, director Craven claimed that on several occasions, horrified audience members would demand that theater projectionists destroy the footage, sometimes stealing the film themselves.
It is a distubing film but it is a excellet film by a horror icon.
The plot: Teenagers Mari (Sandra Cassel) and Phyllis (Lucy Grantham) head to the city for a concert, then afterward go looking for drugs. Instead, they find a gang of escaped convicts who subject them to a night of torture and rape. The gang then kills the girls in the woods, not realizing they're near Mari's house. When they pose as salesmen and are taken in by Mari's mother (Cynthia Carr) and father (Gaylord St. James), it doesn't take the parents long to figure out their identities and plot revenge.
Wes Craven, who had no money at the time, was put on the job of synchronizing dailies for Cunningham's re-shoot. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham and they became good friends. Hallmark bought the film for $10,000, and it was considered a "hit"; this prompted Hallmark to persuade them to make another film with a bigger budget, and gave them $90,000 to shoot a horror film.
This script, written under the title Night of Vengeance, has never been released; only a brief glimpse is visible in the featurette Celluloid Crime of the Century (a 2003 documentary on the making of the film).
The majority of the cast of The Last House on the Left were inexperienced or first-time actors, with the exception of Richard Towers, Eleanor Shaw, and Sandra Peabody who were all soap opera regulars and had prior film roles.
The film underwent multiple title changes, with its investors initially titling it Sex Crime of the Century. However, after test screenings were completed, it was decided to change the title to Krug and Company; however, this title was found to have little draw during test screenings. A marketing specialist who was an acquaintance of Cunningham's proposed the title The Last House on the Left. Craven initially thought the title was "terrible."
Due to its graphic content, the film sparked protests from the public throughout the fall of 1972 who called for its removal from local theaters.
Promotional material capitalized on the film's graphic content and divisive reception, featuring the tagline: "To avoid fainting, keep repeating 'It's only a movie' ..." advertising campaign. Under the Last House... title, the film proved to be a hit.
Though the film passed with an R-rating by the Motion Picture Association of America, director Craven claimed that on several occasions, horrified audience members would demand that theater projectionists destroy the footage, sometimes stealing the film themselves.
It is a distubing film but it is a excellet film by a horror icon.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Zombie Tidal Wave (2019) in Movies
Jun 3, 2020
A zombie film made for the SyFy Channel starring Ian Ziering you say? Sign me up.
While out fishing a group of friends catch something sinister. They haul a putrid looking dead body out of the water and very quickly realise that it isn't quite as dead as they'd have hoped. That body is the first in an army of the undead that takes over the town as an unexpected tidal wave gives them a helping hand.
Is this film bad? Yes. Is it an entertaining watch? Also yes, but on that SyFy Original movie level of yes.
Bless Ian Ziering and his movie decision. In Zombie Tidal Wave (I really love saying the whole title) he plays Hunter, a fisherman who's about to leave town for a fresh start. Hunter is everything you hope he will be. I also noticed on IMDb that Ziering has a story credit... well colour me surprised... it's a super-duper amazing tale about zombies by the sea.
I'm not going to insult you by saying that this would win any awards, we all know it wouldn't even without watching it. It wouldn't even win a Razzie, that's how good it is! Everything about this is in fact distinctly average, apart from the following...
That story... it's got a great idea with twists and turns that "make sense". It could almost have been a serious zombie film if someone at some point hadn't gone "You know what? We need more." "More what?" "Everything."
Those special effects... are terrible. I have never seen such badly CGId water, and that's something you should take seriously coming from someone who has seen as many made for TV movies as I have.
The consistency... there are facts about locations and objects that the film just throws out the window, there are some continuity errors as well... but while that sounds like a bad thing it's really an essential part of the enjoyment/
This couldn't be a typical review so to complete it I just want to share with you some of my notes/interactions with the film, I'll include some cryptic highlights to look out for too.
- The zombie that must have unnaturally long legs or be standing on a zombie pyramid.
- Synchronised swimming zombies.
- I snort laughed so hard at a big reveal point that I nearly choked on my breakfast.
- A stunning Bond girl moment that might have been the best shot of the film.
- The different densities of glass.
- The Sharknado reference.
- ... and the result of that reference.
- Douchebag and his girlfriend.
- Family banter with a zombie.
- "Reinforcements".
