Never Too Young to Die, an '80s action movie starring John Stamos, Gene Simmons, Vanity, and George Lazenby. Gene Simmons as a transgender nigh club singer and supervillain who kills people with his long fingernail is maybe the best worst thing I've seen in a long time. How this has slipped past Rifftrax is ridiculous. Very worth watching, especially if you're semi-lucid.
Bad Day for the Cut (2017)
Donal (Nigel O'Neill) is a middle aged farmer, living in the quiet Irish countryside with his mother Florence (Stella McCusker). One evening, Donal awakens from a drunken slumber to his mother's cry for help, discovering her murdered. Days later, he is attacked in his barn by two masked assailants, killing one and holding the other, Polish immigrant Bartosz (Josef Pawlowski), hostage as he partakes on a quest for both revenge...and answers.
With most revenge tales, the focus is on the retributive violence, glorifying it so the audience feels better for the protagonist(s) engaging in street level justice. Where this breaks from the norm is in how it focuses on the violence. Donal, though strong and fueled by anger over his mother's murder, is not superhuman nor is he invulnerable. His plans routinely fall to pieces and his partnership with Bartosz is revealed to be based on piles of lies.
In fact, the consistent twists and turns in the story are both a boon and a detriment to itself. Upon learning of his mother's past, Donal is forced to examine whether he should close the cycle of violence and allow it to consume him or learn to forgive, providing a nuanced take on the classic tropes.
Unfortunately, this also exposes the film's greatest flaw, as the third act devolves into a blend of clichés and, just as things begin to move forward and offer true closure to the characters, it ends. There is no satisfying conclusion nor even a hint of one coming ahead, the credits rolling following one of the most intense scenes. Add to that a slew of mediocre performances and some pacing issues, and we have a film that could be so much more. 6.5/10
Sweet Home (2015)
Lawyer Alicia (Ingrid Garcia-Jonsson), hoping to make boyfriend Simon's (Bruno Sevilla) birthday a memorable one, steals the keys to a nearly abandoned apartment building after meeting with its sole remaining resident, Ramon (José María Blanco), regarding his suspicions that the landlord is using illegal methods to evict him. After bringing Simon into a ground floor apartment, Alicia awakens to find the front doors chained shut and Ramon murdered in his bed, with the killers not far away.
I've had a minor infatuation with Spanish apartment buildings since seeing REC for the first time. Their layouts are spacious and magnificent, at least the ones on display, but the old buildings are also ripe for horror scenarios. The building plays just as big a role in the story as the characters do, perhaps even more so given the motivations behind the murders. Its shoddy wiring factors into several plot points and the grand staircase provides instant tension during scenes where Alicia and Simon attempt to flee.
In some ways this is a more believable take on You're Next, doing away with completely unnecessary side characters and proving to be very utilitarian in its approach. By the time El Liquidador appears to deal with the witnesses personally, the protagonists have already suffered greatly, only to find the odds stacking ever increasingly against them.
Directed perfectly by Rafa Martinez, the tone never falters, with only the performance of the lead serving as a detriment. What part is due to a language barrier and what part is from her own shortcomings is up for debate, but this is a film that pulls no punches while never falling into excess. 7/10
The Cloverfield Paradox was...yeah, that was a movie, and I can tell why it went straight to Netflix. It's well acted (Gugu Mbatha-Raw in particular is great) but the thing often makes no sense (
why isn't one of the characters not so upset he lost an arm? How does his arm know something?
), has a lot of people doing really dumb things, has awkward attempts at humor and at the end of the day is another variation on the kind of thing stuff like "Event Horizon", "Sunshine" and "Life" did, only done in a half-assed manner (which says something, since I thought "Life" was mostly done in a half-assed manner)
Finally saw Get Out. Man was that a good movie. I'm just blown away by it and want to watch it again to try and catch the hints you wouldn't have caught the first time around. I can't believe it took me a year to finally watch it. But that's what it's like with me. if I don't catch it in the theater it could be a year or two before I get to it.
I like that
You are so sure she's just hypnotizing them. Then when the other sinister part happens you realize the hypnotization is just the first phase in a sick plan. I loved it.
