buenoschiches

I'm, like, still mad about this movie two days later.

Seeing the positive reviews and mentions of riveting performances is really disheartening to me. As an avid movie fan (especially of the horror genre), have our standards for quality really plummeted thus far? First It Follows and now this? These movies are laughable.

Is the end message here a coming of age tale of a typical mean girl who finally sees the errors in her way? Is that that the takeaway? How about some of the BIGGEST plot holes and questions that we're so quick to overlook? So, we have a girl who doesn't want to acknowledge her birthday because of the painful memory it entails after her mother's death (which isn't described in any way) and they shared the same birthday...... but we're going to make her ringtone an original track telling about it being her birthday? Uh, k.

She just sees that there's a serial killer in existence in her area on the television and his victims happen to be blonde- but it's not at all described where she is, how big the campus is, etc. I initially thought the connection was that this was the man who had killed her mother and was on the loose (which would have been a better angle) but no- just a guy that kills blondes chilling in a hospital under lax security. There's the answer! When she makes attempts to thwart his murderous ways, it's almost as if he knows her or why she's there. But she's just a stranger to him- why didn't that register on his face? When it's discovered who the killer really is (which I called in the first fifteen minutes), Lori seemingly has nothing else wrong with her, but is SO jealous of a married man's affair with her roommate that she's willing to resort to murder because of it? Why not murder the dude's wife then? Did she really not think anyone would decipher that she was poisoned? Hello, stomach contents- how do you do? Also, how did Lori facilitate that Tree would think it was the serial killer who had murdered her? How does that plot line even work? It's figured out that she used her connections at the hospital (where she worked) to stage it so the serial killer would be framed for Tree's murder-- how though? How does that even make sense? She thinks the police are going to find a poisoned cupcake in her belly and assume that he made that for her and knew it was her birthday (huh) or .... WHAT? Ugh.

Then we have the heartwarming moment between her and her father. Again, not giving away too much detail about how the mother passed and why this has seemingly affected her ENTIRE relationship with her father even though her birthday only comes but once a year.

Lastly, it's never once explained, even casually, how Tree even acquires the luxury to be able to loop time in the first place? I mean, yeah- it sucks getting murdered every day. But why is she so lucky to even get a second shot? How does that work? Why is it happening to her? Why does this movie even exist?

Originally, I had gone into this with very low expectations as the last Annabelle movie was a complete flop for me. Ultimately, my tune changed a bit when I saw that this one was actually getting decent reviews, which is rare for a horror movie altogether. I feel as thought there has been a MAJOR drought in quality, domestic horror movies over the past 15-20 years, but I am always keen to check out movies that are loosely based on real-life stories. Enter here- the origin story of Annabelle, although I think that this was likely not at all coherent to the real Annabelle's origin story... but who knows.

With Gary Dauberman on board, I don't know why I expected this film to be superior than Annabelle, but the trailer looked decent enough for me to check this one out (with a Groupon- THANK GOODNESS).

Firstly, how in the world is Bea a derivative of Annabelle? GAH. Okay, next.

I don't want to get into an entire synopsis, because so many others will be able to do that for me. I'm happy to just be a total Grinch about it all, as I really just wanted the movie to end almost 30 minutes into it.

As you know, these movies are tied into the other Annabelle and The Conjuring movies as Lorraine Warren, one of the protagonists in The Conjuring (Vera Farmiga's role) is the current owner of the real Annabelle doll and investigated that case (as well as Amityville, etc.) But the way that these are tied in together was done with almost zero consideration and thought and makes it all seem so incredibly cheesy- not at all an eye-opening moment of WOW... more so, a ".... really?" type of connection. Alas, what grinds my gears in no particular order: 1. Timing. I assume this was supposed to be in the 60s? In a house with electricity and modern flashlights, why were lanterns with matches used as sources of light? 2. The mother's face got attacked (and the doll mask was SUCH a wasted touch) -- why couldn't she walk? 3. If a possessed doll can break out of a covered well, why couldn't she break out of a locked closet? Obviously she could because she kept unlocking it from the inside, right? Why did she just chill in there for so long and only go after her mother- was her dad's soul not cool enough? 4. If Annabelle had been quiet for so long, why did they even bother opening their house to orphans (even though it was sought as penance)? Mrs. Mullins can't even take care of herself and her husband took literally zero interest in any of them.

5. What was the point of having 4 additional orphan girls? They literally served zero purpose.

6. If Annabelle was in the doll and then Janice-- who the heck was in the scarecrow? 7. When Sister Charlotte (who was a horrible actress BTW) stabbed the doll, why did that even matter since Annabelle had possessed Janice? Shouldn't she have stabbed Janice instead for it to have any effect? 8. Had Sister Charlotte never noticed that nun in the photo before? What was even the point of bringing that up for it to not be visited again at any point- really just another lead-in to The Nun movie or The Conjuring 2? WEAK.

9. Is it assumed that Samuel stopped making dolls altogether after his daughter died? What did he even do then for a living? He had already boxed Annabelle up-- what was the point of unboxing her and keeping her? Sounded like he was an up and coming toy maker and had a big order to fill, but instead his daughter dies so he holds onto the one doll that he made (which has no correlation to his daughter in any way) and that's the vessel she chooses to inhabit. Right.

10. WHY DID THIS MOVIE SUCK SO BAD AND WHY ARE THE RATINGS SO GOOD? The acting was atrocious (other than Talitha Bateman), the story was garbage and the tie-ins were forced and pathetic. It's disheartening that people are calling this a good movie. Have better standards, people! It is "jump" scary-- I'll give it that. But that's literally it. Nothing more. Huge disappointment.