- Zombie's styling flip flops.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/zombie-tidal-wave-movie-review.html
While out fishing a group of friends catch something sinister. They haul a putrid looking dead body out of the water and very quickly realise that it isn't quite as dead as they'd have hoped. That body is the first in an army of the undead that takes over the town as an unexpected tidal wave gives them a helping hand.
Is this film bad? Yes. Is it an entertaining watch? Also yes, but on that SyFy Original movie level of yes.
Bless Ian Ziering and his movie decision. In Zombie Tidal Wave (I really love saying the whole title) he plays Hunter, a fisherman who's about to leave town for a fresh start. Hunter is everything you hope he will be. I also noticed on IMDb that Ziering has a story credit... well colour me surprised... it's a super-duper amazing tale about zombies by the sea.
I'm not going to insult you by saying that this would win any awards, we all know it wouldn't even without watching it. It wouldn't even win a Razzie, that's how good it is! Everything about this is in fact distinctly average, apart from the following...
That story... it's got a great idea with twists and turns that "make sense". It could almost have been a serious zombie film if someone at some point hadn't gone "You know what? We need more." "More what?" "Everything."
Those special effects... are terrible. I have never seen such badly CGId water, and that's something you should take seriously coming from someone who has seen as many made for TV movies as I have.
The consistency... there are facts about locations and objects that the film just throws out the window, there are some continuity errors as well... but while that sounds like a bad thing it's really an essential part of the enjoyment/
This couldn't be a typical review so to complete it I just want to share with you some of my notes/interactions with the film, I'll include some cryptic highlights to look out for too.
- The zombie that must have unnaturally long legs or be standing on a zombie pyramid.
- Synchronised swimming zombies.
- I snort laughed so hard at a big reveal point that I nearly choked on my breakfast.
- A stunning Bond girl moment that might have been the best shot of the film.
- The different densities of glass.
- The Sharknado reference.
- ... and the result of that reference.
- Douchebag and his girlfriend.
- Family banter with a zombie.
- "Reinforcements".
- Zombie's styling flip flops.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/zombie-tidal-wave-movie-review.html
Cowboy Daddies
7.0
Rate It
Book
Cowboy Daddies: Two Western Romances includes novellas from bestselling spanking romance authors...
Romance Westerns Spanking Erotica Historical Romance
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Heartbreak for Hire in Books
Aug 19, 2021
A wreck of a romance
Brinkley Saunders tells everyone she works as an administrative assistant. But she really works at
Heartbreak for Hire, an undercover operation that specializes in a variety of revenge schemes for jilted lovers, annoyed coworkers, and more. She dropped out of grad school in the aftermath of a disastrous relationship--much to the despair of her mother--but the job helps Brinkley save for her dream of opening her own art gallery. However, when her boss Margo announces she's hiring male Heartbreakers for the first time, Brinkley starts questioning her purpose, especially when one of the new hires is a target she was paid to take down. Markus Cavanaugh is an adjunct anthropology professor at University of Chicago. He doesn't seem like the backstabbing academic she was told to go after... and as she gets to know Markus more and continues to question her role as a Heartbreaker, Brinkley realizes a lot of things aren't what they seem.
"I had my career, my cat, control. The Three C's of avoiding that hopeless cycle of loving someone who didn't love me back."
I feel awful, but this book just did not work for me at all. I almost didn't finish it, but I really try to complete all my ARCs. Ironically I hated most of it except the end, which was actually pretty good. But most of this one had me cringing. Brinkley's job is terrible and makes no sense--I couldn't even see how Heartbreakers and the division of "Egos, Players, Cheaters, and Grifters" would even possibly translate to the real world. Her boss is absolutely awful.
"If we trained men to break women's hearts, what did that say about our mission? What did that say about us?"
The book is filled with ridiculous contrived fights and plot-lines, and I didn't buy the relationship between her and Markus at all. They like each other, hate each other, rinse and repeat, with a bunch of silly "twists" thrown in over and over to keep them apart. Do something and stop whining (this applies equally to them both). It was just boring and stupid, and I couldn't handle all the bad decisions. If there's going to be conflict, I want it to be realistic, and if there's going to be romance, I want to buy into the couple and feel a genuine affection toward them. But with everyone being so hateful to each other, an entire profession created toward tearing people down, and a bunch of random contrived obstacles thrown up to keep Markus and Brinkley apart... I just couldn't handle it.
