IDENTITY (2003)
a review by Evan Landon
In 2003, my mom and I went to go see this movie in the theater not knowing a thing about it, except that it was a mystery crime thriller.
What was a big deal to me was that the trailer gave you very little information and gave nothing away except for the premise: ten strangers find themselves in a rundown motel in the Nevada desert at night and in the middle of a storm: an ex-cop turned limo driver; his passenger, a Hollywood actress; a cop transporting a convicted murderer; a Vegas sex worker; a newlywed couple; a family consisting of a mother (who was hit by the limo driver and is dying), the father, and son; and the man running the motel. One-by-one, all of the characters are killed off, just like in Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None to which served as an inspiration for this film and has had its own issues with the title. Twice, in fact. If you want, go ahead and look that one up, but don't say I didn't warn you!
What I find wonderful about this movie, is that it all takes place in one location, for the most part, which is always a difficult thing to pull off. The set of the motel itself was created and filmed on Studio 27 for Sony Pictures, the very same that Wizard of Oz was filmed on. Producer Cathy Konrad had first let her husband, James Mangold, read the screenplay by Michael Cooney, who immediately wanted to direct it. As for underscoring, they tapped Angelo Badalamenti, but was replaced by Academy Award-winning composer, Alan Silvestri, giving it a very ominous tone that works on many different levels.
The casting is top notch too: John Cusack is amazing as the limo driver/ex-cop who brings a certain gravitas to the film, also serving as the main protagonist. Ray Liotta (R.I.P) gives the film a volatile element, as the cop transporting Jake Busey's character to another prison. Amanda Peet pulls most of it together, portraying the sex worker, who is quite possibly the most wholesome character. John Hawkes plays the motel manager, who has had a very good career this past decades with a lot of great indie films. John C. McGinley, Clea DuVall, Alfred Molina, and Rebecca DeMornay round out the cast that makes it easy to identify with every character. They are all fantastic.
As far as the writing goes, I think the strength of the characters is a bit weak, in the beginning. However, once the third act unfolds, it makes a lot more sense why they lacked a certain depth. I won't ruin that for you because you should definitely check this gem out.
Raking in $90 million worldwide against a $28 million budget, this flick was definitely a well-deserved success. I could watch this one over and over again and still pick up easter eggs that fly under the radar. This is how you make a taught thriller.
4 out of 5
MARLOWE (2022)
a review by Evan Landon
Who doesn't love a good noir? I know I do.
I also love a good Liam Neeson popcorn flick, but those are few and far between these days. I could not even tell you what any of his vehicles were about this past decade. He really has found his niche though, you have to admit that much!
This movie is not one of his usual movies as of recent, however, which made me want to see it. They do not make many noirs these days and Neeson is definitely a great fit for the role of private investigator in Prohibition Los Angeles, but that also serves as one of its drawbacks. When an actor is so fitting for a part, it can almost seem like they are sleepwalking through the picture.
The film's titular protagonist is actually one from whenst crime noir films were extremely popular; where one would light everyone else's cigarettes, nor matter which the danger. The character of “Marlowe” actually comes from a pulp comic from the prohibition era by an author named Raymond Chandler, who in turn co-wrote the great classic noir screenplay Double Indemnity in 1944 with Billy Wilder based on a novel by James M. Cain. This story was partitioned from the 2014 called “The Black-Eyed Blond” by John Banville, essentially keeping the character alive after the passing of its creator.
In fact, this could be considered a “standalone sequel” from the 1969 version starring James Garner and Bruce Lee; the only thing that keeps it on its own merit is that it is not a continuation of that story, titled “The Little Sister”, but is a different case altogether that did not even exist yet.
With this case, Phillip Marlowe is now a retired Los Angeles detective turned private investigator who is commissioned by a sultry, young lady to find her lover who was a prop master for one of the major motion picture studios just starting off. Well, this dude got his head ran over outside of a Bourgeoisie Hollywood country club and now this lady is saying it was not him because she saw him driving around a week or so later. What unfolds is a series of twists and turns that will turn not only the impact of the case and those involved, but the innocent lives surrounding them.
To be fair, I always hated these kind of stories that unapologetically point out that the entire story revolves around people writing a story. Stephen King (for as much as I love him) is one of the most guilty of this. I always enjoy a thematic, articulate story, but what takes me out of it is when the writer puts themselves so far into it that it takes away from the story itself. It would be like me writing about a guy who loads tractor trailers for a living, then blogs on the side on Twitter as your main character. Oh, “you're a writer?” No fucking shit. Not everyone is, so apparently, you are trying to write for writers.
Marlowe, in itself, is a wonderful noir. It beats the belts off of sub-par ones that take no notice of the afflictions, not tones, of their predecessors. I honestly like this movie a lot more than the other Neeson films that have run rampant the past decade.
This one almost offers an homage to the “Greats” that came beforehand, yet its subtlety almost rings of rewrites by studio executives that hoped for a Redbox release. Too many fingers in the pie, as Marlowe would say himself.
3 out of 5
THE WHALE (2022)
a review by Evan Landon
When we discuss films, it is usually easier discussing ones that a lot of people have seen or are continuously mocked, so a lot of reviewers go for those kind of flicks as clickbait. They are “flickbait” and I am coining that term right now!
I immediately wanted to see this movie because it had three points that set it off for me: 1) It is an A24 movie, and yeah, I am an admittedly huge fan of their movies, 2) It is a Darren Aronofsky film, who is very polarizing as a filmmaker. I think I like as many of his films as I dislike, so there is my connection/disconnect, and 3) It is a grand return to his old leading man days for Brendan Fraser that I do not think anybody was expecting. He ended up winning a bunch awards for it too, which means fuck all to me, but you could see it meant a lot to him.
Written by Samuel D. Hunter as a stage play in 2012, Aronofsky had tried to get the movie made for a decade until he found the perfect actor to play “Charlie”. Since the original play was set in 2009, Aronofsky wanted it to seem like a seismic shift in our culture, so it takes place before the pandemic around 2016. I am not sure if that setting would have changed the aspect he would of wanted, but the end product is nothing short of seismic. Maybe he thought it would take away from the concentration of the story itself, but that I do not know.
In case you have no idea what the story is about, a morbidly obese teacher in Idaho's life is rapidly coming to a close, so he tries his bestest to redeem his past actions with the daughter he abandoned 8-years-before. She is not quite accepting of his apologies, to say the least. His nurse is the only person he sees frequently, aside from a missionary who gives a great subplot that involves his theological beliefs. His ex-wife comes by to see him after she realizes the only reason he was able to get his daughter over there was because he promised to give her the inheritance he had built up. The reason he was not in their lives anymore is he left them for another man who passed away from suicide via the local religious sect's judgment of his sexual preference, which in turn was the cause of Charlie's overeating.
There is a strong theme of depression, abandonment, spiritualism, and redemption that truly makes this story enthralling enough to watch, even if the movie itself can be difficult to watch. When he eats to find whatevs he considers comfort, it truly did remind me of all those Mukbang videos that completely took over social media during the pandemic crisis, but this was written way before that craze was even a thought.
