brianand-57043

From the moment you hear 'The Emotions' -"Best of my Love" start playing right as this movie begins, it doesn't take much longer to realize this is going to be quite the experience. One of my favorite opening scene's of all time, as director Paul Thomas Anderson quickly introduces the main players of this story. We meet a group of happy people out clubbing who are involved in the porn industry from the director (Burt Reynolds), actors (Don Cheadle, Heather Graham, Julianne Moore, John C. Reilly, Nicole Ari Parker) and the main lead "Dirk Diggler" (Mark Wahlberg). It is at this time that Reynolds character 'Jack Horner' discovers Wahlberg's 'Eddie Adams/ Dirk Diggler" who is a handsome dishwasher.

This is quite possibly the best Mark Wahlberg performance in his entire career. To me, Wahlberg isn't an 'actor', but more of a movie star (pretty face who recites lines in order for big Hollywood studios to sell tickets) There are plenty of 'movie stars' in Hollywood, a hell of lot more of them than there are 'actors', but stars like Wahlberg are good if they are in certain roles. I thought he was great in "Basketball Diaries" and "Fear" playing unsavory characters, and in this picture he starts out as a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young man making his way in the porn industry...only to deteriorate into a self-centered junkie once his head gets too big from the fame and awards.

Even though Wahlberg is the main lead, the supporting characters are every bit as vital to the story and entertaining in their own way. The film explores sub-plots with each of these people as we learn more about them and their personal struggles. This ensemble cast also includes William H. Macy and Phillip Seymour Hoffman as people behind the scenes helping to produce Jack Horner's 'adult films'. This film was originally a short film by PTA, done in a 'mockumentary' type style, but this film doesn't miss a beat and PTA keeps the viewer's attention every step of the way, seamlessly weaving these characters and their stories in audacious and playful manners.

I think when this film was set to hit theaters, many people dismissed it as a raunchy and sleazy attempt by Hollywood to capitalize on the porn industry and feature naked women having sex with well-endowed men. This film touches on that of course, but there is so much depth to the characters and layers to the story that the whole "porn" angle plays second-fiddle at best.

This film throws you through a whirlwind of emotions with it's comedic dialogue and hilarious satirical takes on porn situations and settings and before you know it, it throws you to the other end of the spectrum as you experience the isolation and hopelessness of these people as they are rejected and left abandoned after leaving the business and trying to start a new chapter in their life. What begins as a joyous and wonderful dream during the 70's porn-era, becomes a haunting and grim reality once the show's over in the 80's for these characters.....10 stars, every actor knocks their role out-of-the-park and PTA does a masterful job of storytelling and direction.

I remember seeing the paid plants/actors at baseball games before this was released and thinking this film must need good marketing, because if it's similar to most horror films today (or films in general) it's going to be bad. Boy, was i wrong in assuming...

I put on Scream 6: Ghostface takes Manhattan to try out a new tv i bought since it was the first thing i saw in 4K. ( i hate this movie, but the opening is ok). After the opening, i watched for another 15 minutes and was quickly reminded why i hate it. All of the protagonists are snarky A-holes who make it extremely hard to empathize with.

"Smile" is the direct opposite thanks to lead actress Sosie Bacon's gentle demeanor and natural vulnerability. The film begins with Bacon's "Rose Cotter", a psychiatric therapist, meeting with a new patient named Carl who is having a mental breakdown of sorts. This allows the movie to demonstrate their lead as someone the viewer can empathize with and relate to. She's not some snappy 'girl-boss' trying to demean everyone, and prop herself up in false virtue. This has become a 'fad' in movies lately and film-makers expect audiences to identify with them. They sorely need to go back and re-watch Neve Campbell as Sidney Prescott....or take a look at this film

Rose is dedicated to her job, passionate about helping people greatly affected by mental trauma. One day she meets a new patient who is suffering from hallucinations and visions of seeing people "smiling" in an evil way towards her. The patient experiences a psychotic breakdown during this meeting and slices her face in front of Rose, leaving Rose traumatized in the process. From then on, Rose begins to experience psychotic episodes herself and as the plot rolls on, we learn that Rose has traumatic events in her past that she has repressed. A huge theme of this movie is repressed trauma and PTSD. As Rose's delusions and psychotic behavior increase and the people around her begin to abandon her, except for an ex-boyfriend who she decides to turn to for help.

The filmmaking and direction are done very well compared to what i was expecting, and every actor does a great job too. Some of the horror elements rely on loud booms during jump scares....but they kind of work here since the film doesn't solely rely on them. There is plenty of slow developing chills here to allow tension and suspense too.

8/10 Not the greatest horror movie of all time, but i was pleasantly surprised how much i enjoyed this, even on a 2nd viewing.

I remember going to see this in theaters with my older sister and her boyfriend, it was on my birthday...i was 11 years old. I grew up loving "scary movies" and Michael Myers was my favorite horror icon to be frightened by. Only this time, Hollywood set out to right the ship of underwhelming sequels, by bringing Jamie Lee Curtis back into the picture and setting up a showdown 20 years in the making.

Things i liked: The opening scene works pretty well at delivering some early tension and drama, getting the ball rolling on the story. The tension and drama are once again done very well in a scene where a mom and her young daughter stop at a rest area bathroom and mom realizes "someone else is in there with them"

Overall, Jamie Lee Curtis does a solid job carrying the film as the main protagonist. In this, she is suffering a bit of PTSD from the trauma of Myers attacking her 20 years ago which has caused her to become a functioning alcoholic. There is a scene right before the "showdown" with Michael, where it mirrors the 1978 film of Laurie Strode telling the young kids to go get help, only this time she is instructing her teenage son and his girlfriend to get help. Laurie then smashes a glass case containing an axe, and decides to hunt down Michael herself as she yells for him "MICHAEL!!!!" When i saw this in the theaters the packed audience roared with approval, like it was a damn sporting event. Another giant roar came during the very end when Laurie uses that axe to finish off her attacker. The whole cat-and-mouse game of Michael attacking Laurie and even Laurie setting traps for Michael was done very well....kept the audience on the edge of their seat.

