nanton-35268

Despite other reviewers who are not able to figure out what comes at night and therefore give this film bad ratings. It is a well crafted movie with great cinematography and a story, told the right way, would have been devastating.

So I'd like to talk about something else because it is very obvious what comes at night. Once figured that out the question is, why does the director chose a chronological narrative for his film? Seeing the ending first enables the viewer to focus on the how. By using that the impact would have been much bigger and probably it would be much clearer of what comes at night. The desperation would be much higher. Bruegels' painting The Triumph of Death at the beginning is just a hint from far away. What do I mean?

The story is pretty short. A family of three try to survive a pandemic of apocalyptic proportions. So how do they do it? Will they keep their humanity? Is there a possibility to survive and keep your humanity? Is surviving worth loosing your humanity? Is humanity a luxury? And so on... Again, with a chronological narrative all these questions become obsolete because the viewer does not question survival. Therefore you have empathy with Joel Edgertons character. If now from the beginning we would know the fate of the characters we get a much more objective angle on the situation. And can watch their road to turmoil and desperation much closer.

So by that in my opinion the movie is mediocre. Despite the flawless camera, cutting, actors and the good premise. That is really too bad.

Kubo is visually stunning. No doubt about that. The animatronics and the sets have so many details it's crazy.

The people who worked on it undoubtedly love what they do. But they are no filmmakers. They are technicians.

So many things are wrong in this film. The story is so predictable. The sequences have terrible timing. The comedic elements are also badly timed and at best mediocre funny. The feature length is 104min. 90min would have been more than sufficient. I'd say 80mim would have been ideal. Maybe even 75min. The fetch quest in this film has no purpose of progress for the story. We spent almost 45min on a search for 3 artifacts that has no meaning to the story itself. I haven't tested it but I swear that every 5sec or so is a cut. No more or less. In action scenes, in sad scenes, in funny scenes. The movie has no pacing at all. Progressing like a metronome. I almost fell asleep.

Please LAIKA, get a decent writer and a decent director.

This movie is best be described as a surrealistic thriller. It's about a couple going into the woods to spent time together. To fix their broken relationship.

Metaphorically it's about a woman struggling with patriarchal and cultural totalitarianism. But also where does this totalitarian boundaries start and end?

That is where the movie begins to fall apart. First there is no chemistry between the actors. So it becomes hard to find a red line that keeps the movie together. Why should I spent time with a low budget movie that has no reflective images and scenes of mentioned topic.

So at the end we are still where we were at the start. Still being followed by one of the most cultural way of oppression. But the woman has not evolved.

Watch Don't worry darling from Olivia Wilde. Ten times better movie where the woman breaks free and becomes a sovereign being.

I haven't read the short story but watched the original.

Children of the corn to me is very much about the horror when children learn that adults make mistakes. So if they do why not take charge? We still have people in charge that are incompetent.

The original movie was pretty one dimensional. Outlanders learn the story of the before time, in the long long ago. Now we are in the before time and learn what happened but we can now witness children helping, that is why some children can drive heavy machinery, kill pigs and so on but they still do not have any democratic voice. If they would ask for it they would be laughed at like in the movie.

The movie is definitely not perfect but it is pretty decent. Both main characters do a fantastic job and are definitely worth a watch. The plot is told straight up. The violence is nowhere near Terrifier but definitely worth R. It feels like a straight to video movie but there is nothing wrong with that.

I don't know what is wrong with people nowadays. Every Marvel movie gets 8ish ratings and this one gets slaughtered. Even SawX gets better ratings and it was worse than this one. I really felt bored watching SawX. But Children of the corn was very descent. A solid 5!

That is how I would describe To catch a killer or originally: Misanthrope.

This is no ordinary crime thriller of authorities on the hunt of a sniper. The movie has so much more to say. No personal dramas getting in the way of the investigation. Ben Mendelsohn is again superb. So is Shailene Woodley. The cinematography comes near to Denis Villeneuve and the underlined subtext is just a punch in the stomach. Capitalism, cultural mannerisms, politics and much more is put under a microscope for dissection.

This movie leaves you beaten down with nothing but a few teeth and the hope society will hopefully be better one day.

Great!

What does Romeros Living Dead Trilogy have in common with Monkey Shines?

Besides the hymns of praise of night, dawn and day of the dead I personally think a couple of things aren't mentioned often enough. Romero always tries to get to the bottom of what humans are. Flesh and bones? Or more? How much more? Why? All three movies give a very depressing answer. Long story short: as long as we do not behave in a humanistic way (renaissance) we are more zombie, more animal than human. Even in the face of the apocalypse.