This one left me spellbound, as it did many others with all of the awards and what not, making $57.6 million against a $3 million budget. It probably would have made a lot more, but it was released during a time where nobody was really going to the theater. What is good is that you can now catch it along with others over streaming platforms.
It did drive me crazy how much his dialogue is apologies, but it is offset by the other character's dialogue and performances. That is my only gripe, but it does add to his character because there are so many insufferable people just like that.
4.5 out of 5
Pet Sematary: Bloodlines (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
Holy shit, I just realized Stephen King has no idea how to spell “cemetery.”
Y'know, when I was making my list of “Top 10 Worstest Films of 2023”, I did not get a chance to put this one in because I had not seen it yet. I had a sneaking suspicion that this one would not cut the mustard, though, but it is only fair to assess the movies I have seen. Well, surely enough, I finally watched this turd and I can easily say it would definitely had made that list.
First off, I know that some sequel bait can be fun to watch in the “oh how bad can it be?” way, but this is not that movie. Remaking old IP's is also getting tired, but that is just how Hollywood is too lazy to come up with something original. Even when it is original, they pad it with so many writers that it does not make a lick of sense. So what do they do? The newest form to save their pocket books: AI and I can almost assure you that this is a prime example. Hell, the name of the writer/director is Lyndsey Anderson Beer and I am almost positive her name is Lyndsey Anderson drinking a beer while AI does the rest. It is her first outing though, so thankfully it cannot get any lower.
There is not really anything else to say about this movie except it is a prequel to the remake of the original that was based off of a novel by Stephen King that even he disowned. The characters are so meh that you are never excited for the kills, nor rooting for any of the characters that are so forgettable that I honestly cannot tell you any of their names, even tough most of the dialogue is them saying another person's name. David Duchovny, Henry Thomas, Pam Grier, and Samantha Mathis are all in this movie too, but I could not tell you why they are there or what they are doing, much less what happens to their characters.
This actually could have been saved with some gore or interesting kills, but there is none worth even discussing because the ones you want to see have cutaways to the next scene that is so jarring, you think you missed something. *Spoiler Alert: at any time you think you missed something, you did not.
However, I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that movies of this caliber go straight to streaming these days. The bad news is that this one is getting a follow-up prequel.
0.5 out of 5
13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (2014)
a review by Evan Landon
When I was a kid, way before I got into science fiction or horror, I was really big into Tom Clancy and Richard Marcinko books. Of course, all of the kids these days have first-person shooters like Call of Duty or Overwatch, so they don't really get into books when they can virtually live it out over a gaming console. While there are some benefits to that, it kind of dullens their minds. That being said, just because they might be interested in the subject, the majority of them would never think to even pick up a book about it. However, they would watch a movie like this.
“13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi” is a 2014 historical book based on the September 11th, 2012 attack on an American consulate in Libya. It was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael Zuckoff (I hope I said that right), along with the security team members involved in the attack. He also wrote a historical book about Shangri-La that looks pretty decent, but let's not get too far off topic here.
Directed by Michael Bay, this definitely carries the same kind of feel that Bad Boys or The Rock has, but this one almost gives a hallmark to such films as Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down, which has the same sort of gravitas that it even speaks of it twice. John Krasinski continues to be a formidable force as a leading actor in this one, much more in movies like A Quiet Place and less like the American version of The Office where he played a sappy, sad sack in love. That is some good range, actually.
To be fair, the reactions to this movie when it came out was more for the overall theme of the novel itself and the glorification of covert black ops in the middle east. It is easily thrown into the same soup as Lone Survivor or No Easy Day being a factual book conveyed by the soldiers themselves trough the use of a journalist. In movies like this, you barely get a chance to get to know the characters, but that really is par for the course in these types.
As a person who loves horror movies, these are the ones that really dig deeply into the soul, as you are seeing the horrors of man directly in front of you. It is very, very different when you realize what the true menace of warfare and fear is in the certain face of doom that no thing can prepare you for.
I could not take my eyes of it once it started. That is saying something.
4 out of 5
HOUSE (1985)
a review by Evan Landon
I think it is safe to say that the poster for this 1985 comedy horror film from New World Pictures is more iconic than the Steven Miner directed picture itself is! I stand by that statement, too.
Deep down, I have a very strong familiarity with this movie. I was obviously scared of the cover that I saw on the shelves in our local Blockbuster (I think I still have my card somewhere), but when I saw the movie, I laughed at it more than I ever imagined. It's almost like if you crossed Ghostbusters, Evil Dead, and Jacob's Ladder together for a movie that is unexpectedly fun and should have been rated PG-13, but was given an R rating for no real reason I can see. I would let my child watch it, but I do not have children, so that problem works itself out. That being said, most of the crew themselves worked on the Friday the 13th film series, so they could have added a little more of that in this one.
There really is something to be said about the special effects; they are very much of the practical kind, almost in a comical way. Even the small amounts of fledgling CGI and green screen effects, it is used so sparingly that when it is implemented, it enhances the entire story. You can see it reflected in its budget, as well, to where they made $22 million against a $3 million budget. Maybe there is something to be said about that. Hmmm...
The story premise is simple: a very popular author who inherits his aunt's house after she offs herself via hanging is now troubled by the same supernatural beings she claimed to be. What ends up happening, while is writing about his experiences in Vietnam (as opposed to his usual horror novels), is multitude of experiences that not only trigger his PTSD, but memories of his dissolved marriage and longing to see their child again.
William Katt turns in a great performance as the film's protagonist, whose filmography has happily made a huge upturn over the past couple of years. Richard Moll is always a hoot for me in every B-movie, but most people recognize him from Night Court where he played “Bull” the bailiff. George Wendt plays his bestest role I can think of as a neighbor who befriends Katt as soon as he moves in. There is even a cameo from Steven Williams as a police officer there to check out who was shooting a shotgun in the area, but we all saw his ex-wife that turned into a ghoulie.
Again, I have a lot of love for this film, but there are some huge missed opportunities inside the story that gives it a profound sense of longing that is hard to pinpoint exactly. It is always there though.
House faired so well that it landed three more sequels that are very much in their own universe and have nothing to do with the original. Maybe I will review those sometime soon too, but in the meantime, if you like comedic horror movies from the 80's. Definitely check this one out. It is an unexpectedly fun time.
3 out of 5
Ghost Town (2008)
a review by Evan Landon
I am not sure how to approach this one because it could possibly be the first romcom I have ever reviewed, but I am always up for new things. Let's just say that I watched this one on accident, thinking I was recording Ghost World which is a completely different film that I should probably do after this one.
Anyways, this movie perked my interest as soon as I saw Ricky Gervais was in it, who I absolutely adore. Even if you have not watched any of his comedy specials, I am absolutely certain you heard of The Office which he created and starred Britain (then America made their own version) or his multiple award show appearances as a host where he rips in to the very stars they are celebrating. His comedy is pure genius and I love it.
This was a little strange for me because I am almost certain I have never seen him in any movie, much less the lead. I could be wrong, but I don't care enough to look that up. You can if you want.