Things i did not like: This is possibly the worst Michael Myers has ever 'looked'. The actor playing him is not very imposing physically, but the worst part was the filmmakers filmed different scenes with Myers wearing different masks...and they all looked terrible. One looks like it's early stage CGI where it almost glows and he looks like an alien. There are other where his lips and eyes look like he's sucking on a lemon. Another where the eye slots were cut way too wide.

The rest of the cast aside from JLC wasn't all that great. Kevin Williamson wrote the outline/story for this film along with some re-writes pertaining to dialouge, but was uncredited. He did an amazing job with "Scream", but he didn't replicate that here with Laurie's son John and his school friends. Michelle Williams did a decent job in a supporting role as his girlfriend, but the other couple were kind of annoying. LL Cool J is in this as a School Security type cop and to provide comedy relief. He does the job well enough.

One of the things i really hate about this film is just how 'over-produced' it feels, and the setting in some ways too. One of the best elements of the sequels 4,5 and even 6 were that the setting's of those films felt like fall/Halloween night in the mid-west (even though they were shot in Utah) This film mostly taking place in Northern California just doesn't bring that same feeling to me. Also there was an over-reliance on jaunting and loud sound fillers whenever the tension was building up and Michael might be around the corner. This film was released in July/August and marketed more as a "Summer Blockbuster" than it was a 'Horror movie'. Watching it now and i can't help but feel as if 'Hollywood producers and executives (Looking at you Weinstein's) had more of a hand in making this film than Director Steve Miner did. That may sound silly, but it really irritates me.

5/10 JLC gives a solid performance and there are some good scares and tension, but the Myers we get looks like the love-child of Seth Green and French Stewart (very 90's reference) Just an abomination. The atmosphere of the film feels very "Scream-ish" and like the producers (Weinstein's) took Kevin Williamson's story and tried to create another Scream movie only with Myers as the killer. This was cool when it came out 25 years ago, but watching it again now it feels contrived and phony.

I left a review on this film a few months ago, but i think it didn't make the cut simply due to me writing a long-winded love letter lol. I'll try to explain my feelings on Oliver Stone's gridiron epic more swiftly this time around.

This is a sports drama is unique in that i can't think of another film that gets as 'up close and personal' with the daily lives and drama that surrounds the career's of pro athletes and the politics that take place behind the scenes between players,coaches and management. Stone pulls absolutely no punches in this brilliant expose' following the fictional Miami Sharks football team as and their roller-coaster season on the field, and off.

Al Pacino plays the old-school coach of the team who's grasp and communication with the young and brash 'stars' is starting to unravel. Jamie Foxx and LL Cool J represent the egotistical diva's many pro football players turn into once the money comes pouring in for their athletic services. Dennis Quaid and NFL Hall of Famer Lawrence Taylor are 2 Miami Sharks veterans near the end of their rope still hanging on for one last run until they are forced to hang up the pads from the battle wounds they've incurred from years of physical abuse they have put their bodies through.

Off the field, Cameron Diaz plays the fairly young owner of the Miami Sharks, who has inherited the team from her father who has recently passed away. When she isn't daydreaming of moving the team to LA with the promise of a brand new start-of-the-art stadium, she is butting heads with Al Pacino who feels she doesn't respect the 'tradition' of the game. Also as a great sub-plot there is James Woods and Matthew Modine who are the heads of the medical staff for the team, although Woods' character has longer tenure' and final decisions are made by him. Medical ethics are the moral dilemma that arises between the 2 once the younger Modine character discovers his older counter-part is more concerned with the team winning games than the health and safety of the players.

10/10 Stone does a brilliant job of weaving all the stories and sub-plots together and producing the most honest and realistic look at a pro-sports team during this period in America.

So i heard about this show while at work yesterday. I was told it was really bad, but i assumed it was brand new since i hadn't heard of it. I have HBO MAX and sometimes watch old Sopranos episodes before the football games come on Sunday's, and i remembered my co-workers talking about "Velma" so i put on the 1st episode. Growing up, i wasn't a major Scooby-doo fan, but i did watch it here and there, so i have some frame of reference for the plot and characters.

Unfortunately, this show has nothing in common with the Scooby-Doo from way back. I understand taking source material from the past and trying to put a different spin on it, even taking a kids show and turning it into content for adults....but i doubt many "adults" were involved in this project. It didn't take long to see why people at work were ragging on this so bad.

They took the character of Velma and decided to turn her into an awful, cynical and downright nasty woman.....and try to portray her as being the 'righteous' protagonist. I notice this being a trend in Hollywood and entertainment over the last 5 years or so, and i can't for the life of me understand who enjoys watching this??? On top of coming across as a bitter and lonely cat-lady, Velma is also a bit race-obsessed and VERY sex-obsessed.

But this is only a result of the times we live in. For whatever reason, Hollywood or at least a chunk of it, has been hell-bent on pushing the most toxic aspects of thrid-wave feminism down the throats of everyone who dares to watch their action/sci-fi movies of late. I know they believe they are accomplishing some great feat and they just might be onto something, if they didn't write their female characters so ridiculously cynical and hateful. I could go on, but i don't want to spend too much time here, but i want to say this...

At the beginning of this review i mentioned i enjoy watching old "The Sopranos" episodes. Anyone familiar with that show knows that the lead character "Tony Soprano" is ALSO hateful,racist,sexist etc. , so naturally one would ask "What's the difference between Tony Soprano and Velma....they both share some of the same characteristics?...do you just not like Velma because she's female" No i don't like Velma because she has absolutely zero redeeming qualities and is a hateful shallow women from the moment she came on screen until the episode ended. I didn't need to watch another episode, i knew it wasn't going to get better. Tony Soprano is ultimately a very bad man, but he was also a very complex character who did have redeeming qualities from time to time.

Also, the writers in the Sopranos were not trying to portray Tony as a 'righteous protagonist' like Velma is clearly trying to be portrayed. I couldn't believe the people who were involved with "Velma" (some pretty reputable names) wrote her as if she was a hero and made just about everyone else around her ignorant fools.

0/10 If i could give a lower score i would and i didn't really even get into just how awful this show is. Not even "so bad, it's good" territory....just a shallow hateful mess.