The Cloverfield Paradox was...yeah, that was a movie, and I can tell why it went straight to Netflix. It's well acted (Gugu Mbatha-Raw in particular is great) but the thing often makes no sense (
why isn't one of the characters not so upset he lost an arm? How does his arm know something?
), has a lot of people doing really dumb things, has awkward attempts at humor and at the end of the day is another variation on the kind of thing stuff like "Event Horizon", "Sunshine" and "Life" did, only done in a half-assed manner (which says something, since I thought "Life" was mostly done in a half-assed manner)
From my understanding, the ship launched the shepard and ripped the hole in time and space, the monster came from another dimension and landed in 2008 earth. After all the shit went on and they thought they got themselves back home, we see the escape pod land back in 2008 where the monster has just attacked.
Yeah 3.5/10 would be right, it felt like a weird star trek episode.
I watched it the other day. Thought the first half was a 7 or an 8 and the 2nd half was a 3 or a 4 so I'll split the difference and call it 5.5/10. I enjoyed it but it really failed to deliver on anything it set up.
my understanding is that they created a new reality where the monsters now exist throughout time so while the monster hadn't existed in 2008 before it does now and does in their time which is why it was so much bigger. The guy's arm knows things because it's actually the arm of his alternate universe double (that's what I assumed) and he wasn't freaked out because he was in shock? I dunno man I just found him amusing.
It wasn't a good movie but I like sci-fi. If they'd left out basically everything back on earth before the monster ending I'd have liked it a lot more. I'd still give it like a 5. I think the critics hate it as much as they do because it's on Netflix.
Remember that really shitty movie Skyline? They made a sequel called Beyond Skyline. Unsurprisingly, it's incredibly stupid. Surprisingly, it's also aware of that, is better than the original (not saying much though) and is all kinds of dumb fun. I mean yeah, some performances are better than others, there's some really bad one liners and the camera work sometimes relies on really unneeded quick cuts and shakey cam.
On the other hand:
Frank Grillo! Iko Uwais and Yayan Ruhian from The Raid! Frank Grillo and Iko Uwais fighting! Frank Grillo, Iko Uwais and Yayan Ruhian fighting aliens with martial arts! Frank Grillo murcs aliens with an alien weapon! Kaiju battle out of nowhere! Some nifty gore! Antonio Fragas as a blind homeless guy!
I honestly feel embarrassed for having fun watching something so dumb. It all feels like an 105 minute apology for the first movie, and I'm gonna give it 6.5/10 because it's a sequel to Skyline and I feel weird enjoying it as much as I did. It's not really a good movie. But dammit if I didn't have a big, goofy grin on my face watching this.
The Butterfly Room from 2012 (released in 2014 in USA) starring Barbara Steele as a bipolar apartment neighbor whom soon looks after 9 year old Julie. She has a butterfly room and the film is filled with a ton of flashbacks covering Ann (Barbara) and her relationship with Dorothy, her daughter, and then Alice (Julia Putnam) who seems to be a manipulative teen in her own right.
After Barbara loses custody of Dorothy, she befriends Alice a month before the present day, then Julie in the present day. Barbara starts killing off those who cross her and interfere with her relationships with both Alice and Julie. By the end of the movie, Julie discovers what Ann was hiding within her butterfly room.
Barbara Steele does a good job as the lead, always slightly off kilter but not in an over the top manner. Unfortunately the rest of the cast, including Ray Wise and Heather Langenkamp in small roles, don't offer much at all or are very over the top.
5/10. There are some great shots from director Jonathan Zarantonello but the pacing and the overall plot never quite stay consistent enough to make this more than so-so fare. With a tighter script/directing, this could've made for a great thriller but it never quite lives up to the expectations it initially sets up. Check it out if you're bored or its a rainy day with nothing else on.
I was a huge fan of the original Skyline....total guilty pleasure though in that it was so badly put together and over the top that it in fact was very entertaining and cult classic Troma-esque to me in a way (but with no self parody or self awareness) so seeng that this was on demand last month made it an easy rent for me. I thought for a sequel finally being done years later, it had some solid continuity, to the point of if you didn't see the first Skyline, you might not know a significant part of what was going on in this one, such as the main character from part 1 being an alien being in this, and the female lead from part 1 as well playing a significant part in things. Of course neither actor from the first film even reprised their role so it made it even more muddled.