Monkey shines starts from there. Due to the events in the film the main protagonist becomes more animal and overcomes his issues to be human again. Romero follows the footsteps of HG Wells Island of Dr Moreau and focusses more on human mannerisms. Filmed with finesse. Romero delivers a unique film which rightfully called a classic.

If we would watch more Romero movies and try to understand them we would understand a lot more things.

Only a chapter in Bram Stokers book but after a couple of movies of Orlok, Nosferatu or Dracula arrives at London on a deserted ship there is some fascination about what happened on that ship.

The uncreative version is this film. One by one the crew gets decimated. Ovredals film has some nice images, the soundtrack is a theme based soundtrack. No Hans Zimmer wummering back noise. The actors are throughout ok. But never really good. David Dastmalchian is the only one being able to give his character depth.

The problem is the script. It's too predictable. The only chance a movie like this would have is by creating tension through the crew of the ship. So why on earth write something like that? Dracula can control bitten people or persuade them. Why not write something like John Carpenters the thing mixed with Mutiny on the bounty. Never even showing Dracula. He lies in the casket and on his long trip why not have some fun with the crew? See what happens if suddenly someone is missing, if the weather gets worse and worse, if I play a little mindgames?

The opportunities this movie had were endless. Unfortunately the writers of Escape Room and Bullet train (which were good scripts!) wrote it while taking a dump.

The Prom marks a turning point in the life of many children in the US. They stop being children and go to college or get a job. No matter what you do you will start your life of adulthood.

But with growing up you must face your past.

Prom Night is about that. While the prom seems to be a big party the movie tells us there are much more things under the surface that night. Social pressure, traumas from the past, drug abuse or not being ready for loosing your virginity.

With quite a low budget the movie looks really great. The editing is superb. The camera is hitchcockian but never reaches his finesse. The acting is the weak point of the film along with some dialogues.

Long story short, it's a rightfully classic that deserves it's cult status.

Eli Roth is a moviemaker with quite a list of films. Either as writer/director or as an actor.

10 years ago, along with the Grindhouse movies came the first trailer of Thanksgiving. More as a fun thing to do.

Now we can watch Thanksgiving in theaters. It's still a fun thing. Some good ideas. The actors are not that bad. The cutting and the cinematography is mostly borrowed of classic slasher films. It does not want to be more.

Unfortunately I must say that a theatre release was kind of a bad decision. The movie hardly justifies the time driving to the theatre & spending money. It does not add something new to the slasher movies. It does not surprise you with new cinematography. It is just a movie of a funny 10 year old trailer. I even don't know why Eli Roth decided against the gritty grindhouse look. Furthermore with 106min the movie, considering the story, feels a bit long a couple of times. The story is another issue. There are many topics the story has to offer. Tradition vs capitalism. Father / daughter conflict etc. The movie doesn't follow them. Which makes everything kind of pointless.

So in the end you say to yourself... I could've just streamed it. But when I look around all the things that are playing in theaters now... Thank you Eli Roth!

Home Invasion movies are an interesting genre. There are movies like The Strangers which thrive on the fear of not being safe in your home and that safety is an illusion which amplifies it by the masks of the intruders - it could be anybody. There is Wait until dark which tells a story of overcoming a disability and actually turn it to your favor. And there is Trespass with Nicolas Cage which tells a story of a failed marriage.

Breaking In tells no story at all. A couple of guys want to steal money from rich white collar, Mercedes driving people. The people do not have depth at all. Stereotypical mom, stereotypical kids and of course stereotypical thieves. It could have been a movie which at least asks the question of redistribution of wealth. It could have been a coming of age movie with mother/daughter problems. Nothing.

The so called stupid action movie Die Hard has all of that. Marriage problems because the woman works for a big company and probably earns twice the money her husband does. A sophisticated antagonist. All that embedded in a hero plot of which the blue collar guy just does his job because no one else can. But in Breaking In we have nothing of that. At all. The Cinematography is mediocre at best. The acting is weak and sometimes okish. The best thing in the music of this film is the short plays of The Flamingos - I only have eyes for you. Yes, besides that we get typical mood sounds.

If this is the actual script what we see in the film. The writers should be living under a bridge.

20 years ago the movie was hyped through the roof. Ali Larter, Famke Janssen, Geoffrey Rush. All big names back then. And of course Marilyn Manson delivered a song.

The movie is very old school with the camera angles, cuts, lines and acting. That saves the movie from being a total debacle. There is simply no timing. No sense of horror. Just some dark, gritty, bloody scenes in sequence. We don't know nothing about the characters. Therefore the dark, gritty scenes have no depth. And are disturbing maybe once.