This film is now 10 years old and i have finally gotten around to viewing it. I remember when it was released there was plenty of hype (for good reason) only for it to be trashed by critics and audiences. A friend of mine told me it was a total bore and in the middle of it Cameron Diaz has sex with a car.

I start the movie and it begins with a love scene between Michael Fassbender and Penelope Cruz (The Counselor and his soon-to-be fiance', Laura). It was during this opening scene that i got the impression this film could be a tedious bore. Cruz and Fassenbender are terrific looking people, yet this movie manages to make a love scene with them a snooze.

We are then introduced to Reiner and Malkina (Bardem and Diaz, respectively) who are watching their pet Cheetah's run around a field. They are in a relationship, but it's established in this scene that Malkina is the dominant partner, not the drug-dealing Reiner

After we meet the main players, the plot begins to develop and we learn that "The Counselor", along with the help of Reiner, is going to partake in a major drug deal involving Mexican drug cartels....ok, that is all fine and dandy as we've seen similar plots in films before this, and this cast of stars and talent behind the camera have the potential to really deliver the goods....but somehow everyone involved in this picture fails to produce.

Instead, the first hour of this film drags along with characters reciting pretentious dialogue in which it's glaringly obvious that none of them really understand what they're saying. Cameron Diaz is the most frequent offender of this, and i'm sorry but Diaz just isn't fit for this role of a ruthless and cold-hearted femme fatale. Diaz and Cruz should have had their roles switched. Cruz is fine in the film, but doesn't have that much to do outside of being The Counselor's fiance'.

There are also a few subplots surrounding the 'drug deal' at the center of this story, but nothing really engaging. I forgot to mention Brad Pitt is playing a '5th wheel' to these two couples, and his role is this confidant to Reiner who helps The Counselor get attached to this drug deal. Brad Pitt is the only interesting character in this entire film

Naturally, the drug deal goes awry, thanks in large part to Malkina arranging some men to interfere and steal the money for herself. So far, the plot of the movie is just fine, but the whole thing gets overshadowed by the overtly philosophic dialogue of the characters, and the incessant need to show how sophisticated and brilliant it is. Listening to this movie is like listening to an 18 year old college student mindlessly recite the talking points of their Philosophy 101 professor at the Thanksgiving dinner table in front of their bored family. Cormac McCarthy is a great writer and his works have made many of fine films like "No Country for Old Men" , which this film is desperately trying to be, but the producers made the grave mistake of handling all final writing duties over to him and Ridley Scott didn't care enough to interfere. Instead, Ridley Scott seemed much more concerned about just how fashionable and stylish each character looked. This felt like watching a never-ending commercial for some overpriced cologne, with people meandering about in outfits from a fashion show.

In the midst of the pedantic dialogue, the scene with Cameron Diaz masturbating on top of a car, using the windshield as a sybian-like sex toy, while Reiner watches from inside is quite the visual, but completely lacks any substance. It's like the writer had an idea, or perhaps fantasy, of Diaz doing this...so he just threw it in to the story. We see this scene play out through Reiner's memory as he tells a recounting of the event to The Counselor and even the character has trouble coming up with a reason why he's even sharing it to begin with. The whole thing comes out of nowhere, and i'm sure there is some explanation like this is supposedly showing how craven and sexually malicious Malkina is that she's humping a ferrari in effort to manipulate her drug-dealing boyfriend. I suppose that could be, but i think the writer just wanted a hot actress to hump a car....and Cameron Diaz was that lucky star.

3/10...this movie so badly wanted to follow in the footsteps of NCFOM, but Ridley Scott was too concerned with style instead of Directing and Story like the Coen Brothers do in most of their films.

In my review of "Halloween" (2007) i confessed my struggle with Rob Zombie's take on the horror classic. There were parts i liked, and other parts i totally despised. This film is more of the same.

This film picks up where the previous film ends and honestly the first 20-25 minutes are pretty enthralling. I have my complaints about Zombie, but the guy is great at presenting the outcomes of intense violence and trauma in a realistic way. Near the start of this film, Laurie Strode is being wheeled through a hospital on a stretcher with DR's and nurses running along the side trying to prepare her for the surgeries she will need as a result of her encounter with Michael Myers. As i was watching this, i felt like i was watching a real-life patient being wheeled into an ER in some documentary, as it then cuts to a sedated Laurie Strode having her dozens of lacerations and wounds being sewn and treated to.

The 1st act ends with a bit of a "twist" and we meet Laurie who is now 1 year removed from the events of the previous Halloween. With her foster family murdered, she now lives with best friend Annie and Annie's dad Sheriff Brackett. In a stark contrast to Laurie's demeanor of a cheery good-girl in the 1st movie, she has become very cynical and depressed as a result of the trauma from her attack. Again this is an area where Zombie really excels as a storyteller and director.

However, this is where my compliments for this film end. I really hate what Zombie did with the look of Myers. I dislike Mane's giant size, but that obviously isn't his fault, it's Zombie's vision. Also for this film Zombie decided that Myers mask should be half-torn off, exposing his face (didn't Zombie make it a point in the 1st film to explain that Michael likes to hide behind his mask?) Also, Zombie has decided to ditch the overalls and go for layers as Michael is draped in hoodies and an overcoat.

Also prepare to feel as if you've taken some hallucinogens as there are cuts to Myers mother, who of course is once again played by Sheri Moon Zombie because we know Rob had to shoe-horn his wife back into the picture. She is often appearing in Michael's visions along with a giant white horse. There are also scenes with Laurie going through PTSD and involve her screaming and cussing as she envisions herself killing those who are trying to care for her..these scenes are done in typical Zombie fashion of hectic camera shaking and odd visions. I enjoyed Zombie introducing Laurie's expected PTSD, but i just didn't care for some of his directing tactics in exploring that in this film.

And of course there is the ending, and while i know there are 2 different endings...i'm pretty sure i hate both.

6.5/10 This is a bizarre and jarring film, yet at the same time i think Zombie accomplished more of his vision in this sequel and really shaped the whole Myers character arc into his own, as opposed to just doing a half-ass remake in the 2007 film. The PTSD and trauma of Laurie Strode are explored very well at times, and other times i think Zombie just used it as an outlet to go overboard with his "style". I'd rather watch Zombie's films over the final 2 entries of Blumhouse.