A lot of other people enjoyed this one far more than me, so hopefully you will too.
I received a copy of this book from Gallery Books and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Heartbreak for Hire, an undercover operation that specializes in a variety of revenge schemes for jilted lovers, annoyed coworkers, and more. She dropped out of grad school in the aftermath of a disastrous relationship--much to the despair of her mother--but the job helps Brinkley save for her dream of opening her own art gallery. However, when her boss Margo announces she's hiring male Heartbreakers for the first time, Brinkley starts questioning her purpose, especially when one of the new hires is a target she was paid to take down. Markus Cavanaugh is an adjunct anthropology professor at University of Chicago. He doesn't seem like the backstabbing academic she was told to go after... and as she gets to know Markus more and continues to question her role as a Heartbreaker, Brinkley realizes a lot of things aren't what they seem.
"I had my career, my cat, control. The Three C's of avoiding that hopeless cycle of loving someone who didn't love me back."
I feel awful, but this book just did not work for me at all. I almost didn't finish it, but I really try to complete all my ARCs. Ironically I hated most of it except the end, which was actually pretty good. But most of this one had me cringing. Brinkley's job is terrible and makes no sense--I couldn't even see how Heartbreakers and the division of "Egos, Players, Cheaters, and Grifters" would even possibly translate to the real world. Her boss is absolutely awful.
"If we trained men to break women's hearts, what did that say about our mission? What did that say about us?"
The book is filled with ridiculous contrived fights and plot-lines, and I didn't buy the relationship between her and Markus at all. They like each other, hate each other, rinse and repeat, with a bunch of silly "twists" thrown in over and over to keep them apart. Do something and stop whining (this applies equally to them both). It was just boring and stupid, and I couldn't handle all the bad decisions. If there's going to be conflict, I want it to be realistic, and if there's going to be romance, I want to buy into the couple and feel a genuine affection toward them. But with everyone being so hateful to each other, an entire profession created toward tearing people down, and a bunch of random contrived obstacles thrown up to keep Markus and Brinkley apart... I just couldn't handle it.
A lot of other people enjoyed this one far more than me, so hopefully you will too.
I received a copy of this book from Gallery Books and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated One Night on the Island in Books
Feb 14, 2022
Cleo is heading to the remote Irish island of Salvation for work, but it's personal too. She's about to turn thirty, an age her father never reached, and she's trying to reconcile where she is in life. A columnist who writes about finding love, she's yet to discover it herself. On Salvation, she plans to "self-couple"--a concept brought up by her boss, but Cleo can't help but feel there's something to finding herself. As for Mack Sullivan, he's heading to Salvation to research his ancestry and photograph the island he's heard so much about from his mother and grandmother. Escaping his estranged wife and crumbling life is a bonus, though he'll miss his two sons terribly. It's only when they arrive on the island that Mack and Cleo realize they've booked the same one room cottage--a terrible mix-up on a tiny island with no other accommodations. Forced to live together until the next ferry arrives, the two can barely stand being in the same space. But as time passes on the lovely island, their attitudes change.
This is a very slow moving, slow burn romance that focuses on being thoughtful and deliberate in its descriptions. There's less action and a lot of focus on the island and tons and tons of focus on Cleo and Mack's emotions and thoughts. So many thoughts, so much angst!
As for my thoughts... seriously, even on a small island, no one had a spare room? Not even a little one? Enjoying this book means buying into the premise that two complete strangers were truly willing to share a ONE ROOM cottage--sleeping across from another in a bed and a sofa. Thanks but no thanks. Also odd was Cleo's self-coupling (aka marrying herself) concept, which both she and her boss seemed quite into and even Mack accepted. Hmm...
Far more delightful was Salvation Island and its inhabitants. I could have read an entire book just focused on the enjoyable folks Cleo and Mack ran across, particularly the women Cleo joined at knitting circle and the lively group who gathered at the local pub. And while there were plenty of descriptions of this island, some were quite fun (otters!).
The book is told in a back and forth point of view from Cleo and Mack. They grow on you. It's not their fault they were trapped in the same lodge. This one was a little too slow and emotional for me in the beginning, but I still got a bit tearful at the ending.
I received a copy of this book from Random House / Ballantine and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
This is a very slow moving, slow burn romance that focuses on being thoughtful and deliberate in its descriptions. There's less action and a lot of focus on the island and tons and tons of focus on Cleo and Mack's emotions and thoughts. So many thoughts, so much angst!