I really had a good time with this one though and liked it in a bad "good" way as much as the original Skyline. I figure ten years from now we will finally get another one to end this supposed trilogy of sci-fi wackiness.
Jungle from 2017 starring Daniel Radcliffe. Based off Yossi Ghinsberg (whose story also appeared in I Shouldn't Be Alive) It's about a man named Yossi in 1981 going on an exploration adventure but gets separated from his partner, Kevin, while going through rapids on a raft and has to survive the jungle and find his way to civilization. If you're a fan of survivalist man in peril trying to fight off nature in its element, this is right up your alley. Radcliffe continues to prove he's a great actor. 7/10
So I happened to watch Buffy season 4 (the only one I own) and that led me back down the rabbit hole. I discovered the series isn't on Netflix anymore (just Hulu) so this is going to lead to me finally buying the complete series set (which I should have done years ago).
That show is 20 years old (the same age Buffy was when she died the second time). Fuck
So I happened to watch Buffy season 4 (the only one I own) and that led me back down the rabbit hole. I discovered the series isn't on Netflix anymore (just Hulu) so this is going to lead to me finally buying the complete series set (which I should have done years ago).
That show is 20 years old (the same age Buffy was when she died the second time). Fuck
Anna (2013) - 6/10
Very solid little sci-fi psychological thriller. A man named John (Mark Strong), a memory detective, gets assigned a case involving a 16 year old girl named Anna (Frida Pallson) who is refusing to eat, by his boss (Brian Cox).
It devolves into a case of John trying to figure out why the stepfather Robert (Richard Dillane) seemingly wants to send Anna to a mental institution, whether Anna is a sociopath or a victim, what the underlying secret involving the "richest family in America" really is, and who the mysterious figure John keeps seeing off in the distance is.
Jorge Dorado does a good job keeping the film effective in never quite telling the viewer where it's going or what's going on. I figured out some of it early on but it remaining engaging through the end. Mark Strong and Frida Pallson really played well off each other and it felt realistic that John would find himself getting too attached to Anna and try to figure out the truth despite it initially being a "simple case" of a girl refusing to eat and why.
So I happened to watch Buffy season 4 (the only one I own) and that led me back down the rabbit hole. I discovered the series isn't on Netflix anymore (just Hulu) so this is going to lead to me finally buying the complete series set (which I should have done years ago).
That show is 20 years old (the same age Buffy was when she died the second time). Fuck
The Sect is the third horror film directed by Michele Soavi (his other credits include Stagefright,The Church and Cemetery Man) and was produced and co-written by Dario Argento (you likely know what he's made). It is...wow, it's something else. Imagine Rosemary's Baby, only it's Italian, from 1991 and is absolutely insane. Needless to say, if you are new to Italian horror, then this is not for you. Fortunately, it's exactly for guys like me.
Don't get me wrong, I dug the hell out of it and by all means it's a well made movie. It's also a movie with a Satanic cult, a few gory murders, weird blue gunk, a haunted cloth, Jamie Leigh Curtis' sister, redneck truckers (is their any other kind?) a
rapist pelican
and last-but certainly not least-a white bunny rabbit who is smarter (
and more evil
) than it seems. That bunny. Here's an example of what I mean
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpAWSygZb_I
So this is either for you or it's not. It's totally for me, so I'd say either 7.5/10 or 8/10.
Cheap Thrills (2013)
Craig (Pat Healy) has a rough life. He and his wife live in a one bedroom apartment with their infant son, facing eviction for owing $4500 in back rent, and just recently lost his job at a car service shop (like a Jiffy Lube). Whilst delaying the inevitable talk with his wife, he stops at a shady dive bar for a drink, where he runs into high school friend Vince (Ethan Embry), a low level debt collector, with neither man having seen the other in 5 years. As they reminisce (and it becomes increasingly apparent why Craig severed ties), married couple Colin (David Koechner) and Violet (Sara Paxton) are celebrating her birthday. Soon, the couple begin daring the old friends to degrade themselves for money, taking the game back to their house as things spiral out of control.
An interesting byproduct of the torture porn craze has been the "dare" movie, a set-up usually for comedies but turned into horror with ease. While the best example of an effective dare horror is Would You Rather?, it's sad that this film is not spoken of with the same reverence. Embry has made quite a claim for his legacy as an actor since going into indie horror, offering a great cameo in The Guest and an even better starring turn in The Devil's Candy, but this might be his legitimately best performance to date. Not to be outshined so easily, Koechner also crafts one hell of a performance, utilizing his typical brand of comedy and turning it into something believably sinister.
