lambiepie-2

This is certainly not a film for everyone's tastes as far as the story goes. But, in watching this, all I could think of was another filmmaker's work, that of David Lynch in his earlier independent days of films like "Eraserhead." I was intrigued by such work when I was younger, but my parents- wow! I never could warm them up to Lynch's early work. It was different and took more of an arty approach, stretching the bar than a typical cinematic one that would have ignored such a thing. I feel the same way about 'Poor Things' in this generation.

My words to describe this film? 'Out there,' 'creatively expressive,' and 'cinematography nuanced.' The basic story was my cup of tea; the realization of it on screen in many parts, was NOT.

Just as with the Barbie film, the women's lib thing was overbearing and not subtle in its conveyance at all, and that didn't keep my attention as this path grew and went 'over the deep end' in message for me. Meaning, I did not think it was sooo much needed.

Extracting that over-messaging from the film could've left me with the Lynch-esque Frankenstein-ish horror Dr. Baxter's grotesque played just as 'on the edge with vile experimentations' by Willem Dafoe.

We also had the greedy and wickedly 'scheming cad' Duncan, played 'to the crazy hilt' by Mark Ruffalo. It reminded me of one of those animated Disney character Princes of late, that was 100 percent all for himself instead of saving the damsel in distress.

Emma Stone appears here as an interesting creation of Dr. Baxter's. To me, watching her believably go from death to a stumbling abomination creation through the stages of childhood to adulthood, with all the stages that come with it, was acted well in this film by Emma.

But...did it need to show all that overt sexuality? Even though I understood it was a period of adolescence and rebellion stages for this creation, I feel it didn't have to go THAT far. And so, I feel this creature's sexuality, even when you connect her reason for death to becoming this creature now, could've cut some of it out.

I am not saying that even if that were done to this film, there wouldn't be viewers who would STILL consider this their cup of tea, and I say that is all good. No one likes everything, but those who like obscure, heavily artistically designed material may find it to be like this, even questioning its intentions and flaws.

I waited to see this on MAX to experience all the commotion, and if they never made the film "Bolero," this would rank as the worst film ever made for me.

From the DEI Barbies to the tack-on mean girl junior high school girls (btw, with the way I actually feel about these pieces of plastic), to the Barbie rules the world crap.

Then they leave the playland and look at the real world, and Ken finds out it is not a secondary piece of plastic but a ruler of the world; tries to change their playland, and the Barbies revolt or something akin to it so all of this was boiled down to hogwash.

The acting was..acting. I felt nothing for anything, and the preachy ending was overblown. And I thought Mattel had pasted together old 70s "After School Special" or "Johnathan Livingston Seagull" -ish clips to give some feeling. I got tired of hearing the Mattel brand name; it grew tiresome, and the accessories to the pieces of plastic they used as consumerism at its best. The only thing I liked was the end credits going through Mattel's plastic products associated with Barbie - and I loved seeing the dog that pooped.

It didn't grab me; I didn't find it funny anywhere. It went from the most annoying opening to as far as one can get annoying in every second of this film. The music was shallow; the production design teetered on Terry Gilliam's work but without the imagination or talent, and old 1920s/1930s film backgrounds and old Three Stooges routines were very tiring.

This film was not for me or my demographic; it is for Barbie lovers, and to be honest, when my mom bought me one, I set her blonde hair on fire and ran her over on my Big Wheel, so maybe that had something to do with it.

I gave it a view through and can never honestly get that time back. A solid 1 for me.

Yes, I saw this in the theater and had one view; after watching Peacock a few times, I am updating my review. However, I am not upgrading the thought that this is a preview of future things. After reading the "after reviews," I believe the writers of this are probably not. They MAY NOT be attached to the next (yay!), and David Gordon Green hopes to be the Director but may not be, but his opportunity may be involved in some other faction of #2. I think it makes sense after 'figuring out' this one.

I noticed so much more - so in rewriting my review, I saw tie-ins to the original, albeit weakly done. There is much I won't mention, as I'll call them - distractions and poor suspense writing and why the film practically failed.

SPOILERS AHEAD

The Exorcist: Believer has a man, Victor, who has seemingly studied all religions and stepped away from them. He and his pregnant wife, Sorenne, go to Hati, where Sorenne is very willing to be led off to a place where folks she has never met are doing 'something' for her unborn child. Is it prayer or something more? Who knows. There's an earthquake, Sorenne is very badly hurt, and Victor has to decide between his wife and the baby. Years later, we get to where Victor and his daughter Angela live. Angela is combing through her mom's things, which is to tell us she wants to know more about her deceased mom. Or does she want to know?

She goes to school, and she and her best friend Katherine decide to go into the woods to do a ceremony for Angela to 'talk' to her mom. Here's the first thing I noticed - before Angela does this, she convinces a classmate to cover for her while she and Katherine go into the woods. How devious. She and Katherine go missing and turn up days later at a barn. Pay attention to how they are discovered - an animal is dead, and what is said is something like 'Oh, the fever got another one". Fever? Something is happening, but what? Why there? Same with Victor when you see him doing his portrait job - that family, and what he sees! So what happens there? There was something there, but what? Who knows?