I sounds even weirder that he chose a romantic comedy (of sorts) to be his vehicle. I say “of sorts” because it does carry a lot of darker, philosophical themes that you do not usually find in your rando rom com. Death, dentistry, the afterlife, self-realization, and redemption are at the forefront of this tale that is very spiritual in a way that is surprising, given the topics that Gervais usually brings up. That could be via the co-writer/director David Koepp, who wrote Jurassic Park, Carlito's Way, and Spider-Man to name a few, but also directed Mortdecai, Secret Window, and Stir Of Echoes to which I really liked. Gervais would have never signed up for it unless it was worthy of his time though and he turns in a stellar performance.
Ricky Gervais plays a man named “Bertram Pincus” who is an angry, bitter man who goes in for a routine colonoscopy that goes hideously wrong when he takes the anesthesia not usually given during such a procedure. Unfortunately, he finds out later that he had passed away for seven minutes because of the anesthesia, which in turn gives him the ability to see ghosts. One of the ghosts, played by Greg Kinnear, tells Pincus that he can keep all the other ghosts away if he breaks up an engagement between his widow and a human-rights lawyer who we discover is not such a bad guy. What ensues is Pincus learning to become a better person through the trials and tribulations between himself, the ghosts, and the task at hand, all while falling for the widow he is supposed to be breaking up.
Sure, that last part is definitely cheesy af, but its sincerity, stoicism, and introspection sets apart from the usual drab motif that is usually paraded around in movies of this genre.
I enjoyed this a lot, but audiences were kind of mid on it – it made $27 million against a $20 million budget that had a worldwide release, so you could say it was a bomb, unfortunately. If you like romcoms and are a deep thinker, this movie might be just right for you.
3 out of 5
The Passenger (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
It is extremely easy to get let down by movies, especially these days.
Most of everyone has been beleaguered with remakes, reshoots that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, even poorly written films because the writers that were never meant to be included had to be from studio interference that gives the film a stink of apathy and disdain that clearly conveys not only the actors, but the entire studio themselves while the ones counting the money care very little over a budget or art.
Me too. I like to find solace in the little known movies that are able to fly under the radar enough to where we can all relax and let good filmmakers do what they do best: create art. You do not need a huge, million dollar endeavor to do that. I guess the closest thing to something like that could be the new Dune movies, but I am in the middle of my thesis-esque statement on that, which I am sure will be either overlooked in its entirety or considered impressive by fans of both the films and the lore when it comes out. I am getting a bit off track here, so let's examine The Passenger for now.
It is easy to shit on “bad movies” and I know this because I made an entire podcast around it. I have even written about them because low-hanging fruit is easy. This is not that kind of movie.
I will spell out the premise for you, without spoiling anything: a young man named Bradley lives in a small town where he works at a fast food place that hardly has any business. He is asked by his manager if he wants to be an assistant manager because of his work ethic and quiet demeanor. Upon hearing this, he stands up to the bully at work who in turn makes him eat a hamburger that had been sitting there overnight. The quiet co-worker he works with then goes to the trunk of his car, grabs a shotgun, and executes everyone except for Bradley. What ensues is the two embarking on a psychological, coming-of-age trip with all of the hallmarks of a thriller that only Blumhouse can provide.
In a world of movies that refuse to miss the mark, this one them in almost every single way; I said, “almost.” There are a few glaring plot hole that stand out, but the exposition is quick to expound on. The world the characters inhabit is very much like our own and that truly brings it into focus.
What really sets this whole movie off is Kyle Gallner, who in my mind, has truly captured the taste of a great indie movie actor. He is constantly hitting it out of the park! The pacing by Carter Smith (The Ruins) is absolutely superb and every slight nuance is caught in measure, so that goes very far for him as a passionate director with a nose for what works in a movie.
I bit my thumbnail down to the bone with the experience, so this is definitely an overlooked, taught thriller if I have ever seen one. Definitely check it out!
3.5 out of 5
DEAD-ALIVE (braindead) (1992)
a review by Evan Landon
My life is split into two pieces: before I saw Dead-Alive or Braindead and after.
I don't even know how to explain just how much this little movie made by an unknown kiwi director named Peter Jackson has made my life so much better. Some peeps would go so far as to say the Lord of the Rings trilogy is his hallmark, but it's kind of been dragged through the mud with DEI and Rings of Power, so the less said about that, the better. Y'know what movie is his untouched gem? THIS ONE.
I know this gory classic as Dead-Alive because that was what it was in the neighborhood Blockbuster here in America, but it was originally titled Braindead in 1992 New Zealand. I think when you have such a fresh outlook on anything, it might be best to wander into something a little more altruistic like True Detective, but this is not that kind of popcorn flick.
There are a couple of scenes that stand out to me: obviously, the kung-fu priest has to be the greatest of all time, the basis for “Ricky” in Trailer Park Boys has to be the asshole uncle who you really want to die, yet doesn't (he does), and the entire last half hour of splatter gore that really needs to be seen in order to truly appreciate it. He uses a lawnmower face up at the end, so it gets down and dirty: BELIEVE THAT! This incredibly off-putting, controversial film its that when it comes to great special effects, you cannot get any better than the practical kind. When the peeps on staff stand at attention on set, you have something special!
The premise of it is fairly simple: Lionel lives with his over-possessive mother and she get bit by this rat-monkey, then chaos ensues. Is there a story? My words do not do this movie justice; just stop reading this now and watch the fucking movie… Oh, there is also a Kung Fu Priest fighting zombies in the name of the Lord that should always be discussed in any film. Also the dinner scene. After that, the gore is too much to even put on paper. Literally.
It was called Dead-Alive in the United States after being banned in South Korea, Singapore, and Finland because of the amount of splatter gore because a film released around the same time had the rights to “Braindead” making only $242,623 against a $3 million budget. Even though the movie bombed, it is a bonafide cult classic and launched one of the most succesful director careers of all time. If you cannot stand the most over-the-top, outlandish splatter gore, definitely take a hard pass on this one. Don't say I didn't warn you, dear viewer!
4 out of 5
CONSECRATION (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
It is always easy to make a horror movie out of religious practices. By that, I mean, the things in most organized religions, there is a case of how a person's soul is much more fragile than the corporeal body. You can see it in such movies as Rosemary's Baby, the entire The Conjuring or Exorcist franchises, probably 40-50% of horror movies, probably more, etc. But what is the link between religion and horror?
Instead of writing an essay that some prick from University of Phoenix (apologies UoP students) will rip off to pass their final essay, I will just focus on 2023's Consecration.
You can request a well made essay later in the dm's though.
Our interest in the occult of religions begs the question of what it is to be a human being; I mean, I am sure my beautiful cat, Sasha, couldn't give a fuck less about metaphysics. What we do, as human beings, is ask the question of what happened before, &/or what will happen after. Thus, our want/need to explore such topics of what we understand, or what we have been bred over time to understand. I might be taking this too deep.