From 1998 to I think 2003 or smth was a time of really bad horror films besides Scream, Ring Original, Pulse original... now I get why there was such a Asian horror movie wave back then...

Jaume Collet Serra remaked Vincent Price cult classic House of Wax.

The original was a revenge crime thriller with horror influences. Whereas in the 50s people were afraid of lifelike art, the 2005 version goes a whole different way. And it does more things right than wrong. The new way is of course the question of what reality is altogether. The Matrix asked that question 6 years prior.

So the real frightening thing is... How different are the 2 dimensional characters from wax figures on wires? The cast is brilliant. The music is not my taste but it was the music 99% of all viewers were listening to in 2005.

Jaume Collet Serra made a good remake if not one of the best remakes there and are. The movie is a bit quirky but has to be regarding the cynical picture the movie has to offer.

With all that said the ending is kind of uncreative I think. A bit fast considering the movie lasts almost 2h, so I guess the end had to be pushed obviously. So altogether the movie might seem to some people like a car accident. But an accident we can think about. I liked it.

This Star Trek episode came to mind during watching Gareth Edwards new film The Creator.

And I will start with a quote of Jean Luc Picard in the courtyard of what rights does an artificial intelligence have: "one is a curiosity. What about a thousand? Does that not become a race? Are we not judged by how we treat that race?" The movie builds up a story where the USA is in a relentless war against artificial intelligence. Indoctrinated like people in the McCarthy era. Over the times where some Blade Runners are searching for a couple of androids. They have already become a race. Mostly living in china or asia for that matter. In 2023 the diplomatic relations are everything else than good with USA and Asia. But the movie does not try to comment on that or comment on the most controversial philosophical issue of our time. The AI.

The movie shows a story of a man letting go of indoctrinated beliefs and helps the supressed. Like in Rogue One, also by Gareth Edwards, in a Guerilla fighting way. Once more Garreth Edwards takes on the theme of rebels. Mixes it with AI themes and brings us a movie with superb special fx, outstanding landscapes and good actors. There are a couple of humorous scene that unfortunately are not funny. Furthermore with all that said. The Creator is a movie with many themes to think about and it is a reminder on how disgusting humans can be by de-anthropomorphize beings. Unfortunately the movie takes kind of a lazy explanation for the conflict. No deeper insight is taken on how de-anthropomorphism emerges. That is crucial in a movie like that and leaves me with the opinion that the movie stumbles upon big ideas it had.

But I have seen worse. Much worse... like Neil Blomkamps desaster Chappie...

But where named movie shows haute class. Haute Tension stays behind several levels. The imigary is too ordinary. Not one shot, sequence or scene will be memorable except for the amount of blood.

Alexandra Aja has made a movie still be quoted as a classic horror movie. But why is that? Everything in this movie has already been there. Without adding something new.

The Haute Tension phenomenon is nevertheless avantgardistic like Raimis Evil Dead. He basically took The Exorcist movie and put it on a new level by adding more extremes. Aja adds more extremes to Hitchcocks masterpiece but misses depth. Evil Dead plays with the psychological effect of masks. And what happens if masks fall off and Raimi plays with it on a cinematographical level of masterclass.

Ajas Haute Tension brings a nice concept but is lacking cinematographical virtuosity and depth. I am talking about masterclass cinema. The camera is still good though and High Tension is a merciless horror movie that will make some people feel uneasy. A must watch for horror enthusiasts.

Resident Evil still is a phenomenon. The video game series is one of the most successful. The movies, including the animated ones, where meh up to ok. Especially the Milla Resident Evil with 6 movies were kinda successful. But bad in quality. The first one aged pretty bad and the rest are flat and changeable action movies. Like Dudikoff movies from the 80s, just with zombies.

Johannes Roberts does it differently. He stays close to the videogame but changes a couple of things that make sense for a movie adaptation. His approach of balancing both is a success. Not only because he has inherited the visual style of the first and second original games. He does something most people disliked. Making Leon S. Kennedy the hero. Moviewise. What people forget, due to watching way too much tv shows, is that heros have to become heros or they have to overcome certain obstacles. By making Leon a total desaster from the beginning he slowly changes into a hero. That is progress 6 Milla RE movies were not able to work out.

Unfortunately the movie has serious problems in storytelling constantly shifting to WS Anderson quality. Especially the end seems a bit rushed. But the action is better worked out due to really good cinematography. With 47 meters down uncaged Johannes Roberts has proven his talent of working out nicely shot sequences.

I can only recommend watching it again or I can not recommend RE Welcome to Raccoon City at all (considering other high cultural movies like Romeros works) because bottom line is that it's definitely a quirky action movie with all kinds of problems BUT if you are a zombiefan this will not disappoint!