In fact, that's one of the major sticking points that makes this work. Everything is believable. You believe that a guy like Craig would be willing to do what he does for money thanks to his obvious devotion to his family, you believe that Vince has no problem going along because of what his life has been, and the married couple are so perfectly casual about the night's festivities that it's clear this isn't the first time they've done this.
On a slightly more personal note, I'll add that some of the dynamic between Craig and Vince reminds me of my own relationship with my best friend from high school. Vince is brash and willing to do anything for a good time, taking his mind off how much he hates his life, and Craig is very logical and safe due to obligations both real and imaginary. That both acknowledge what they've let their lives become hit hard since their attitudes and positions aren't too dissimilar from ours.
See this. Soon. 8.5/10
Game Night (2018)
Hey guys, remember The Game? Remember how exciting of a thriller it was, and how the twist was actually well done thanks to important details hiding in plain sight? Well, so did screenwriter Mark Perez, who I'm going to refer to from now on as Vince Russo. Why? BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF VINCE RUSSO TRIED TO WRITE A REMAKE OF THE GAME.
Max (Jason Bateman) and Annie (Rachel McAdams) are a married couple who host a weekly game night, with both being extremely competitive at simple games (revealed at the start by their meeting at bar trivia where they both try to rig the game), with Annie leaving her date for Max and then continuing to invite that night's date to game night.
Is this important? No. Does the date have a name? No. Why am I even talking about it? No reason. The character has no reason to exist. It could very well be her brother, for all I know, but he's never seen again after the night Max proposes to her in front of him. RUSSO~
A year or two later and they're trying to have children but Max's sperm is having some problems. Their doctor, Johanna Chin, suggests that stress can sometimes prevent conception even if the swimmers are perfectly fine otherwise, and Max opens up about his Wall Street brother, Brooks (Kyle Chandler), and the level of competitiveness the two have always had has risen again after Brooks tells Max he's coming to town. Dr. Chin then asks if Brooks is single because...funny? RUSSO~
Game night comes and their neighbor, a socially awkward police officer named Gary (Jesse Plemons), isn't invited. His ex wife, Debbie, was their friend, and Gary was just there. Will this come back later to mean anything? Yes. Will Debbie be anything other than a terrible joke? No. RUSSO~
Their friends Kevin, Michelle, and Ryan show up, along with Ryan's airhead date, and sneak into the house so Gary won't find out and get jealous. Brooks, though, shows up in a classic muscle car that was Max's dream car as a child, alerting Gary to the game night. After Brooks humiliates Max with an embarrassing childhood story, one Annie eggs on, they decide the next game night will be at the house Brooks is renting.
Then the actual plot kicks in. After only 20-something minutes of "comedy" and hack character building. RUSSO~
Of course, if you've seen the trailer, you know what's in store. Brooks sets up a murder mystery party, he actually gets kidnapped for real, and the game night friends have to rescue him. What the trailers don't show is how their friends are one note caricatures that PerezRusso tries adding depth to via their own side arcs. Kevin and Michelle have been together since they were 14 but Michelle takes a shot during Never Have I Ever when asked if anybody's slept with a celebrity. Ryan, wanting to win at game night for once, brings coworker Sarah in as a ringer, and the two play "will they won't they" the rest of the time.
None of the four matter. They could be replaced by hand puppets and nothing would change.
Blah blah blah, hijinks, "jokes," happy ending.
It's a shame Russo's script is so awful because the direction by John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein is borderline great. With rare exception, the spatial awareness is palpable, letting the audience know exactly how rooms are laid out and have an overall sense of direction. This is an important trait to have in thrillers of all kinds, even poorly written "comedy" ones. Also, there are a handful of absolutely gorgeous exterior scenes where the cars and buildings are made to look like plastic set pieces from Monopoly and Life, visually amplifying the "game night" aspect. Even the few action scenes are handled with expertise, the camera close enough to fully frame the action but not jerking around.
No, this piece of shit falters in two extremely important ways: the writing and the casting.