This 2023 supernatural horror-thriller is set in the Scotland, on the Isle of Skye, which does give a lot to the setting and the overall mystique of the atmosphere; even though you are not there on the Moors, you know that it is right outside the doors (hehe) which also plays into the plot itself. It opens with a nun holding a gun to a random woman named “Grace” to which she starts to have weird flashbacks of nuns falling off of a cliff. What is strange is that her brother was found dead from the same kind of jump in her dreams and she goes to investigate. Upon going to investigate, she finds more and more about her estranged brother and the convent itself.
I won't give up anymore of the ghost, but it unravels very quickly & thus lets itself become nothing more than a quick “nun horror” movie that seems to be plaguing our mainstream horror movies. It's strange how very little of plot can send little or nothing as far as a story just to make a film that is easily forgettable.
It does have some good qualities though; it is definitely not under budget with the production, as it spent most of its $2 million budget on wandering around, trying to figure out a mystery that makes little to no sense. Jena Malone is always amazing to me, so I will always buy a ticket and Danny Huston is compelling as an actor in everything he does. It doesn't really even pick up steam until the last 20 minutes, so I would suggest to just start there and skip a snoozefest.
It is extremely well shot, but not very well-paced, which kind of makes you think about what else you could be doing whilst watching it. Like I stated before, this trope is very tired, yet I do not think they will abandon themes such as these any time soon.
2 out of 5
HAUNT (2019)
a review by Evan Landon
In a lot of ways, haunted house movies that are actually haunted are a bit of a tired trope, but this definitely is NOT that kind of movie. You can never tell what kind of horror movie you are going to get when it has an obscure title like Haunt (unless you watched the trailers, which I did not) because that could mean anything: a ghost, a person who thinks they are a ghost, a group who is haunted, etc. This one falls under the category of a “haunted house”, to which I suppose it is.
I'll give you the *spoiler free version because this movie is so much better if you watch it with no knowledge of what it is actually about: a group of college kids go to a Halloween party, then when it is over, they decide to hit up the only haunted house with a one star rating. Turns out that was a bad idea because this house is haunted… with demonic killers!
After the first 20 minutes, the cat is out of the bag that this is NOT your usual “haunted house”, however it is an “extreme haunted house”, to which it is referred to multiple times throughout. It turns out it really is not that either as the film progresses because it turns into a macabre game of “cat and mouse” with physical grotesqueries and some awesomely gruesome kills.
At first, I thought this would turn out to be some found footage bullshit knock-off of Hell House LLC, so my expectations were very low, but this one turned out to be a Saw or Hostel-type movie that makes a lot of since because it is produced by none other than Eli Roth. Newcomers Scott Beck and Bryan Wood take the directors seat for their second time as writer/directors after 2015's Nightlight which actually was a found footage film. The tandem did write 2018's A Quiet Place in between which was helmed by John Krasinski to critical and audience acclaim. They did not follow up very strong with 2023's 65 starring Adam Driver which I kind of assumed was the film version of the game Nintendo 64 game, “Turok”, but that has never been confirmed. They did write the screenplay for 2023's The Boogeyman based off a Stephen King story which I have not seen yet, so stay tuned for my thoughts on that. They will be back to write and direct another feature later this year called “Heretic” that does not have a release date yet.
Like I said, this one ticked all of my boxes for everything except a few things: the story is pretty weak because you can pretty much figure out what is going to happen from the first scene and the characters are not fleshed out very well. Katie Stephens does an alright job as the protagonist, “Harper”, and the other actors do just fine for what they have to work with, but again, it would have benefitted the movie much more if we were more invested in the characters overall. There was a character named “Evan” (which always throws me off a bit) who is dressed up as the front of a human centipede for Halloween that made me chuckle. Despite the glaring plot holes, such as how they find the haunted house in the first place, or why the killers are doing what they are doing to random people, it is worth the watch for the killer setting and cinematography, not to mention the gory deaths.
With a budget of $5 million and only turning in a worldwide gross of $2.4 million upon limited release, Haunt did not light up the box office, thus making it a box office bomb. You get that with limited releases though. Despite that, this Iowa born-and-raised duo are in talks for a sequel, so that is definitely something to look forward to. Hopefully, it gets a much better turnout than its predecessor in the multiplex or streaming. Definitely worth checking out.
3 out of 5
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
The last Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie I reviewed was actually the latest Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie that was made, “Out Of The Shadows”, to which I do remember that I did not like. It's weird how many different iterations there have been made from this treasured franchise, now that I think about it. I think there are the three live action movies, those two CGI Michael Bay disasters, two animated features, four animated series, a short-lived live action show, a live concert with them playing music (seriously), not to mention god knows how many video games and comic books they have released throughout the years. So that is a lot of product off of one intellectual property. Now, there is this animated feature to add to that extensive list.
Let's just focus on this one for now.
I have my own gripes with Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg's slew of nonsensical, arbitrary movies going back like twenty something years, however I don't feel that ever-looming, non-entertaining, unfunny cloud is hanging over this one. It is animated and they let actual teenagers have a little free reign when it comes to the script, and it shows. Throw in some heavy hitters like Jackie Chan, Ice Cube, John Cena, and Paul Rudd to round it out and you have yourself a very diverse cast with a lot of promise. Speaking of diversity, they made the awkward decision to make April O'Neil a chunky, black teenager with dreads, but I won't get into that because it really is not worth it. That's just par for the course in Hollywood or Disney these days and believe it or not, after the first initial shock, it kind of ends up fitting into the narrative they are trying to tell. In a way, it harkens back to what her character was in the original Eastman & Laird comics. If Kevin Eastman can even show up in this movie himself, who are we to bitch or complain about it?!
Here are the things I liked about it: Big shout-out to the animation here because it is like nothing else and it really reminded my of how they did the animated Spider-man movies or that Puss In Boots flick that were both very well-liked. All very original, in that regard. Again, I liked the use of actual teenagers to voice the turtles giving it the focus on the “teenage” part of the monicker. They never really put that much focus on their level of adolescent immaturity that every teenager comes complete with in the past incarnations. The soundtrack is pretty awesome with a few remixes of popular songs against some choice hip hop tracks from the past and present to give it a certain gravitas that fits like a glove. Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails fame even fills in the rest of the score making it almost seamless between those needle drop songs. It also focuses on the technology of our time with Splinter texting the turtles from his smart phone, which was a very bold choice, to say the least.
What I did NOT appreciate was the liberties they took with the story (i.e, that April O'Neil thing), but changing the Baxter Stockman story to where he created a humanoid fly creature called “Superfly” instead of turning into it for some reason that really did not make a lick of sense to me. There also was not a very clear cut narrative to follow, but that was never a strong suit for any TMNT to begin with, but they do have a subplot from the very start about how they wish to be above ground with the population of humans and being accepted that I think is a little bit of a tired trope these days. Aside from the way the turtles look, there is not really any character traits to tell the turtles apart either. They literally all act the same way, say the same things, so any line of dialogue could be drawn out of a hat as to which one is going to say it. That sort of thing kind of makes it bland to me, but the four kids voicing them seem to be having a good time vibing off each other, so that makes it feel earnest.