Honestly, the concept was interesting and it started off not TOO badly, but this movie is SO TRY HARD. It seems like a horrible, sad version of an edgy torture film that a bunch of bros stand around each other in a group and go, "Yo, you see The Poughkeepsie Tapes? Aw, man- it was ssiiiiccckkkk." Exactly that.

It lacked ANY depth, nothing was a shock and everything was predictable. You didn't get to know any of the victims or many details of the crimes. Why wasn't the house where they found the tapes registered to anyone? They still have no idea how they got that guy's sperm and didn't really care to investigate how he did that or if he chose that guy specifically? Then, more than anything, the acting was HORRID. Especially Cheryl's mother, anyone in the medical profession and any police officer. It seemed so incredibly stereotypical and like they were literally instructed to "act like a doctor, act like a cop, act like a mom, etc." No one acts like that. Also, police forces never refer to cases/killers as the names chosen by the media. This was all based on a bizarre 80s fantasy to make an edgy (but not really that edgy) film that would be a cool and interesting thing to happen in real life- but it's like no one attached to this film has ever done any real investigation themselves or read up on any real crime stories- they've only ever watched movies that romanticize all of this. This movie is all artsy show without any actual grit or authenticity.

Would not recommend. Don't waste your time. Also, the static transitions between every damn shot was annoying just 5 minutes in and it lasts the entire movie. Film school amateur move.

Firstly, can I suggest that perhaps it would have been better had they strayed away from a classic remake, but instead, had created a comedic prequel featuring Gaston and LeFou since they were the real stars of this movie? It is sort of nostalgic- I'll give it that. And I'm not even too mad at the casting choices for any of the main roles. My main concern is with SUCH a big budget for this and after the success of the live-action Jungle Book-- how could a classic like this be given such bad treatment? The CGI was honestly horrendous. I felt it difficult to call this live-action when everything that surrounded the human characters seemed like a really bad theatre set- they didn't even feel like they're in a small, French town. If you're going to really push the CGI route- go full throttle. Don't use it on places that you need it the least- like the Beast's face for example. I'm familiar with Dan Stevens and I could see some of the facial remarks and quirks were him- but that's it. Otherwise, it could have been anyone. It looked like Belle was speaking to a green screen throughout the entire movie. I also didn't love Lumiere's Liberace-esque redesign. But overall- Lumiere and Cogsworth were enjoyable for the most part and Be Our Guest was BY FAR the saving grace as far as the musical numbers were concerned.

If they wanted to do BATB in modern times or re-imagine it- go with it. Go that route. But take it all the way there. I don't think it was a good idea to try and keep the script the same in literally 90% of the movie only to add in a handful of unnecessary extra songs (which weren't actually any good- especially Beast's), the back story of Belle's mom which really did not add anything special to the story and the need to alter the ending by adding in the 'hideous wench' character. What was the point of that? Stick to the original or reinvent it. I didn't mine the slight addition of insinuated gayness of LeFou- I thought it was quite entertaining and very Waylon Smithers/Mr. Burns-esque. I don't understand the uproar, quite frankly. Besides- it's 2017. Can people finally just stop? Being gay isn't a new phenomenon, folks. Just ask Napoleon.

The classic songs felt incredibly flat for me- especially Bonjour. I agree with another review that I didn't understand nor particularly like the odd delays in the song- what was the point? And also, she just didn't really seem to sing with much effort. I like Emma as an actress in most scenarios (I try to forget that she did Bling Ring- arg) but it felt very much like Emma playing the role of Belle in a theatre production- I didn't feel as though she really embodied the character in any way. The stand outs- by far- were Luke Evans and Josh Gad. I don't think they could have done better casting for those roles no matter if you enjoyed the characters or not.

Another thing that felt incredibly dull to me was the colors. I remember seeing the cartoon version of Belle in her glowing, golden dress that was SO beautiful and well-constructed that it honestly just made Emma Watson seem like she was wrapped up in her grandmother's curtains. Like, who did that? If you're going to do ANYTHING the service that it deserves- you can't lack on Belle's dress and that entire Beauty & the Beast dance sequence. It was flat. Where were the colours and the incredible camera angles? I remember one specific "camera shot" that swirled around them in the Disney cartoon version where you could also see the rest of the ballroom- I still feel goosebumps. One of the most beautiful scenes I've ever seen.

And lastly- Mrs. Potts' animation was just plain scary to me.

That is all.

Twitter: @steacyc

*****SPOILERS***** (only not really if you know ANYTHING about her.)

Granted, TV movies aren't much to begin with- but this was one of the worst I've ever seen. It literally seemed like someone read her Wikipedia page and tried to make a movie out of it.

A) It's been done before. Please let her just rest in peace already. B) The acting was horrible. C) It really had nothing to do with who she was as a person. I didn't learn anything new about her or what she really went through in her lifetime. It took the things that we already knew and put them into a crappy TV movie with no real depth or creativity.

The whole movie was a checklist. This happened, okay, then this happened, alright, then this happened, sure, then this happened-

Boring. I literally could have Googled all of that and saved myself two hours of precious time. I don't mine Agnes Bruckner in general, but this was horrible.

Also, the future self "Vicky Lynnnnnnnnnnnnn" Marilyn Monroe wanna be ghost/mirage that keeps appearing- the worst.