So it gets 5 (my ok movie score for polarizing movies) + 1 for personal reasons with nostalgia of the Resident Evil videogames. Which results in 6/10.

Incidents of Ghostland is obviously a huge nod to HP Lovecraft.

Lovecraftian work has always at least one element. Insanity. Protagonists get insane from getting in touch with different dimensions, otherworldly, unimaginable beasts or bottom line: terror. In all different colors and forms. The genius of Lovecraft was to me, to write stories that make you think because it kind of might really happen. Why shouldn't there be creatures as old as the universe living in more than 3 dimensions? Why shouldn't there be a color that messes with biology? And so forth... Pascal Laugnier obviously is trying to make terror not only visible but also searches for it in the human psyche and what happens if it faces enough terror. Especially through torture and pain. Laugnier is the director of suffering. His camera is never hiding anything. So we can watch the characters going through it and becoming more because of it. Unfortunately there is nothing for the audience there. We cannot reflect on existential questions, we cannot think about different political problems, we cannot talk about the movie. We are only faced with a truism of "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". Laugnier is so focused on that truism that there were different accidents around his sets. Might be accidents. Yes. But when I look on the content he creates I'd be very careful being around him.

Nevertheless I'd love to see a Hellraiser movie from Laugnier.

Dark Harvest by David Slade and writer Michael Gilio is a complex metaphor. Throughout the movie there are placed so many subversive visual hints. The speech about prosperity. The certain terrifying secret which is revealed implements today's conflict of gen Y and Z with previous generations. The police which is not for protecting people but for upholding status quo. And of course the Misfit masks. All that revealing certain things about western civilization ideologies.

By placing the movie in the mid 60s (boomers) it becomes totally clear. The boomers are the generation that protested against war and exploiting nature but now are the CEOs of today being the followers of Reagan and Thatchers neoliberalism. Which is basically a form of jungle capitalism. Every man for himself which the movie also shows.

Furthermore the actors are doing a good job, the storytelling is also good and the effects are really great. With 96min a tiny bit too long. 90min would have been perfect.

Great movie!

Rabid came out 77. At the height of sexual revolution along with the anti baby pill, the acquittal of Deep Throat actor Harry Reems 77 and condoms got easier to purchase. Sex became something different then before. People were hyped about the revolution and became almost completely liberated from responsibility. What Cronenberg did here is showing human society during that time. While scratching on other themes like feminism, the upcoming body cult and even anticipated HIV by evolving STDs. This might be a coincidence (or HIV was researched in 77 better than I thought - 80s, was it discovered afaik) but HIV reproduces in the lymphatic glands which are in the neck, the stomach and under the armpits.

Rabid is a kind of work that can be seen by whatever generation and still has relevance. Because it has no message, it's not preachy. For some it's a weird body horror movie with vampire elements, for others its a apocalyptic movie humans brought on themselves.

Unfortunately the editing is a bit wild at times so some things do not make sense and Marilyn Chambers is no trained actress but overall the movie is very unique and a must watch!

I do think that it's a real shame those old horror movies more and more loose their relevance because after The Exorcist it seems every horror movie has to make people scream. Literally scream. What about other things horror movies can do? What about a sinister atmosphere? An atmosphere an antagonist can have and carry a movie? Like Bela Lugosi? What about shots you will remember? What about pictures a movie doesn't show but is created in your head by dialogue? What about sophistication (Swan Lake is a genius idea for a Dracula story)? And finally storytelling. This movie does in 75min where Coppola needs almost 130min for. Sure it feels a bit rushed at times and I don't know what it is with David Manners but I think he acts like he wasn't in the mood for this movie... Nevertheless directors today need to learn which scenes are important and which scenes are not. Yes I am looking at you Ari Aster!

Roman Polanskis film Rosemarys Baby is one of the most debated movies. Some people think it's a conspiracy movie with horror elements. Others say it's a horror movie about a satanic cult. And there is the theory that it's a movie about ideologistic oppression. Because it's the second part of Polanskis Apartment trilogy among with Repulsion from 1965 and The Tenant from 1971. Both films weren't as successful.

Rosemary's Baby is a very subtle movie from one of the best directors in movie history. So how do people perceive this movie so differently? People of a younger generations even partly think it's boring and weird.