The critical response is almost identical as the audience that is generally favorable. Resting at ninety-nine minutes and pulling in $180 million against a $70 million budget, it did fine enough to entertain a sequel which is good because they teased it at the end anyways. Who knows if that will ever happen though because sometimes a lot of so-called sequels never make it out the door. It is an easy watch for both kids and adults at the same time, especially if said adults want a trip down nostalgia lane. Just watch out for how contemporized they made it for a modern audience. It is definitely way better than those Michael Bay renditions that seem to have scrapped their third entry and choosing to go in this direction instead. Good call.
3 out of 5
Asteroid City (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
“You can't wake up if you don't fall asleep...”
I do enjoy Wes Anderson flicks. I really do. They have an artistic quality that is almost so synonymous, it should be it's own word; like “Orwellian” or “Kubrickian”... “Andersonian”? By the way, why haven't we had a Wes Anderson & Nicolas Cage team up?! Holy shit, that would write itself!
That being said, I am not entirely sure where that this would line up in my favorite Wes Anderson flicks. Maybe I will make that list someday, but that's not why I am writing this review. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why I write reviews, but it is something I do anyways.
I kind of hesitated putting this on my “Bestest” or “Worstest” lists of 2023 for a few reasons:
I did not watch it yet.
I kind of knew where it was gonna go, as far as the plot was concerned.
I knew it was gonna be polarizing to say the least. Whenever you get a movie that every pseudo-intelligent “cinemaphile” adores, I am usually the first one to roll my eyes, but I think everyone kinda does that when that happens. Being a pretentious dickhead that certain websites will give $20 for their opinion does not give you clout any in my mind, nor any sane person who actually cares about what they consider art nouveau is.
I'm not going to go into that kinda rant like now, so I'm going to focus on Asteroid City, to which I can lazily say Wesley put just as much emphasis on this as he usually does which is about as much work as he puts into most of his work these days. Believe it or not, I think the whole backdrop that he conjured up where it's a stage play of people playing their own characters is actually pretty brilliant. Letting his cavalcade of actors roam with their characters is an easy thing to do, but I think he has been doing coast on this for a while now. He has a comfortable little bubble and he knows how to use it, so I won't get on his case about that even though you should listen to his rants at his production crew that get captured on disc because every movie made after 1930 has sound that is recorded. I promise that he wouldn't speak to any of his actors that way.
This was just garbled and boring for me because I honestly kept being taken out of which character was whom, what their true artifice or endeavor is, nor why I should even care about any of them to begin with. It has truly become “style over substance” for Weslenderson nowadays and I think I'm going to trademark that, or not because I don't really care about his movies that much anymore.
It's not his best work, but not his worst either and while it’s not the best movie I saw from last year, it’s not the worst either. The characters are as quirky as the sets and editing, but like I said, it feels like he is phoning this one in. Confusing in its attempt to be stylish, the whole thing comes off like they are making it up as they go. It’s the definition of “mid”.
2.5 out of 5
Top 10 Worstest Films of 2023
a review by Evan Landon
When I was doing my Top 10 Bestest Films of 2023, there were a bunch of movies I had yet to see; so within my arduous journey, I stumbled upon an equal amount of gems and duds. Not every movie you watch or hear about is going to be amazing (unless a certain vegetable of a certain variety is shelling out $20 per article. I will never get over that), but I like to believe more than 50% of the ones that are lucky enough to be made are worth seeing. So, since I did my Top 10 Bestest Films of 2023, it is only fitting that I gave the lesser other half a what for.
Side Note: this list will be a lot like any other review I do because I am not going to mention any of the movies I did not actually watch. I only talk about movies I have seen and the movies I have seen are ones I wanted to watch, so there will be NO dog piling on any big budget movies because my lame ass is on a budget. It hurts to rank these because I honestly either wanted these movies to be good or they just missed the mark horrifically bad or not bad enough. I also decided not to put any other movies from this year that I have already reviewed.
Here are my Top 10 Worstest Films of 2023:
10) IT'S A WONDERFUL KNIFE – It's really going to be sad when the whole genre of holiday slashers goes away when we both know that the holiday slasher movies are NEVER going away! If they started 40 some odd years ago with “Black Christmas”, there will be no shortage of these films for the next 40 years, at least. It's kind of like a woke Canadian version of “Happy Death Day” with the main premise being “It's a Wonderful Life” (get it..?), but a slasher flick. It's so confusing in its plot and drab dialogue that you wonder if they were just making it up as they went along. You will see a lot of that in this list.
9) COCAINE BEAR – What a shocker that this one did not hit the mark. I mean that! This has all of the qualities that I love and admire: cocaine and a bear who snorts it, then mauls people. What's not to love?! Needless to say, a lot. Another time that an awesome premise falters in storytelling. It is Ray Liotta’s last movie though and they do dedicate it to him, so that could be a saving grace. Maybe. The expectations outweigh most of what my gripes are, but I have a strong feeling that most of it ended up on the cutting room floor because if you have no character development, it ends up being just that: barely a story.
8) THE POPE'S EXORCIST – These exorcism movies are really tired and played out tropes. Some are worse than others that have also made this nefarious list, but we will get there soon enough. Believe that! I did go into this one with my bag of popcorn and gummies in high hopes, howevs, after seeing Russell Crowe himself do an interview with The Critical Drinker and thought to myself, “Self, maybe you are being too harsh on these kinda flicks.” Surely enough, I was wrong, so much so that I know Drinker is biting his tongue not to talk about how bad this movie was. There's only one cool part at the end where a person literally explodes, but you can just catch that shit on YouTube. I think it was based on a book? I don't know. It's definitely based. Huge missed opportunity here.
7) CHILDREN OF THE CORN – Speaking of worn out tropes, can we stop remaking fucking movies already? It's almost as if every Hollywood executive sees something eye catching and just says, “Oh, I recognize that! Let's slap the same name on it and just recycle the recipe.” There you go. I'm not going to waste any more time on this pile of dogshit. “Children Of The Corn” didn't even really do that well in the first place which is continuously baffling because it has like a dozen sequels.
6) TOTALLY KILLER – Oh wait, I forgot to mention how many “time-travelling-neuvo-slashers” are trying to cash in. Welcome to the genre that shouldn't have existed, nor will ever die. If this gory, I would probably show it to somebody as an introduction horror movie but this lacks not only emotional or character depth that you honestly shouldn't be looking for in dreck like this. I was bated in by Sally Draper, but then remembered the actress was like six when she was in that role, so whatevs. Nothing against her. It is also made by the same that did “Happy Death Day” and “M3GAN”, so that would account for something if everyone else wasn’t trying to beat them to the punch, but this was a chore to watch. My advice is to skip it.
5) LEAVE THE WORLD BEHIND – What in the blistering fuck is this shit?! I honestly haven't felt more outrage since the latest Terminator bullshit they tried to feed me a few years ago. This was a novel. I want you to think about this when you're watching it. There is like Academy Award Winners in this; i.e, Julia Roberts, Mahershala Ali, I think Kevin Bacon is in it... Two and a half hours of nonsense directed at people I'm supposed to give a fuck about without any dynamics, acts, or storytelling at any time. Like I said, this is a novel. Think about that when you are watching this.