I have to confess that this movie holds a special place in my heart since it was one of the dozens of VHS demo tapes my mom was given when she worked at a Pathmark grocery store when i was a kid. The store had a movie rental section attached to the customer service where my mom worked, and people could rent movies and there were some video games for rent too. So there is a collection of mid-90's movies somewhere around her house that i used to consistently watch when i was young, and as a horror fan Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers was often popped into the VCR.

Anyway, for those who know the backstory and the struggles and re-writes/re-shoots getting this film made, it was to little surprise that the final product was poorly received by critics and audiences alike. As a kid, i didn't care for the storyline, but it didn't effect my view of the movie much, i just wanted to be scared by Michael.....and this film did a helluva job in scaring me.

In fact, i would say this movie's version of Myers creeps me out more than any other in the Halloween franchise, but let's get the "Cult of Thorn" storyline out of the way first. The whole thing is pretty silly and just plain 'out there', but Akkad hired different writers to come up with something new, but to me none of that stuff was ever necessary. Myers is a scary evil killer in a mask....just leave it at that. However, outside of the silly plot, this really delivers as a horror movie....

One of the best things about this is that Myers is remarkably frightening and i think George Wilbur, who dons the mask, deserves most of the credit. He's a big guy, but not exactly a hulking giant like Tyler Mane in Rob Zombie's versions, but Wilbur fills out the overalls and the mask. Wilbur also has a certain walking gait that fits well with Myers when he's chasing someone in the movie. Good examples of this are different scenes when he's chasing people. Once when he's chasing after Kara Strode and her son Danny to a house across the street from where he tried to attack them and as they bang on the door for someone to let them in, we get panned shots back across the street of Myers coming after them and Wilbur is walking with a purpose. Same goes for a later scene where once again Myers is chasing people in a mental hospital down in the basement and the way Wilbur moves is just so intimidating.

It's been said that this is the "MTV Halloween" due to the implementation of electric guitar riffs during heightened scenes involving Myers, and that is meant to knock the film, but i thought it worked in some scenes. This was shot in 1994/95 and to my recollection American teenage music and culture was still in that "grunge" phase.

I'm more into the atmosphere, tension and drama of Horror films rather than gore and kills, but there are some rather brutal scenes in this entry. In particular, the scene with an exploding head and then a surgery room massacre that is possibly my favorite scene in the entire movie.

6.5/10 which is likely higher than most, but i can't overstate how scared i was of Myers in this. I'm even looking over my shoulder as i write this review lol.

I've reviewed the original "Scream" (1996) and the recent "requels" or whatever they're supposed to be called. I loved the original and hate the "requels", but just like this movie falls in the middle chronologically, i also rate it in the middle.

We open up with the obligatory "Scream" style opening with 2 young girls in a house alone who are eventually attacked by Ghostface, only this isn't the real opening as it's then revealed we are watching the opening to the "Stab 6" along with a new set of young girls who debate the idea of never-ending horror sequels, until one stabs the other....resulting in the revelation that we are actually watching the opening to "Stab 7", yes...a movie within a movie...within a movie. We finally come to present time and are introduced to Jenny and Marnie who not only continue the horror sequel discussion, but also touch on "social media" indicating that might play a role in this film. Eventually Ghostface attacks and were off into a new mystery with a new killer. ( This opening had some good comedic elements, but was ultimately lacking. I had a feeling this film would be more in the vein of Scream 3 based on the dialogue. I have to mention that an alternate scene of Ghostface attacking these girls was shot and i like that one much better since it's a bit grisly and realistic)

It's been 15 years since the original Woodsboro murders, so we get a new batch of high school teenagers to meet. These characters are actually one of the good things about this film for the most part. I thought everyone played their role very well, except for maybe "Trevor" who was supposed to be this mysterious bad boy who is also the lead's love interest, but the kid hired for the role just didn't have it to me.

Sidney, Gale and Dewey are back and the actors played their parts fine. After about 20-25 minutes in and my suspicions are confirmed that this film has a similar tone to Scream 3 in that there is a focused comedic element to it. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but i prefer the more serious tone in the original. This franchise began to delve into the "black comedy" territory in "Scream 2" and hasn't stopped really.

In this edition of Ghostface murders, it's learned that whoever is responsible is following the rules of horror sequels and could possibly be recording the murders for internet or social media fame. In between murders we get the same type of snappy comedic dialogue akin to Scream 3, or basically most teen television drama's, but the story does a solid job of keeping you guessing who the killer(s) are.

Near the end it's revealed who it is and i'll just say i was "half-surprised". The film sort of has 2 finales, one where we get the "reveal" and then an aftermath at a hospital. Plot holes galore throughout, but this is horror so it gets a slight pass

6/10 for me. The storyline is fine and the actors did their part, but i guess my main issue was with the direction and tone of the film coming off more like Scream 3 with the dark comedy element being very prevalent. It's a fun movie to watch with a loved one on a weekend night and it's probably better than most other horror sequels...and definitely better than the recent Scream 5 and 6.

The first act of this film is fantastic. Great atmosphere and engaging characters. One character the viewer is suspicious of and another lends the viewer to believe is vulnerable. The writing and opening scenes are successful in drawing the viewer in and allowing them to become invested in the film.

The 2nd act begins and we get introduced to a new character (Justin Long) who also is easy for the viewer to become invested in. So far, I'm very much engaged with this film. The acting is great, atmosphere and plot are keeping me drawn in and guessing where it's going.

Near the end of the 2nd act however, when we get fully introduced to the villain or monster is when this film begins to fall apart. What started out as a film with great suspense and drama turns into just another generic horror picture. We also get introduced to a 4th main character in a flashback scene, which i suppose was to provide some sort of background on the "House" that is the centerpiece for this film...but i don't think any of this worked or advanced the storyline for the better.

The final 30-40 minutes of this film just feels rushed and lazy. Almost like Writer/Director Zach Cregger had an idea for a film, but only had 30-45 minutes of a story. In fact, after reading Wiki, that's exactly what happened...Cregger developed an idea of "red flags" for women being alone with men which is obvious in the first act of this film, but then had to create an ending and came up with a generic monster to wrap things up.