As for my thoughts... seriously, even on a small island, no one had a spare room? Not even a little one? Enjoying this book means buying into the premise that two complete strangers were truly willing to share a ONE ROOM cottage--sleeping across from another in a bed and a sofa. Thanks but no thanks. Also odd was Cleo's self-coupling (aka marrying herself) concept, which both she and her boss seemed quite into and even Mack accepted. Hmm...
Far more delightful was Salvation Island and its inhabitants. I could have read an entire book just focused on the enjoyable folks Cleo and Mack ran across, particularly the women Cleo joined at knitting circle and the lively group who gathered at the local pub. And while there were plenty of descriptions of this island, some were quite fun (otters!).
The book is told in a back and forth point of view from Cleo and Mack. They grow on you. It's not their fault they were trapped in the same lodge. This one was a little too slow and emotional for me in the beginning, but I still got a bit tearful at the ending.
I received a copy of this book from Random House / Ballantine and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Scream (2022) in Movies
Jan 29, 2022
Ghostface (up until the reveal) (2 more)
The kills
Chemistry between Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox
Terrible killer reveal (2 more)
Rehashes everything from the original film.
Too meta for its own good
Movies Make Psychos More Imitative
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Scream franchise has always been this love letter to the horror genre while simultaneously embracing this self-deprecating demeanor that was meta long before it was the trendy thing for movies to do. All of the films would lay out the rules of a slasher or horror sequel while sometimes following a familiar formula, but often broke the boundaries of the stabby, blood-soaked mold it was proud to pretend to stay within the lines of.
Now, 11 years after Scream 4, Scream not only references its roots it drowns itself in the accomplishments of the previous films. The film is a huge nostalgic throwback to the first films, especially the original and Scream 4. But nearly every new character introduced in the new film is related to someone in a previous Scream film.
The film opens with Ghostface calling and playing a horror trivia game over the phone with some unsuspecting high school girl, the killer is narrowed down to once again be one of a close-knit group of friends, and the finale literally takes place in the house of one of the characters from the first film.
It’s established within Scream’s dialogue that the film isn’t a reboot or a sequel, but a requel. It brings back legacy characters to make way for new blood while staying within a formula that is almost a carbon copy of the original film. The kills are a little different, the technology is modern, and Sidney, Gale, and Dewey are all older, but this all feels too familiar to feel like a refreshing entry in the franchise.
The highlight of the film is obviously Ghostface. Roger L. Jackson, the voice of Ghostface, is the unsung and unseen hero (or villain) of the franchise. He has not only been the voice of Ghostface for all five films, but was also the voice of Ghostface in season three of the television series. We’ll ignore the fact that who the killer turns out to be has a serious height difference in comparison to whoever is running around the rest of the film, but there are some pretty brutal moments here; his leg stomp to Tara in the film’s opening, the knife through the neck scene where we see the blade go through the victim’s throat and out the side to surprisingly satisfactory results, and even a kill on the sidewalk in front of someone’s house in broad daylight.
Ghostface has his most memorable kill while using two knives in the hall of a private floor of a hospital and it’s fantastic. The original film is a personal favorite, but there are several scenes where you can see another and seemingly cheaper and less detailed mask is used (the opening scene where Drew Barrymore gets stabbed on the front lawn comes to mind). There’s none of that in the new film as Ghostface shines in absolutely every sequence until he’s unmasked.
Characters from previous films that were stabbed or shot or both, but were never shown dying on screen were rumored to appear in this film. The most notable being Hayden Penettiere’s Kirby Reed from Scream 4 and Matthew Lillard’s Stu Macher from the original. Unfortunately, the return of either character would have been more interesting than what we ended up with.
Sisters Sam and Tara Carpenter (played by Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega) have an interesting character connection that results in a repeating Tell-Tale Heart motivation that could finally trigger Sam losing her sanity. The twins, Mindy and Chad (played by Jasmin Savoy Brown and Mason Gooding) are arguably the most useful. Next to Jack Quaid’s performance as Richie, Jasmin Savoy Brown may deliver the best performance from the new cast members.
The aspects that make the Scream franchise scary and suspenseful is the fact that Ghostface is just a horror obsessed human much like the people watching the film from the other side of the screen. Before the killer or killers are revealed, everyone is a suspect and Ghostface can be anyone behind the mask. That sense of dread that lies within never feeling safe even around your family and best friends while simultaneously watching them get slaughtered one by one while you helplessly sit on the sidelines are terrifying concepts that would drive anyone crazy in real life.