I personally think everyone is right. Because Polansky overloads the movie with subtlety. There are scenes in it that are not easy for interpretation. Let's take one scene: The scene after Rosemary wakes up after she got impregnated. She has scratches and she feels tired and strange. Her Husband said he took her while she was unconscious, for fun and it was a change and something new. -Besides it's rape. This theme was discussed in many courtyards and back in the days the woman had no right to say no because it would be a part of marital obligations. In consideration of the satanic cult theme of the movie the topic looses its power and is not considered a serious topic anymore because satanic cults do satanic things. I hope it's clear what I am trying to say.

In my opinion Rosemary's Baby is a masterpiece but sometimes it stumbles and falls. In my eyes the horror that still has relevance is that a woman in this society needs to get pregnant and if she is, she needs to do this and that. If she refuses a thing a doctor said she is treated like Rosemary. So we are in our society more towards a satanic cult then away from it. That's what still makes the movie frightening even after almost 60 years.

Hour of the wolf is, like always, a partial autobiographical film by Bergmann. An artist painter and his pregnant wife come to an island.

What happens then is the dissection of a man. An artist. An artist with great talent. We see his inner demons and he tries to fight them. Even during the time when we are the weakest. Around 4 in the morning or The hour of the wolf. Ingmar Bergmann shows us his demons and the influence on his wife or wifes. The fans so to speak, that keep asking questions, the answers he gives are being celebrated. And so on.

In Zarathustra by Nietzsche, we learn that some trees want to grow high (like becoming a great artist) just to wait for the lightning. Not only that, the higher a tree grows the deeper his roots grow into the ground - into evil.

Bergmann shows us a tree getting hit by lightning. And asks what the lightning will also damage with the tree.

I tell you... maybe everyone in range. Maybe nothing. But the real question is why you should care. Of course it's sad but people get hurt everyday by your simple existence.

In my opinion Bergmann is wallowing in self pity over his brilliance and snorts it all over his audience. By not reflecting on the why. He even goes so far to let you sit there for 1 minute and nothing is happening.

Nevertheless it is a movie with great cinematographical power.

Are you naughty or are you good? Nietzsche said that all actions are nor good nor evil. It is our morality that divides actions in good or bad. By morality of the masses. In prehistoric times actions were good when they served a good purpose. Killing a tribe to get water was therefore good. Unthinkable in today's standards.

Silent Night Deadly Night does a phenomenal thing. It shows a tragedy, then years of brainwashing by false morality so we, the audience, can understand what is happening in the killers mind. It goes so far that it hurts. Because we all grew up with x-mas and Santa. Furthermore we don't like our morality being questioned and Santa. But hasn't Santa done much much more for the industry than for children? So the controversy about this film was inevitable.

A classic!

Wolf is a unique piece of film of our time. The movie tells a story of midlife crisis of men and the replacement by younger generations. Not only in the job area. And not only in this aspect. Since the 80s the golden age of Hollywood came to an end. Over with psychological focused storytelling and over with surrealistic dream sequences. This movie puts all that back on the table in a shape of modern filmmaking. Despite all that the movie coming out in the 90s, in the 90s there was also a change going on feministically. Some say in the 90s the patriarchal structure began to fall and matriarchal structures begin to rise. Women became more and more confident. This is not a movie about feminism, I just want put out in what time the movie came out to visualize what the movie is artistically. One of a kind that mixes many social and cinematic themes (and their replacement) with iconic actors with a screen presence we only have a one or two left.

Yes it's not perfect but it is one of those movies that have the cinematic magic in it because of iconic actors, great directing, great cutting and good cinematography.

It is well known that the script was rewritten many times. Originally written by John Carpenter I think what remains are about 10%.

I am guessing it's the main plot of Laura Mars being a photographer of sex and violence sees violence not only through a camera lens.

The camera lens itself is a great topic of how pictures from a camera and moved can be formed into a movie. Or in this movie a nightmare. But Irvin Kirshner decided to use it simply for effect. Besides that he tells a typical story of misleading the audience with a mediocre soundtrack.

Too bad, the movie had some great themes but nothing is done with it. It's not bad but could have been much much better...

This movie is basically not bad. The actors are ok-ish. Laura Regan is trying but she can't carry the movie. She is no Mia Farrow despite there are similarities and she tries to imitate her. Director Robert Harmon is ok-ish and tries to compensate a weak script with Hitchcockian angles but he is no Hitchcock and so the movie looks like an episode of The X-Files. As an X-Files episode the script would have worked. Because I think the story has maybe 60min of runtime in it. The movie is roughly 90min. So it feels stretched out at times. The boyfriend for example does not add one tiny bit to the story. Laura Regan only reflects her state with him. Which means she tells him what happened. But she does so with her psychiatrist. And with some friends. So the movie kinda doubles and sometimes triples certain plotpoints without progress through dialogues.

It's ok-ish for a rainy Sunday though.