I've made plenty of comments about the humor. It's awful, sub-Nickelodeon in scope and the obvious jokes are the typically the ones they go with. Beyond that (since a comedy lives and dies by the actual quality of humor), none of Max or Annie's friends are fleshed out, and only Ryan exists to serve the plot in any meaningful fashion.
That may even be stretching it, to be honest. He uses a situation to help Max get his brother back, but otherwise only serves as the "dumb pretty boy" trope. He's Kelso but without the charm. Sarah, too, is pointless, and their "will they won't they" is not only extremely forced, the two having virtually no chemistry, but the answer is never actually revealed.
Even worse? Kevin and Michelle only exist so Kevin can do his (admittedly great) Denzel impression. That's the celebrity she slept with, but they were on a break when they were 18 and it's okay...but it wasn't really Denzel, just a guy who vaguely looked like Denzel, and their entire role in the movie is to make that joke. Token black couple...odd how they chose Denzel instead of literally anybody else, but Russo must not think race mixing is okay because the obvious joke of Ed Norton, which would've been a good callback to Brooks' initial game night, would've been too out there.
What's even worse with the cast? Jason Bateman. He's not funny. His comedic timing is lousy, his screen presence is outdone by a fucking dog, and he's out acted by both McAdams and Chandler in every single scene they share (which is literally all of them). He's comedy cancer, plain and simple. Nobody says they watched Arrested Development because Michael Bluth was so captivating, Teen Wolf Too is garbage, and Horrible Bosses only worked because of Charlie Day and Jennifer Aniston. Bag on Adam Sandler all you want for how bad most of his movies are, but at least Sandler has been funny. Bateman? Not so much.
So, what do we have here? A shit lead, awful writing, cameos from people who would've made the movie that much better (Chelsea Peretti, Patrick Huston, and Michael C. Hall are completely wasted), bad writing, SWERVES UPON SWERVES BUT NO THIS ONE IS REAL I SWEAR...SWERVE GOTCHA YOU DUMB BASTARD, bad fucking writing, and Jason Bateman all working overtime to undermine a visually captivating film.
I've seen student films with better writing. Ones I made for digital media courses my sophomore year. Strongest recommendation to avoid...unless you really love derivative, milquetoast, gentrified garbage trying to pass itself off as having an edge. 3.5/10
My DVR is getting backed up so I have been trying to steamroll through some of the movies I have recorded and saving up space.
Past couple days it's been:
Black Mass - found duller than I hoped
All Eyez On Me - guy playing Tupac was solid but the script kinda generic and paint by numbers That chick playing Kidada tho...
John Wick 2 - it's alright but I'm not feeling it anywhere close to the first one, as I brought up in the Wick thread. Still got a little under half left though
I had a couple other things I wanted to watch this weekend but see how I go on timing with some other stuff I need to get done today
Besides watching last minute Oscar-nominated stuff, I spent a part of last week treading through the Death Wish series in anticipation for checking out the (apparently awful) remake with Bruce Willis.
What a series of films these are, and not in a good way. The themes in the first three (directed and written predominantly by the same forces at play) are actually pretty vile and disgusting, and I'm shocked these even got an R rating, as its a very hard R for sure. In each of the first 3 films, the core scene that sets off the rest of the carnage is a really explicit rape scene. In fact it seems like the sick director (Michael Winner) decided to try to top one off from another in terms of shock factor. Guys like Jeff Goldblum (in the original) and Larry Fishburne and Alex Winter were a part of the gangs that ended up raping these women in each film, talk about a black eye in each of their respective careers.
Bronson has a certain charm in terms of he's so wooden and vanilla as an actor that I have no idea how he got to the point he got to other than that he has a cult charm to him. Kind of such a bad an awkward actor (especially in the early films) that he was entertaining.
I still am treading through part 4 and 5 as these films get just worse as they go on.
I'll defend the first as being the skeleton of a really great movie that got made into a much lesser one. The story of a man, broken by what's happened to his family and quietly losing his mind, deciding to take vengeance on the world that robbed him of his life is a captivating one. You get someone not Bronson and definitely someone not Winner involved, you could make a classic movie. But as it stands, it's a movie better than it has any right to be, and a kind of missing link between Dirty Harry and Taxi Driver. To be fair its been some time since I've seen it, but I don't remember a rape scene as much as I do a severe assault, splitting hairs though I might be. Bronson was fine, but it always makes me wonder what could have been if it were a "real" movie. But it's the first one for, I think, Goldblum and Denzel and probably some others I can't remember. I very much enjoy it in the "I have no problem seeing it every ten years to remember why I never watch it" way.