5/10 since the 1st half is really good, but the 2nd half is highly dissappointing. I'd still like to see another film of his, because this film was very promising.

I haven't watched this in a long time, likely since around 2005/2006ish when it was still fresh and the sequels were being developed. Saw 2 is ok, but i never cared for the rest of them. Although i categorized this franchise as "Horror" in my title, after re-watching it recently it felt much more like a gritty mystery thriller similar to "Se7en" than it does your typical slasher or ghost story.

James Wan and Leigh Whannell wrote the story, Wan directed and Whannell plays a lead role in the film. It's obvious Saw was produced on a small budget, but somehow the writers and actors were able to pull off a massively engaging film. From the opening scene where we get introduced to 2 men who awaken in a dirty disgusting shower-room with a dead guy laying on the floor between them, the film does a great job of throwing the viewer into the story quickly capturing their attention. From there we delve into these 2 men being held captive and them trying to figure out how and why they are chained up. There are also sub-plots involving 2 detectives attempting to track down "Jigsaw" and flashbacks providing context to the story involving the 2 men.

The style and editing that Wan introduced was something not quite done before, and was frequently copied in the following years for better or worse. The acting isn't great, but it's no worse than most horror films. The "Horror" genre wasn't exactly flourishing at this time (maybe due to 9/11 and the Iraq war being recent events fresh in everyone's mind) but this film gave the genre a bit of a revival again, for better or worse.

Whatever the film lacks in terms of production, the story and directing style more than makes up for it. There is genuine mystery and tension throughout along with the unique story. 8 out of 10.

Chris Rock is beyond awful in this role. Not sure i've ever seen a movie where the main character immediately takes me out of the movie quicker than Rock's "Zeke". His character is supposed to be a "righteous cop" in the vein of Serpico, but Rock doesn't have the acting chops to pull something like that off. He's just Chris Rock the comic playing dress-up as a detective, same old loud angry yelling like he does on stage...only this time there are no jokes, just Rock trying to act like a tough-guy which predictably is a joke itself.

It feels like Chris Rock saw the movie "Se7en" one too many times and tried to re-create it by piggy-backing off the "SAW" franchises. Also the dialouge and story are boring. Felt like i was watching another sub-par TV police drama with some bland horror elements shoe-horned in. I lost interest in this less than 10 minutes in, but tried to stay with it. The scene with Rock and his superior yelling at each other in the beginning was laughably bad acting.

That "Superior" or Chief/ Captain whatever is played by Marisol nichols and she has aged beautifully since i remember her from "Vegas Vacation". Still can't act, but she looks great.

1 star...and that's being nice. Some comedians turn out to be great actors.... Chris Rock will never be one of them.

....and finally decided to watch to get into the Holiday mood a little early for the season. I Knew going in that it was a "Christmas Horror" film, but Horror is what i live for.

This movie is intriguing for the first 25 minutes until the "twist" which then causes the movie to go down an extremely dark path and never comes close to pulling it off. I'm not some prude SJW who constantly complains about violence towards women or anything close to that, i'm a horror movie fan....but this movie tries to blend a 12 year old kid becoming a murderous psycho fulfilling some sort of sexual fantasy into a dark comedy and it totally fails to deliver. The kid who plays the psycho just doesn't have it as an actor, although this isn't exactly the greatest material to work with. I try imagining this kid in a different film portraying a similar character and it still wouldn't work.

Without the lead being able to pull this type of movie off, the material falls way short. However, the material is not particularly funny or clever on it's own. The story just leaves you feeling rotten instead of intrigued of where it's going. For example, Patrick Bateman in "American Psycho" is the main character and portrays a murderous psycho who gets off on killing prostitutes, yet the story is intriguing and as awful as Bateman is to people in the film, one cannot deny his charismatic charm throughout the film. Dark comedies with horrifying people can be done well, take 2022's "The Menu" for instance....but this film is downright awful writing and material.

I'll give 2/10 for the lead actress Olivia Dejonge whom i'm just realizing was a lead in 2015's M. Night production "The Visit" which i thought was decent. She is about the only decent part of this entire mess of a film.

I'm going to butcher this, but i remember a review Roger Ebert did on television (forget the film) but he wrapped it up with something like "I appreciate what the filmmakers were trying to do with this picture....and i hated it" Now I wouldn't say i "hate" this remake or re-imagining, but i always come away bothered by it, even while liking some things about it.

I think what bothers me most is that it feels like Rob Zombie just took the "Halloween" original story and tossed it into his "world" of white-trash, foul-mouthed characters. No scene exemplifies this better than the "breakfast morning" scene where the dialogue is so over-the-top abhorrent and distasteful that you start off the film just feeling disgusted and empty towards this entire family...maybe that was the goal? Zombie does this to give the audience a better understanding into how Myers came to be the psychotic killer he is, by showing him as a child in a broken home being neglected and emotionally abused.

Aside from the first 20-30 minutes where young Michael gets revenge on the people who abuse him and then how young Dr. Loomis is assigned to Michael to find out what makes him tick, the final 2/3's of the film pretty much mirrors John Carpenter's original, only we get a longer final confrontation between Laurie Strode and Michael. However, one main difference is that Michael initially attempts to reunite with his once baby sister, but she rejects him due to her having zero knowledge of her early family life (this gets fleshed out more in zombie's follow-up H2).

I know this sounds silly when discussing a slasher horror film, but this isn't a pleasurable viewing experience. It's not due to the content, but rather Zombie's way of shooting scenes with shaky and chaotic camera movement. Also, i don't find Zombie's films to have great cinematography or visually stimulating in any way, and this film is no different.

Perhaps the aspect most deserving of my love/hate relationship with this movie is the violence and gore. This movie was made in the middle of the "Saw" and "Hostel" gore-fest's that were wildly popular during this time. I'd blame this on Hollywood studio's, but Zombie has a history of being excessive with the gore-factor. Yet at the same time, a psychopath killer is going to leave a mess in terms of blood and body parts. I think a lot if this goes back to my early point of Zombie's tendency of using shaky and chaotic camera work to force the viewer to switch places with whichever character is feeling the wrath of Myers. My struggle with this only gets amplified in Zombie's "H2" when a nurse gets brutally slaughtered, yet at the same time it's likely a realistic look at someone being stabbed to death with a butcher knife.