The killer(s) in Scream are trying to claim the same kind of legacy Billy Loomis and Stu Macher received; the movie franchise based on their killings, the fame, and the notoriety. Scream is a movie formulated around another movie (the 1996 Scream) that has a movie franchise within the movie franchise (Stab) that is constantly referencing itself and other films in the genre all while trying to erase its ugliest moments. It’s exhausting and disappointing at the same time.
Ghostface is my favorite cinematic serial killer and I love the first four films (yes, even Scream 3 and Gale’s terrible bangs) despite their flaws and fluctuating factors of entertainment. I’ll see and support any new Scream film or TV series that comes along because of it. I know this new installment was successful and some enjoyed it, but it is honestly my least favorite in the franchise.
This new film feels like it’s trying too hard to be one of the original Scream films when it should have just been more of its own thing. This is something the film addresses, but originality should always triumph over retreading familiar territory; especially when it seems like its kills are being plunged into the same stab wounds.
Now, 11 years after Scream 4, Scream not only references its roots it drowns itself in the accomplishments of the previous films. The film is a huge nostalgic throwback to the first films, especially the original and Scream 4. But nearly every new character introduced in the new film is related to someone in a previous Scream film.
The film opens with Ghostface calling and playing a horror trivia game over the phone with some unsuspecting high school girl, the killer is narrowed down to once again be one of a close-knit group of friends, and the finale literally takes place in the house of one of the characters from the first film.
It’s established within Scream’s dialogue that the film isn’t a reboot or a sequel, but a requel. It brings back legacy characters to make way for new blood while staying within a formula that is almost a carbon copy of the original film. The kills are a little different, the technology is modern, and Sidney, Gale, and Dewey are all older, but this all feels too familiar to feel like a refreshing entry in the franchise.
The highlight of the film is obviously Ghostface. Roger L. Jackson, the voice of Ghostface, is the unsung and unseen hero (or villain) of the franchise. He has not only been the voice of Ghostface for all five films, but was also the voice of Ghostface in season three of the television series. We’ll ignore the fact that who the killer turns out to be has a serious height difference in comparison to whoever is running around the rest of the film, but there are some pretty brutal moments here; his leg stomp to Tara in the film’s opening, the knife through the neck scene where we see the blade go through the victim’s throat and out the side to surprisingly satisfactory results, and even a kill on the sidewalk in front of someone’s house in broad daylight.
Ghostface has his most memorable kill while using two knives in the hall of a private floor of a hospital and it’s fantastic. The original film is a personal favorite, but there are several scenes where you can see another and seemingly cheaper and less detailed mask is used (the opening scene where Drew Barrymore gets stabbed on the front lawn comes to mind). There’s none of that in the new film as Ghostface shines in absolutely every sequence until he’s unmasked.
Characters from previous films that were stabbed or shot or both, but were never shown dying on screen were rumored to appear in this film. The most notable being Hayden Penettiere’s Kirby Reed from Scream 4 and Matthew Lillard’s Stu Macher from the original. Unfortunately, the return of either character would have been more interesting than what we ended up with.
Sisters Sam and Tara Carpenter (played by Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega) have an interesting character connection that results in a repeating Tell-Tale Heart motivation that could finally trigger Sam losing her sanity. The twins, Mindy and Chad (played by Jasmin Savoy Brown and Mason Gooding) are arguably the most useful. Next to Jack Quaid’s performance as Richie, Jasmin Savoy Brown may deliver the best performance from the new cast members.
The aspects that make the Scream franchise scary and suspenseful is the fact that Ghostface is just a horror obsessed human much like the people watching the film from the other side of the screen. Before the killer or killers are revealed, everyone is a suspect and Ghostface can be anyone behind the mask. That sense of dread that lies within never feeling safe even around your family and best friends while simultaneously watching them get slaughtered one by one while you helplessly sit on the sidelines are terrifying concepts that would drive anyone crazy in real life.
The killer(s) in Scream are trying to claim the same kind of legacy Billy Loomis and Stu Macher received; the movie franchise based on their killings, the fame, and the notoriety. Scream is a movie formulated around another movie (the 1996 Scream) that has a movie franchise within the movie franchise (Stab) that is constantly referencing itself and other films in the genre all while trying to erase its ugliest moments. It’s exhausting and disappointing at the same time.