Two is exploitation in the least fun way. Hate that movie. Any goodwill or semblance of tolerance the first one had is ruined because of it.
Three is awesome, though. It's insanely over the top, Bronson bein' Bronson, "You killed the Giggler!" It's the comical over-the-top action movie I love welded to a shitty exploitation movie. It's my wheelhouse of trash.
The others don't bear watching. I barely remember them beyond being actually annoyed. They mess with his family and he shoots people, the Seagal Formula.
I'll defend the first as being the skeleton of a really great movie that got made into a much lesser one. The story of a man, broken by what's happened to his family and quietly losing his mind, deciding to take vengeance on the world that robbed him of his life is a captivating one. You get someone not Bronson and definitely someone not Winner involved, you could make a classic movie. But as it stands, it's a movie better than it has any right to be, and a kind of missing link between Dirty Harry and Taxi Driver. To be fair its been some time since I've seen it, but I don't remember a rape scene as much as I do a severe assault, splitting hairs though I might be. Bronson was fine, but it always makes me wonder what could have been if it were a "real" movie. But it's the first one for, I think, Goldblum and Denzel and probably some others I can't remember. I very much enjoy it in the "I have no problem seeing it every ten years to remember why I never watch it" way.
Two is exploitation in the least fun way. Hate that movie. Any goodwill or semblance of tolerance the first one had is ruined because of it.
Three is awesome, though. It's insanely over the top, Bronson bein' Bronson, "You killed the Giggler!" It's the comical over-the-top action movie I love welded to a shitty exploitation movie. It's my wheelhouse of trash.
The others don't bear watching. I barely remember them beyond being actually annoyed. They mess with his family and he shoots people, the Seagal Formula.
Yeah, the first one has elements and themes that would have probably come off much better if there was at least a different director (and apparently he took umbridge in the writing as well) than Winner. Everything I've read about him after watching these films is pretty disgusting.
I hear you on two, absolute trash. Three did tow the line though of being so over the top and cheesy that it worked on some level of so bad its good. Four actually ended up taking that same formula and ran with it. Lots of really strange kills and goofy ass action scenes that pretty much just had dudes getting shot and taking wild bumps from it. The dialogue was ridiculous as well. Both 3 and 4 probably were the most entertaining to me overall, but I had to really tune out any sort of logical perception of things. 4 also is more of less a PSA of "Drugs are bad kids, ESPECIALLY cocaine!" all rolled up into it too, which makes it even more comically absurd. The ending of 4 is so abrupt and cold feeling that it left me laughing my ass off at what happened.
I ended up watching 5 last night and fell asleep so many times I lost count. Total waste of time on so many levels. So low budget and so badly scripted on every turn. Bronson was clearly giving a fuck less at this point. The characters were also weak as fuck too....except Michael Parks at least. The only thing I can say about this one is that the tone of the first few films with the assaults and rape scenes....they were more or less gone here and what was left was a watered down nothing of nothingness.
I read years ago that the first one was originally conceived for I think Jack Lemmon, Henry Fonda in the Vincent Gardenia part, and a big name director whose name escapes me. Those two would already make it a lost classic, or at least a major curiosity. I was really hoping the remake would take advantage of the really interesting elements when I first heard about it. Get, like, Tom Hanks or Michael Keaton or someone who just seems like a more or less normal person, pushed to the edge slowly losing his mind and soul by taking revenge on the world that cost him his family (then Eli Roth happened and that went away). It's just so frustratingly close to a really good movie instead of what amounts to what I consider a perfectly okay period piece.
Yeah, five is dire. It felt like, whether you're into the concept or not, it totally lost the point. It takes fucking work to make "Bronson shoots people" lose a point. He just looked old and into the paycheck, and when Charles Bronson is phoning it in, that says something. I love me some Bronson, but dude. Four I just vaguely remember, and will probably watch again someday. But one and three are the only ones I bother with, when I bother. One's at least an attempt at a movie with crazy missed potential, and the other is almost exactly what people think about when they think of Bronson.