Along with gore, body count and bloodlust being topical horror tropes during this time, creating "backstories" was just as common. Zombie attempts to 'humanize' Michael Myers with his vision, creating this new back-story of an abused child who becomes withdrawn during his court-ordered stay at a mental hospital. Sorry, but i much prefer the version where the man is just evil incarnate, mindlessly stalking and killing anyone who gets in his way. It's much scarier having no idea what causes Michael to kill.

It seems i've spent this entire time ragging on this film, but still managed to score it 6/10. I think it's simply due to the fact that while i do prefer the more simplistic version of Myers in the Carpenter films, Zombie is a talented story-teller and was able to present a cogent and well-made vision of his version of Myers. Also, as i've mentioned before, some of the violence here is gratuitous to put it mildly, yet a mad-man going around offing people is supposed to be unsettling. Just like Zombie captures in "The Devil's Rejects" the violence here is painstakingly realistic, most notably when young Michael takes an aluminum baseball bat to the back of a young man's skull, which causes him to fall to the floor and break into convulsions. I haven't mentioned much about Scout Taylor-Compton who plays the final girl Laurie Strode, but she does a great job in my book. The final scene of her sobbing on top of Michael while attempting to put a bullet into his brain, ultimately doing so and violently shrieking leaves quite an impression to end it.

So just like Ebert years ago I say that i can really appreciate what Zombie did with this story....but i hated it...and can't quite explain why. 6/10 Stars.

The original (1974) is a genuine horror classic. Texas Chainsaw 2 takes a bit of a different approach, but is still enjoyable in a campy way. The next 2 films were lackluster at best, but 2003's remake was perhaps the 2nd best film after the original. Hollywood dished out several follow-ups that were mediocre at-best. Now comes this steaming pile of garbage....

Let's get the good of the way first - Visually, this movie is actually pretty decent, dare i say fantastic looking. The way certain scenes are shot left me at least visually pleased. I'm not familiar with this director, but there is some talent there...now they just need to find some better writers.

The Bad - first and foremost, this film suffers from the main thing that hurts most horror films in the last 20 years or so, and is always my #1 complaint.... The characters are extremely unlikable and hard to root for. I'm not sure who's idea it was to have the 4 leads be these narcissist hipsters obsessed with social media, but these days it's not a shock this is what the viewer is given as heroine's. Secondly, why the heck are these young people flocking to what is essentially a ghost town? Was Austin, Texas all stocked up??? The one guy is a chef, is his food so delicious it's going to rescue this town out of poverty??? I've seen this movie twice and i still don't know what the plan was. Also, since we are dealing with Gen-Z self-righteous bozo's, there needs to be a little social commentary, of course. The curly-haired snob scoff's at someone carrying a gun, the other snob just survived a school-shooting. Of course, by the end of the movie both are practically Sarah Connor. Then there is the "bus scene" in which some yuppie informs Leatherface that he will be "cancelled" if he tries to hurt any of the dozens of other yuppies on-board the bus......yikes. If the aim of this film was to cause the viewer to cheer for the chainsaw-wielding maniac who goes around slaughtering people, then it succeeded, but we all know that wasn't the plan. Finally, there is a cameo near the end in which the original "final-girl" shows up to save the day, but just like everyone else, is a complete clown who makes all the wrong choices.

There are other reasons this is a 2 star movie, but i'm done talking about this. They may have had something here if they had some decent writing, or different plot because the film does look great at times. However, we get this nonsensical plot which feels very rushed, almost like the producers had a few key scenes in their head and just wrote a script around them. I've also seen others mention that the "kills" in this were unique and cool. I guess so, but that type of stuff isn't why i enjoy horror films, but if gore and watching people meet their fate in quirky ways is something you enjoy then this might be for you.

Ok, so my sister was watching this one day when i came over her house to watch her dogs for a few hours ( i don't mind i love the dogs). As i was watching and read the summary of the film provided by her cable company it reminded me of a story i read before that happened in the 1980's. Sure enough, after a little digging i read that this movie was based primarily on the story i was thinking of, giving it the "based on a true story" worthiness.

It's based on the actions of teenager Daniel Laplante, whom in 1987 had been stalking and tormenting 2 sisters who were often left home alone by their father. Their mother had recently lost a battle with cancer, and the now widowed father had taken on a 2nd job to provide for his daughters, often getting home late. The one daughter, 15 years old was now responsible to take care of her little sister (8 years). 16 year old Daniel Laplante was a disturbed teen who had been sexually abused by his father and stepfather, began breaking into people's homes and ended up not only breaking into the home of these 2 girls, but also would spend days living in the walls even when the girls and their father were inside. Laplante often "tapped" on the inside of the walls to scare the girls, and the girls began thinking it was their dead mother trying to contact them. Over the course of 2 months, the family would find food missing, appliances turning on or off while they were out, and furniture around the house being moved out of place. One night, the girls discovered a terrifying message written on the basement wall saying "I'm in your room, come find me". They stormed out of the house to a neighbor's where they called their father. The father believed all of this was either a joke being played on him by the daughters, or that is was his daughters way of dealing with the grief over their mother's passing. The father left work early and came home to find his daughters were not only telling him the truth, but out the corner of his eye he saw Laplante in full make-up and dressed in his dead wife's wedding dress wielding a hatchet. The story goes in different directions with rumors floating around that he held the family captive or that he escaped and then came back and haunted the family more....but shortly after a stay in Juvenile detention for this incident, Laplante would go on to murder a pregnant woman and her 2 children during a home invasion.

As for this movie, it was a basic lifetime thriller will bad production and sub-par acting. The Daniel Laplante story is really horrifying story which surprisingly hasn't been turned into a horror film, or at least a thriller by now.

Mystery thrillers are right up my alley and when i saw an ad for this i figured out time to allow myself to sit down and binge watch. I had heard of this "true story" before since i live pretty close to where that unfolded.