4) KNOCK AT THE CABIN – I don't want to say all of these movies suck all the time, but at this point you havta wonder what the fuck anyone is thinking getting a movie made by M. Night Shyamalan that is actually worth a shit. I'm sure he's a great guy and all, but seriously, dude. Seriously. This is also an apocalyptic movie that was made from a book that tries their hardest to contain it in fear of conservatives attacking liberals in some of the most inane, ridiculous exposition imaginable. Ron Weasley and Batista are in it too for some unknown reason, but I heard the book was worth reading from a few friends. That makes this another huge miss off something based off a book. I want you to remember that.
3) THE MACHINE – I am fairly sure that Bert Kreischer has me blocked, but if he hasn't yet, let's make this shit happen 2024! I think I got thru the first 3 scenes and decided suicide wasn't an option, so muscled through a few more. It’s based off Bert Kreischer’s made up story about being on some train with his Russian language class and ended up wanted by the Russian mob or some shit. He is the same guy who gives out tickets for people to see him in arenas when no one should or actively knows who he is, then will shit himself on stage to get internet views. No one wants to die over this movie. Please. Just don't watch it.
2) EXORCIST: BELIEVER – I told you. I fucking told you there was a worse “exorcism” movie somewhere lurking around. It's a sequel or whatevs, I don't even know or care anymore. Ugggh... Yknow what, I don't care. Watch it. Go ahead. If you have no idea what “The Exorcist” is, or is about, don't watch this shit. Seriously. Just watch the original again, or for the first time, and actually enjoy a decent movie. No this was not a book, but it is based off a based movie that is just basic that maybe this was a book at one time. There's no real gore either. I don't know, I feel like I could write an entire essay about how this abomination should never be stricken from public viewing. It should be used as punishable hot sauce dumped in somebody's eyeballs for thinking this is acceptable for trying to forget what happened last year. You should remember. It's important.
1) WINNIE THE POOH: BLOOD & HONEY – I fucking watched this movie. I have never hated my life more than ever watching it. I don't even want to ruin my search history finding out who made it or how much it made. Who gives a shit? They probably are making a sequel. A behind-the-scenes documentary of what these assholes were thinking would probably be more interesting. The kills are as bad as the characters for someone who waited for the rights to get back to public domain to use for God-awful dreck like this. Fuck off, Winnie The Pooh! Quote me. I'm done.
Top 10 Bestest Films of 2023
a review by Evan Landon
Welp. Everyone else is doing a Top 10 Films of 2023 and we all know I'm not strong enough to stand up against the trends, so here we are. I would say “again”, but I don't think I've ever done one officially. Strange to start one this year, but maybe that means the inaugural annual Top 10 films of said year will be the bestest. Maybe I will just call it that.
Before I jump in head first without a paddle, I'll just my own personal guidelines and rules for myself from this point on: I will NOT be grading any movies that I have not seen, nor will I be ranking any big budget movies (which shouldn't be hard because all of them sucked) because a) I probably didn't see them, & b) they don't need any more help.
Here are my Top 10 Bestest Films of 2023:
10) EVIL DEAD RISE – This one I struggled with, but only because I thought it would be a lot higher in the list. In most cases, any prequel, sequel, reboot, or spinoff of any kind would render me uneasy. After watching “The Hole In The Ground” by Irish writer/director Lee Cronin when that came out, I was definitely looking forward to what he would do next. Obviously, the writing comes off nothing more than fan-fiction, but what really salvages this for me is how original of a script and special effects they were able to turn out with their hands already tied. Going up against a budget of $19 million and recouping $146 million world wide, I doubt this will be that last we see of this wonderful franchise.
9) THE IRON CLAW – Thinking about the entire trails and tribulations that surrounded the Von Erichs, I have no idea the frenzy that they endured. I am an admitted professional 'rasslin fan and dear god, this story is hard to take in. I won't go too far into it, but this true life tale is difficult to even read much less depicted in a tasteful manner, but for whatevs reason writer/director Sean Durkin is able to translate it to the screen. The physical aspects of the phenomenal work all four playing the brothers do is truly an accomplishment in itself. Maybe drug test those guys.
8) THE HOLDOVERS – Alexander Payne has really come a long way. By that, I mean he has truly encapsulated what he set out to do in his earlier films, such as “About Schmidt”, “Sideways”, and “The Descendants” to name a few. Teaming up again with Paul Giamatti, this movie will definitely be considered an overlooked Christmas classic in the coming years. With superhero and rage-bait movies contemporizing the cinematic forefront these days, why couldn't this become the new “Harold & Maude” or “Dead Poets Society” that is often spoken to in reverence decades later? What, did you think this whole list was going to be horror movies?! For shame.
7) THE KILLER – Gone are the days of when people would rather see a David Fincher film in the theater, but no one really had a chance with this diamond in the rough as it was instantly shelved into streaming. The writer/director/producer has been noted for many stalwarts that are universally adored, such as “Se7en”, “The Game”, and “Fight Club” to name a quick few. I would say this movie is up there in consideration for some of his bestest works with a very affable Michael Fassbender playing the titular character and narrator. Netflix is becoming good at making some pretty awesome movies. Not all of them, but some.
6) THANKSGIVING – Let's just say that I've had a very laborious relationship with Eli Roth movies; i.e., “Hostel”, “The Green Inferno”, and “Knock Knock”, but I think he has really turned a page into what he is as a filmmaker with just having fun with the entirety of the concepts he creates. I mean, the idea came from a make believe trailer he made for the Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez hybrid they affectionately called “Grindhouse” to float between “Death Proof” and “Planet Terror” (to which the former, I absolutely adore). Finally finding his stride between nostalgia, contemporary gore, and dark comedy has truly benefited the book of Eli.
5) SALTBURN – I truly wanted to put this one in the Top 5, so there it is. The story is fantastic, the acting is definitely on par, and it could quite possibly define a new era of movies just like this. I wouldn't say that is the problem though; it almost seems like this movie loses itself within the first two acts to go for bold, reprehensible shock instead of the character study that it tries so hard to deliver, yet falls short. Emeral Fennell may be a blossoming new filmmaker to keep an eye on after scoring really big with her first film, “Promising Young Woman” which I absolutely loved. You know I love substance above garnish, but when you look at the actors that are only defined in shallow morals, there really is nothing to grasp onto. Maybe that's its point.
4) TALK TO ME – Where do these YouTubers get off making movies this damn good?! It was probably filmed on an iPhone through on Instagram filter, but you would never notice because the cinematography is almost flawless. What I was really impressed with was the acting, the story, and the overall execution of such a simple premise that usually misses the mark, but this was fantastic and deserves all the recognition it has received.
3) INFINITY POOL – Coming into 2023, I really thought this would be the bestest movie of the entire year. I was just a little off because I was not aware of the next two, but this horny little body horror gem from Brandon Cronenberg (son of David) delivered on all fronts for me. Pun definitely intended there. When the gore, effects, acting, and story are hitting on all cylanders at the same time, it takes a certain kind of magic that cannot be taught. Mia Goth continues to spellbind me with every performance and Alexander Skarsgard has absolutely no ceiling as an actor. Movies like this are not celebrated as much as they should be.