That said, you ever get the chance, 10 To Midnight is shockingly good. Makes for a much, much better substitute for any of the Death Wish sequels.
So since I got through the Bronson Death Wish films, I grinned and beared it with the Death Wish remake yesterday on bargain day at the theater (no way was I paying full for this one). I had a VERY low expectation going in since the reviews have been across the board pretty much shit, and knowing Roth was doing this too.....major reservations. It ended up being just as a figured. High level of gore (abnormally too much for this kind of revenge crime thriller type) and really paint by numbers for the most part. I didn't find myself highly offended by most of the stuff, but there certainly was a level of pro-gun control rhetoric going on here, or maybe it was exploiting it/parodying the American gun culture, I dont know, but it just felt off. Maybe its the timing with the school shooting that did it, but whatever it was, it left a bad taste in my mouth how they handled it.
Willis was absolutely the wrong guy for this one too, he was even more wooden and vanilla than Bronson normally was in these films. Keaton would have been a really good pick instead for sure. The formula of things in the remake was similar to the original with its core concepts, but they took a shit-ton of liberties with the remake in making the story significantly different, and not for the better really. Some side characters were added for no real reason that I saw either, unless they were trying to do some red herrings on who was all a part of this gang.
Pacific Rim 2: This was by and large not the same film that made the first so well done. The writing was significantly more mediocre than the first, which is probably because there was obviously less Del Toro involvement in the sequel. That said, there was moments of cool factor in the 3D IMAX format with the action scenes, but otherwise, this didn't hook me nearly as much as the first. Chances are there will be a third to finish off a trilogy, but I hope Del Toro gets back in the writing and directing seat for it since he's needed.
Red Sparrow: I enjoyed this for the most part as it played well as a noiresque thriller full of some interesting twists, but my god, this could have been trimmed easily a half hour off of this. Pretty high level of naughtiness here too which I didn't expect full-out, but kinda had a feeling by the previews. This is one of those films I never want to see again, but it was alright for what it was.
The Collector 5.5/10
This was solid... ish? At times I felt like I wanted to like it more than I was liking it though. A thief cases out a house and has to help his wife pay off loan sharks by Midnight, so he tries to abduct a jewel from a safe within the house. Unfortunately for him, a masked killer has booby trapped the house and is killing off the family via gratuitous torture whilst the thief tries to escape with his own life intact (and save Hannah, the family's youngest daughter).
The concept is good and the cinematography is good with some neat shots but it felt like the plot was really thin after the thief breaks into the house (which occurs around the 25 minute mark). The main guy (JJ's husband from Criminal Minds) was pretty believable in his role and solid enough. I did like that the traps shown actually were called back to when Jill/Boyfriend showed up at the house but it also felt like they were used just b/c the killer set them up and the film needed the gory pay offs.
My quibbles/cons
#1: Too much reliance on gore. Some of the shots would've been even more intimidating if it went the show less, imagine more route (e.g. the death scene of the cat or the razor blade wood board scene at the start).
#2: The house had exterminators, the thief as a locksmith person, etc. The older daughter, Jill, refuses to go on a family vacation and yet this masked killer is able to booby trap the entire house, with fairly elaborate contraptions in roughly 4-5 hours assuming everybody left by 5 PM? Each elaborate contraption as it went one by one early in the film made this come off as more unbelievable.
#3: This killer has all these varied killing things set up and yet runs around with a knife? Seems underwhelming as a weapon of choice.
#4: How could the killer have known the trap was coming if he'd literally been banging on the door with both hands moments prior? That really irked me and turned the killer from a killer to the typical superhuman slasher killer that always makes up these movies.
I have heard the sequel is better so I'm curious if that's true.
The sequel is a piece of drizzling lowest common denominator shit that replaces every bit of tension in the first with more wacky traps and plot twists. It does help explain your #2 issue, though.
1. Agreed. Less gore would've served the movie better, but I always have to give love when a mainstream horror flick goes all-out on splatter.
2.
If you'll recall, there were TWO exterminators at the house.
3. Why use anything more elaborate when you're literally letting the traps do the work for you?
4. The same way every other horror killer magically predicts the future: plot contrivances focused on delivering scares over logic.