The premise is interesting enough, a well-to-do family moves into an upscale suburban neighborhood, believing and feeling they have found their dream-home. Their dreams quickly turn into nightmares when they receive threatening letters indicating that someone is "watching" them. The show does a good job pulling you in initially as it embarks into this detective-like mystery. Potential suspects are introduced one-by-one and as the show goes along, the parents pretty much become suspicious of everyone.

Throughout the first couple episodes the series jumps through hoops to throw the viewer in all types of directions, playing mind games to implicate different characters as suspects. In doing so, it creates a litany of plot holes. Personally i wasn't affected by it, but i can see how it would annoy others. The show was engaging enough and it certainly helps to have leads like Naomi Watts and Bobby Cannavale at the helm. I became pretty sympathetic to Cannavale, who goes from euphoric in getting this house to a hopeless paranoid trying to protect his family from this faceless menace driving him crazy.

Unfortunately, by the back half of the series the plot begins to wear thin. It seems the show is constantly introducing new culprits or suspects out of thin air just to fill time. Plot twists occur, just for the sake of plot twists and it all becomes tiresome. If your looking for a final resolution, this show has no intention in providing one, instead opting to go with several false-reveal type twists. It's like they wanted to leave the story open-ended, but still had to tie up all the loose ends and do so sloppily.

I know many people were eager to watch this due to it being written by the same guy who did "American Horror Story", I tried getting into that, but didn't enjoy.

I'm writing this review about a year after the release. I figured after letting this settle a bit, maybe i'd re-think just how much i detested this final Blumhouse entry to their "Halloween" trilogy. A year later and i'm more disgusted now than i was then.

Nothing in this film makes a lick of sense and the whole story feels rushed and vapid. There are so many mind-numbingly stupid aspects to this trash, i can't recount all of them in this review...but here is my main criticism.

At no point does this film try to be a Halloween Movie, hell Michael Myers doesn't show up in the thing for almost the entire 1st half. And when we do get Myers, we get some decrepit and broken version and it's never explained why. Instead, we get this half-ass love story between Alysson and this newcomer Corey. The story shoe-horns this Corey kid in as the "new Michael" because of a manslaughter type accident he has while babysitting and the whole town turns against him, which causes him to "become evil".

The "Corey" character may have worked if he was worked into the trilogy in the previous 2 films, but instead he is thrown right into this film from the beginning and it comes completely out of left field as the audience had zero expectation of him now being the main character. If the filmmakers wanted to go this route then this "love storyline" probably should have been implemented in the 2nd film for it to have any shot of making sense.

Beyond just the "Corey" aspect of this story, the rest of the movie is somehow even worse. None of the characters actions or feelings make any sense whatsoever. I really came away from watching this wondering if the filmmakers have ever set foot in the real world. The characters of Laurie Strode and Allyson and their relationship devolve from strong female heroine's in the first film and are now contemptous and rotten in this one, especially Allyson, and once again you're left with nobody to root for against Michael....so why does anyone care what happens to any of the characters???

This whole thing really feels like MTV bought the rights to the franchise and this was their attempt at a "Halloween" film. The whole cheesy love angle thing is incredibly forced and i highly doubt this was the original plan for the finale. The sad thing is that the first film (2018) laid a pretty good foundation to build off of, but it was totally squandered through horrid writing. I think David Gordon Green did accomplish some good things with the way the film and Myers looks, cinematography is to my liking and the visuals are good, score was pretty good throughout....but my lord does this trilogy take a nosedive in the 2nd and 3rd film simply due to the laughably bad writing.

1 star, because the writing and direction of the story are THAT bad.

I'll start off by saying i consider this the next best film after the original 1978 Halloween. As a 90's kid who loved horror films it's safe to say i've had my fill of "Halloween" sequels and re-boots. There are things i like and dislike about all of them (mostly dislike)...the difference with this entry is that there are more things i liked than disliked. Let's start with the pro's...

First off, this is the best Myers has looked since the original or H2. From H4 to H20 nobody seemed to get Myers mask right. The Rob zombie films were atrocious in this regard as well. Not only is the mask true to form, but the actor Courtney has the correct body build, he's not some hulking pro wrestler like in Zombie's films.

Secondly, some great updates to the classic "Halloween" score are a refreshing welcome. Everyone knows and loves those themes, but this film puts it's own little spin on it and it works.

Character Development, this film actually has some or at the very least attempts to do so. We learn about Laurie Strode and what she been up to over the last 40 years, We learn about our new female lead, Allyson and her parents. Even Allyson's friend Vicky has a heartwarming scene with the boy she babysits, before she meets her fate. It's not much, but the relationship between her and the boy actually allows the viewer to give a damn about her.

Some of the scenes involving Michael stalking and killing are the best of the entire franchise. When Myers shows up to Haddonfield on Halloween night, we get a long cut scene of him going through victims. Later on, there is my favorite scene in the film which is when lead Allyson and her friend are walking home from a party and they separate. Michael begins stalking the friend who keeps losing sight of Myers because the motion sensor on someone's backyard spotlight keeps going off and on. After the encounter, Allyson circles back after she hears screams and this is the first time she meets Michael and realizes there is a "Boogeyman".

I like plenty of other parts, but let's get to what holds this film back.

Some of the dialogue is silly. Allyson's dad spills peanut butter on himself during our introduction to the family and promptly announces "I got peanut butter on my penis" i'm sorry but no father says this type of thing, especially in front of his teen daughter. This felt like something Danny Mcbride included. We also get a awkward scene when JLC embarrasses herself at a dinner with her family, and her daughter explains to Allyson her crazy childhood living in fear of the boogeyman. This sequence just feels crammed in.

The Dr. Sartain character pretty much acts as a fill-in for Dr. Loomis here. There is a twist involving him as we near the 3rd act that makes little sense and is executed poorly.

Some of the kills are a bit overboard. This film doesn't quite get into Rob Zombie territory, but some are a bit bloodthirsty. I understand a lot of horror fans love their gore, and yes someone getting stabbed to death leaves a mess, but i'm not a fan of the gratuitous violence. To be fair however, several kills are performed off-screen and allow the viewer the "theatre of mind" to envision how they were done.