Ghostface is my favorite cinematic serial killer and I love the first four films (yes, even Scream 3 and Gale’s terrible bangs) despite their flaws and fluctuating factors of entertainment. I’ll see and support any new Scream film or TV series that comes along because of it. I know this new installment was successful and some enjoyed it, but it is honestly my least favorite in the franchise.
This new film feels like it’s trying too hard to be one of the original Scream films when it should have just been more of its own thing. This is something the film addresses, but originality should always triumph over retreading familiar territory; especially when it seems like its kills are being plunged into the same stab wounds.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Knock Knock (2015) in Movies
Nov 2, 2017
The acting is just terrible (1 more)
The whole premise is just ridiculous
What the hell was Keanu thinking?
I came across this on Netflix last night and remembered seeing the trailer for it in the cinema at some point in the past. I vaguely remembered wanting to see it if I ever got the chance. What I definitely didn't remember is that the reason I probably never saw it was down to the sheer number of awful reviews it managed to receive. So, here's another one to add to them.
Keanu Reeves is an architect, living in an amazing house with a beautiful wife and two perfect kids. The movie opens by slowly panning through the house, showing us that on literally every single piece of available wall space there's a photo of the happy family. They just look so perfect and content together. Keanu wakes up in bed with his wife and the kids burst in to bring Keanu a father's day chocolate cake. They have some fun and he chases them away, pretending to be monster. Wow, they really are determined to drum home the fact that Keanu has this perfect family life, something he'd be pretty stupid to mess up! Already though, the acting is just awful - the whole setup feels forced, none of it feels natural at all. A crucial plot point that we do discover here though - Keanus character has not had much action in the sack recently...
His wife and kids head off to the beach for the weekend leaving Keanu to try and get on top of his workload, designing some buildings, listening to loud music and 3D printing his work. That is, until he's interrupted late at night by a couple of young girls knocking at his front door. It's raining hard and they claim that their taxi dropped them off for a party, but they think that they're in completely the wrong area. Keanu lets them in to check the party location on his iPad (their phones are soaking wet) while he calls them an Uber. They begin flirting with him, but he resists. He ends up putting their clothes in the tumble dryer, the flirting continues, he continues to resist. Until eventually.... well, lets just say that he more than makes up for the action in the sack he's been missing out on recently.
All I'll say is that things get more intense and more ridiculous after that as the girls stick around and make his life a living hell, despite his attempts to try and get rid of them. It's all really over the top and just plain stupid, but I just had to watch it right to the end to see what happens. One thing it definitely proved though - Keanu Reeves really should stick to just being John Wick. Or Ted "Theodore" Logan.
Keanu Reeves is an architect, living in an amazing house with a beautiful wife and two perfect kids. The movie opens by slowly panning through the house, showing us that on literally every single piece of available wall space there's a photo of the happy family. They just look so perfect and content together. Keanu wakes up in bed with his wife and the kids burst in to bring Keanu a father's day chocolate cake. They have some fun and he chases them away, pretending to be monster. Wow, they really are determined to drum home the fact that Keanu has this perfect family life, something he'd be pretty stupid to mess up! Already though, the acting is just awful - the whole setup feels forced, none of it feels natural at all. A crucial plot point that we do discover here though - Keanus character has not had much action in the sack recently...
His wife and kids head off to the beach for the weekend leaving Keanu to try and get on top of his workload, designing some buildings, listening to loud music and 3D printing his work. That is, until he's interrupted late at night by a couple of young girls knocking at his front door. It's raining hard and they claim that their taxi dropped them off for a party, but they think that they're in completely the wrong area. Keanu lets them in to check the party location on his iPad (their phones are soaking wet) while he calls them an Uber. They begin flirting with him, but he resists. He ends up putting their clothes in the tumble dryer, the flirting continues, he continues to resist. Until eventually.... well, lets just say that he more than makes up for the action in the sack he's been missing out on recently.
All I'll say is that things get more intense and more ridiculous after that as the girls stick around and make his life a living hell, despite his attempts to try and get rid of them. It's all really over the top and just plain stupid, but I just had to watch it right to the end to see what happens. One thing it definitely proved though - Keanu Reeves really should stick to just being John Wick. Or Ted "Theodore" Logan.