2) POOR THINGS – Greek filmmaker Yorgos Lanthimos really knocked this shit out of the park, in my humble opinion. I don't usually listen to people when they try to sell me on some international indie darling, but holy hell did this one blindside me! I loved his two other movies before this one for the same reasons, “The Lobster” and “The Killing of a Sacred Deer” which is why I am not at all surprised that this one was equally as good, if not better. Emma Stone turns in a fantastic performance, as does Willem Dafoe who plays up the Dr. Frankenstein part with warmth, complexity, and vulnerability that only he can. Mark Ruffalo is also good, but I've never been much of a fan. Maybe he found a despicable character that almost seems tailor-made for his staunch ability to not act, yet still get roles. The whole world is wildly reminiscent of Terry Gilliam and that is no knock against any filmmaker in any sense.
1) WHEN EVIL LURKS – What else could it possibly be? When our Monster Fam (yes, it is called that) wound up playing this Argentinian supernatural/psychological body horror over Discord in complete reverence, I had no idea what to expect. What followed was being immediately transported to a world of demons that are so frequent, it seems like an entire country is aware of them and even have laws on how to dispose of them. The Winchesters would have a had a field day, but the problem for everyone in this universe is that The Winchesters aren't around to take care of it the right way. What ensues is a scramble to not only contain an enemy that you cannot see, but can become anyone at any point. Every single scene in this movie is damn good, I could probably rewatch it in my head every single day of the week. Demián Rugna does a fantastic job of bringing all of this together almost seamlessly without skimping on the character development that truly sells the most macabre parts. I didn't see it in English, so if you hate subtitles, I don't think it even matters because of how visceral it is. So good, I knew up until the very end that this was my absolute favorite.
Silent Night (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
There are a lot of ways to make a holiday movie: i.e., throw a paltry, mundanely realistic title at the beginning of a movie that barely scratches the surface of what a film should suppose to presuppose, then throw in tropes that mean absolutely nothing to the overall feeling of the film itself. It almost becomes a lampoon of the feature that could be seen through a bed sheet of irreverence that only a farcical feature could abide by in order to grant it a pass for its outlandishness, but only because it carries the title of the hallmark, but nothing of the theme.
Is Silent Night such a movie? Well... That's iffy.
I think in its broadest respects, Silent Night harkens back to some of the greatest drive-in, b-movies of old that became instant classics amongst the truly devout. The Rutger Hauer classic Blind Fury comes instantly to mind in this fray, but that is not a holiday movie, even in the least bit.
So... what exactly constitutes a “holiday movie”? Is it because it encapsulates what we all think of when it comes to the movie or series, or is it something deeper? Is it a monicker you throw on a movie that really has zero to little of what the movie is, or is it something that reminds you of themes that seem forgotten?
Silent Night has a strange way of doing both.
The things we consider so categorically of a myth or cultural consideration, what is it that goes beyond the haunting aspect of what we desire, regret, forget, or even bluster? Our eyes are constantly trained on what is and what could be, but not what IS. I think that could be the deepest cut of all; we care more about the image than the intricacy. What passes for something that “is, or could never be” is lackadaisically piled in with “thanks for consideration” or “best wishes”. Is that what we celebrate anything for? Is that what we believe?
This movie posits a very simple question: “What would YOU do?”
The premise that a benign, sullen man that becomes deaf after chasing down his children's killers and killing one of them becomes enraged enough to fight the very spirit of death to anything that could ever stop him. Left for dead, he makes a miraculous return to the land of the living. Thus, after training for 365 days, he comes back to take action against those very killers and exact revenge against his son's death, which does definitely happen.
What's my opinion? Let's let action do the talking. We usually let exposition garner favorability when it comes to how we discern what is acceptable or unacceptable. What makes this movie awesome is this movie has ZERO dialogue! Thus, the name “Silent Night”. Duhr! That takes a lot of effort to pull off something so intriguing and John Woo definitely makes a great return by telling a cohesive and detailed story without any dialogue. Joel Kinneman also served a producer, so you can definitely feel the care and attention that went into this.
All in all, I really enjoyed this movie and am looking forward to many more viewings for Christmases to come to find more things that I definitely missed in the theater.
3.5 out of 5
Fire Island (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
I know what you might be thinking; why would Evan review a gay romantic comedy based on Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice from last year starring Margaret Cho for his latest review? Wouldn't he rather pick a gay, obscure, B-horror film from this year instead? Well, you are in luck because both of those statements are correct... Sort of.
Fire Island is a movie by the same name that came out this year to little or no fanfare or advertising which means almost nobody knows it exists. Hell, I don't even know how I found it, yet here we are.
The plot is a relatively simple one; a gay man goes with a straight and lesbian couple to Fire Island (well known for its gay and lesbian villages) to get his mind off an ex-boyfriend who killed himself during the COVID crisis a few years before. The only catch is that there is a killer on the loose who may or may not have been responsible for the slayings years earlier. YIKES!
Those sound like some pretty good plot points with a lot of promise, right?!
The problem is that instead of spending extra time on the character development, or why any of these characters are worth even giving a shit about, the movie spends its time trying to build tension around a killer who is also not very well fleshed out amidst all the partying and sex that serves to shock more than warrant any danger. The mood shifts so abnormally, you easily forget what kind of movie you are even watching. The death scenes aren't even that memorable (aside from maybe one) and the twist at the end seems very lazy and not at all interesting. But there sure is a lot of fucking! Geez.
The finer points are the acting and the cinematography that you can tell is definitely where this movie’s money was spent. The sound is fine, aside from some editing, and the song the main character plays is fine if you are into that kind of music. It is great to see representation from the LGBTQ community and the plot is definitely interesting enough to attempt, so that isn't at all the problem here. You can have everything look great on paper, but if the story is so flimsy that it disintegrates before your eyes and the characters aren't even strong enough to like or dislike, the movie is going to suck in its execution every time.
I had to look up if this was a Blumhouse movie (it wasn't), but maybe if it was in better hands, it would have been great. Maybe it will get their attention though, so maybe it isn't a total loss. We’ll have to wait and see.
1 out of 5
Bringing Out The Dead (1999)
a review by Evan Landon
I've talked at nauseam about movies that I dislike and maybe should have not been made (to which, by the way, there are so many that it's just smashing low hanging fruit), but that becomes so irritable that I wonder why I even bother reviewing anything. The drab discourse of cinematic failures are so rampant these days that my brain becomes numb after I think about how much money a studio spent on such tepid, high demand, ostentatious droves of pandering to the modern audiences that the entire plot of a movie gets lost on me. That's not a good thing. The love of a great cinematic piece is almost the heart and soul of our very nature to understand meaning in ourselves, our friends, our families, even our livelihoods.