Finally, of course in this day and age every film has to have a "social message" and Jamie Lee Curtis as well as others connected to this project have already mentioned the "strong female character" as if that's never happened in a horror movie before (eyes rolling out of my head) This film makes sure the viewer not only knows that female's are brave warriors, but they also subtlety strip the men of masculinity, even putting Allyson's boyfriend in drag. I may not have realized it without watching the promotional stuff for the film, but since the actors and producers bragged about making it a point of emphasis it's hard not to notice. Also while were on the topic of "social messaging", parts of this movie were performed as if they were ads for the NRA which i'm sure is not the message or group the filmmakers would want to present in a positive light.

So there it is. I rated this an 8/10 but that's to scale in regards to other Halloween movies and Horror films in general.

At a time when the likes of Michael Myers, Freddy Kreuger, Chucky and Leatherface were getting a bit stale, and the entire slasher formula was getting played out, in came Wes Craven's "Scream" which broke all the rules while having it's characters acknowledge those very rules in the film. I'll save the "rules" talk and just let the viewers discover that aspect of the film, but i'd like to talk about why this film is a 10/10 for me.

The opening scene is one of the best grabbers in history of movies, let alone horror openings. It shares a similarity to "When a stranger calls" where Carol Kane is babysitting and is receiving threatening phone calls. Drew Barrymore greets the audience answering her house phone and the film is already off running, no long credit opening, just throwing the viewer right into the deep end. The writing and score throughout the opening really draws you in as Barrymore and the killer "play a little game" during their phone call exchanges. Craven does a terrific job building tension as Barrymore's panic and fear increases by the second. The first 10 minutes of this thriller let's the viewer know it isn't F'n around.

Secondly, The main female lead "Sidney Prescott" is crafted by Director Wes Craven to show she's a vulnerable and slighlty insecure young teen, allowing the audience to easily identify with her and root for. Something that's missing from many horror/slasher films is that the viewer couldn't care less who dies because there is no character development for anyone on screen. The films supporting cast are engaging as well with the help of writer Kevin Williamson's sharp dialogue chock full of old horror film references and meta humor. Until "Scream" no horror movie had been this self-aware...but this one didn't go overboard with it like the new ones do.

The next reason i rate this so highly is that the story is actually captivating and becomes almost a "whodunnit" detective thriller as it leaves the audience guessing at who is committing these attacks.

It also has a great "final scene" or "3rd act" which i estimate spans about 45 minutes. The final scene takes place at a house party where all the characters end up and the killer begins picking them off one by one.

I was in 5th grade when i first saw this movie which was on VHS likely rented from Blockbuster. I was a young horror movie fan enjoying the likes of Michael Myers and Kreuger, but Scream just "hit a little different" as the kids say. For me it was the dialogue, score and story. My mom rolled her eyes at Halloween and Nightmare/Elm Street, but with Scream she was engaged because it was more of a thriller mystery. "Scream" wasn't an initial success in theatres, but word-of-mouth did it's job and it influenced a slew of new teen-centric horror slashers, but none of them compared to this classic.

Not sure if i'm in the minority of Halloween fans who enjoyed "Halloween (2018)" , i though Gordon Green made a strong attempt to recapture the magic that made the original such a classic. It certainly had it's flaws, but i felt the story and most of the characters did their job to entertain me.

However, this attempt falls flat immediately by throwing logic and reason out the window and decides excessive gore and "fight" scenes are the pathway to following up the previous installment.

This doesn't feel anything like a "Halloween" movie, but more like a cheap action flick where the "bad guys" gang up on the hero, only for the hero to conquer them one-by-one (because the group never attacks all at once, you see). Only the guy filling in for the "hero" in this thing is supposed to be the villainous psycho killer....yet it's not even worth caring about since the townies of Haddonfield are all moronic dopes with zero logic passing through their brains.

Obviously the real blame lies with the Director and producers of this poor follow-up. I could be wrong, but couldn't help but feel the filmmakers were trying to cram a social message into this thing with the "lynch mob" chanting their ham-handed "evil dies tonight" message. It seemed like they were trying to say something with that and the mob attacking the wrong guy, but the message was so half-baked i'm not sure what it was.

One part i enjoyed was after Myers attacks the group in the car, and Lindsey Wallace escapes from Myers, she hides by a creek nearby the park as Myers looks for her. I thought it was one of the most genuine moments of tension and panic in the entire film. Also, the score is solid. However, the story,acting and dialogue was horrendous even for a horror movie.

Where do i start? I guess with the beginning, which is probably the best scene of the entire film. We get the standard "Scream" introduction with Ghostface stalking a victim, in this case Jenna Ortega's "Tara". I felt there was enough tension and suspense that the movie would be a decent watch going forward.....boy was i wrong! It's pretty much all downhill from there, as we get introduced to Tara's sister "Sam". I'm not familiar with any of these younger actors outside Ortega, but this Melissa Barrera was dreadful in the lead role. There is this scene at a hospital after the initial attack, where the sister's are supposed to be having this "dramatic moment" but the acting is so flat and the dialogue wasn't helping either, that i could begin to see this movie was beginning to go south.

We get introduced to the rest of the players in this, and unfortunately they consist of obnoxious, unlikable teens who are very "self-aware" and if you don't believe me, just ask them! This IMO is the biggest flaw of the entire film since i believe Horror/Slasher films work best when the characters are relatable and charismatic and you want to see them rise up and overcome the villain.....in this case i was hoping Ghostface slashed their vocal chords in the next scene so i didn't have to hear them spout their pseudo-intellectual drivel the rest of the way.

Let's get to the hospital storyline where Ghostface attacks Sam and some of the other teens and anyone watching these scenes has to be asking themselves..."Where is hospital staff, security, doctors, janitors, maintenance.....anybody??" This is the most empty hospital on the planet.

There are at least several more heavy complaints i have about this movie, but i'll wrap things up by saying that i felt like the people who wrote this film, have a strong dislike for "Scream" fans. It seemed like all the easter eggs and references to previous "Stab's" and real-life Scream films were done with a mocking pretentious tone, and the film as a whole felt rushed and half-hearted outside of the "easter eggs". This was just a sad cash grab leeching off of Wes Cravens previous works, and then they have the gall to put "For Wes" in the credits. He'd want nothing to do with this garbage. This movie was a slap in the face to it's loyal fanbase.