That brings me neatly to the point of the very film I am speaking of, Bringing Out The Dead, a wonderfully shot and crafted little film by a certain Martin Scorsese that could be considered his biggest bomb of all time. How many great films can one man do to where a movie like this one bombs? Goes to show you that not every pitch you are thrown when you come up to bat will be a home run. The endearing part about this one might just be the fact that it wasn't a hit. We put so much emphasis on how much a movie makes for it to be considered “good” when some of the most enjoyable movies are ones that gain a following afterwards. I wouldn't go so far as to say that is what this one is, but I would definitely put it up for consideration as a next cult classic.
The plot is a relatively simple one: a paramedic named Frank (played by the ghostly visage of one Nicolas Cage) is so strung out from bringing in every sort of patient in Manhattan that he sees the ghost of the first of many botched resuscitations, Rose, and descends into madness from insomnia, depression, uppers, downers, and a host of partners that will drive him to the next stop which could just be his last glimmer of sanity. Simple, right? Hehehe...
The greatest part of such a story like this is how each actor paints this mosaic with their own tools: John Goodman is his first partner who are called to a cardiac arrest patient whom Frank finds a strange infatuation with his daughter played by Patricia Arquette named Mary, Ving Rhames who plays a very religious yet equally off-kilter paramedic who drinks on the job, and Tom Sizemore in probably my favorite role he ever played as the one partner nobody wants to ride with. There are also a slew of actors that elevate this film, but no one as much as Cliff Curtis who plays a drug dealer that Mary depends upon. I had to mention that because he really stands out.
With a kicking soundtrack and lighting to accompany this drug-induced take on the Joe Connelly novel of the same name, you can almost feel the exhaustion and defeat from Nicolas Cage in only a way that he can. Throw Martin Scorsese in there and you have a movie, my friend. It just seems a little incoherent at times, but again, maybe that is its endearing quality.
At a budget of $32 million and only pulling in $16.8 million, it just goes to show that movies are not always a success on name recognition alone, but that does not make it a bad movie.
3.5 out of 5
5 Nights at Freddy’s (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
Let's just start off with this: LOL
I fucking love it when those big budget movies get taken down by a low to mid-budget horror movie. Gone are the days when just because you light your money on fire in front of the audience that they will show up in droves to watch what can only be described by Martin Scorcese as “theme parks” and “not cinema” to which I completely agree.
Let's not start considering this one any better just yet though. It is definitely more of an amusement park ride than any Transformers or Marvel movie could possibly hold a light to Goodfellas or The Departed on. Why? Let's break that down then, shall we...
Five Nights at Freddy's is a pc game from 2014 that spurned from a christian, family-friendly game called “Chipper & Sons Lumber Company” where the characters scared the players because they looked like “scary animatronic animals” and the developer, Scott Cawthorn, had a brilliant idea to make a scary horror game using the same algorithm. Genius level shit, right there.
Carrying on for three more games, the game focused on a security guard who finds himself working overnight at a Showbiz Pizza or Chuck E. Cheese knock-off called “Freddy's Fazbear's Pizza” featuring animatronic animals playing songs for children whilst eating subpar pizza, sodas, and playing 8-bit arcade games. I was a Showbiz Pizza kid, myself. It was the first time I had been introduced to dry ice because some of the savvy motivated personnel decided to leave it out for a 4 year-old to pick up. Let's just say that it didn't go very well, but it probably had more gore than Five Nights at Freddy's did.
For a point and click computer game, you never got any character development; instead, if you were not paying attention to how close the evil animatronics were approaching the security room via monitors, you would get run up on with a wonderful jump scare. We see a lot more movies based on video games these days which could be the next biggest fad since comic book movies do not seem to have the same appeal that they used to, but one thing that has always hindered that genre has been the writing. You can see how difficult it was to come up with a story for Double Dragon when all you got from the game was a girl gets captured, then you and your brother go around kicking random people. It's up to a writer or team of writers to fill in the blanks while staying true to whatever that game was even about.
That brings me to my biggest gripe about this movie: the plot. Like I said, there isn't really one from the game to destroy, but the one they shoehorned in tries too hard and not hard enough which is almost admirable in its failure. The characters are so dry to where the writers want you to care about them just for the fact that it's a story about a dysfunctional family dynamic that an older brother is going to lose custody of his sister if he can't hold down a job because their aunt wants the custody payments. To be honest, with the age difference and stakes, it would have made more sense if it was his daughter. His career counselor then sends him to be a security guard at Freddy's, there is a mysterious cop who may or may not be letting on what she knows, and some kids who the aunt hires to break in just for a body count that makes no sense either to round out the actors. Matthew Lillard and Mary Stuart Masterson are completely unrecognizable and wasted on this.
Yeah, that's really all I wish to remember about it.
Again, I think it's great to see a low budget movie like this one fair better than The Flash, The Marvels, Ant-Man: Quantumania, or Indiana Jones: Dial of Dysentary, but I would have felt the same way if it was any movie that didn't spend over $200 million dollars instead of giving either what fans want or have some weird agenda hiding behind those dollar signs.
Congrats to Jason Blum and director Emma Tammi for pulling in over $200 million against a $20 million budget and it's still in theaters! That's a success any way you spell it.
2 out of 5
The Sadness (2021)
a review by Evan Landon
Oh man... Where do I start with this one?
I guess I should start by stating that this is one the most extreme horror movies of our time. If the X-Rating was still around, it would definitely fall under that category. I am surprised they didn't even break out the oft used NC-17 for this gory masterpiece, but because it was made in Taiwan it earned a NR rating which means “Not Rated” which really isn't even a rating if you think about it. It's basically the existential version of a rating, but I'm not a big fan of rating systems anyways. Fuck it. Moving on.
The Sadness is a 2021 Taiwanese body horror film, although it almost could be compared to a zombie flick, directed by Canadian filmmaker Rob Jabbaz in his feature film debut. Yes, he is a Canadian, so it almost begs the question of how he was not able to make it there. It was screened in Switzerland and Canada before it was released to American audiences via Shudder. I am sure they will never show it on AMC even though they do own the Shudder application because they would probably only be able to show 5 minutes of it.
If this was made 40 or 50 years ago, this would definitely be in a drive-in theater or the back row of Blockbuster in the 90's which is not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, that is usually where I would find my faves, so I will actually give that a thumbs up where other critics would pan it. We hardly ever agree on anything though because I am not paid to change my opinions, nor which movie I want to talk about. Go huff a post, Dwight Brown.
I wont go into gritty details about the movie, but let's just say some of these events must be seen to fully understand how depraved they are. There is one scene that is notorious in our horror film Discord group (which is whom I watched this with over livestream for the first time) and if you don't have an awesome watch-a-long group yourself, I suggest you find one because it is some of the most fun you can have watching movies with others. Feel free to make your own and send me the usual invite. I might show up. Either way, if you ever look up what scene it is, you will see it is definitely the first one that comes up. If you know, you know!
I usually go on about plot lines, underlying tones, nuances, and shit like alliteration to really understand, but there really is not a whole lot of that. Never let story get in the way of a good movie!
At ninety-nine minutes, The Sadness is a little difficult to figure what the profit was against expenditure, but I am not as worried about that as I am that this movie may be banned everywhere sometime soon – so see it now before it's gone.
This one is NOT for the weak of stomach! That's the only warning I will give.
3 out of 5