Katherine and Angela go home, show signs of possession, etc. Here are some clues to something possibly interesting. Angela writes Regan's name on the board in her hospital room with her fingers/fingernails. Forecasting. When the girls are placed together, and everyone is doing a Primer Exorcist routine, who is getting the most out of it? Possessed Angela. When the helpful Father comes in to help, who offs him? Angela. Who lives? Angela. What about Katherine, you ask? Katherine is residual, IMO. While she was not meant to be possessed, she was. But Katherine was not the target. It was always dabbling Angela. Angela helped bring a soul to Hell (remember Katherine pleading that she didn't want to go to Hell? She knew, it knew. And off Katherine went), and a highly religious one at that! Score one for Angela. Then Angela goes to school and everything is hunky-dory. Nope, look at Angela's face as she looks at Katherine's empty desk. Ah, she misses her friend you think. No, she doesn't. Look at her face.

If what I get from The Exorcist Believer is the above, it's not easy to find. Dropped balls. There was no real suspense, no thrill, no real explanation of whether this was Pazuzu or his boss (which is a female demon) coming for revenge on...Regan (I think so!), the OTHER one who got away - and Angela, the possessed still, as one who is out to get her. I think the believer was Katherine and her family and they didn't make it. The Non-Believer, Victor, and his marked daughter Angela are probably "the deceivers". Ah-ha.

If this is so, it could have been so much better than what one has to comb through watching it. The actors were okay; the young ladies in their roles did much better than what they were given. There was so much potential here, but if this is a "preview", yikes. I now wanted them just to come out with it. They did not. Who wants to wait for the next one to explain this one when ya should have done it with what they had?!

Again, it looks like there will be a second one. It looks like this whole team may not be involved as is, and I hope the next team hears what we noticed, cranks up the volume, and delivers a better film, but it is not, please...stop thinking of doing a companion piece to classic horror-psychological masterpiece can be chopped to bits, and we, the audience doesn't get much out of it, when all signs point to we should have.

A 5 out of 10 for me, and most of it was for the sound and makeup, and the two young actresses.

It was curiosity that got me to watch this film, and this is an example of the old saying "how curiosity killed the cat", so to speak. There is nothing redeemable about this film what-so-ever.

At first, I thought it was a horror-comedy about our beloved book character Winnie the Pooh, but what it was - was a jumbled mess of many slasher films using the characters of Winnie the pooh.

I couldn't even make out who was slashing whom and why after the "introduction" of the film. And yes, the introduction of the film before the credits was gosh-awful.

Make up? Uh, nope. Special Effects? Uh, nope. Good dialogue? Uh, nope. I am not a prude, but this was one of those films where I was wondering why female nudity was needed at all. And in movies like this, usually someone would pick up a shovel or an ice pick or even a paddle from a paddle ball game, some kind of weapon to save themselves -- or their friends from the Pooh. Uh, nope.

Really an awful film, waste of time money and - opportunity for a better premise.

Pooh was poo.

This "Graveyard Rats" episode begins as a typical 'back in the century grave robbers in horror I have seen countless times before' but starts to change quickly. I find that was good as it went into the issue of who is the actual grave robber and why. Sure, to some, it may seem like a tired premise, but in sticking with it, finding out the competition in the cemetery's grave robbing was creepy and crazy - and I liked it!

I like a good tale that encompasses lots of rats, underground mazes/tunnels, greed, and ancient stories of a coven buried with some riches. It was suitable for an anthology series where this episode centered on them.

When the caretaker Masson enters the picture, you'll know there are double dealings and thievery in that he has to owe someone something afoot. For me, that wasn't the issue; it was discovering what was prompting him from stealing from the dead in the (18th Century?) to paying off his debt. He says it's "The rats..." and how he has to steal from the bodies before they do; hence the debts he has incurred will be paid. Of course, his creditor doesn't believe him, and this tale - is about just that.

And the end is predictable for horror fans, but it still presents a good ride. This was one of the better episodes of this series.

I expected the pop music crazy life treatment with the crazy people in the 'biz' surrounding the latest young female money maker type thing - but my issue so far with the first one is getting it all together.

However, the second episode in the beginning is more of what I would have expected to start this than the first. You see her handlers going after a pop Idol after you find out she's grieving the death of her mom. Do they care? Is it just about the money? Them losing power over her? Yeah, the second episode would have been a better debut in that context.

And now about 'Mr. Club Mysterious Tedros' (lol), I could do without him so far as -- they could take all this in another direction to make it more about her decent into madness - what seems to be her unraveling with all the vipers around her. From the second episode, I could also see this being a more 'surreal' outing of a pop idol life; than all the unnecessary shock crap, and then this mysterioso club guy boring character thrown in. This coulda started out and been...or might still be promising.

In many of my reviews of foreign films, I often mention the old Los Angeles cable channel called "Z" - as it showed films that American Cinema didn't dare touch the subjects like foreign filmmakers Did. And movies that were getting acclaim from Cannes and other film festivals appeared on that channel. This film reminds me of one of those films from the 70s/80s. Still, this one takes a very dark turn for me, and only because IMDb requires a rating, I did one, but it is below that for me once it hits the final quarter. For me, it makes no difference if a woman or a man wrote and directed it; there is NO excuse for this film to have ended to what I interpreted it to be.

It starts as a story of a woman in a village who sold eggs but serviced men - and they all knew her and where they could go. She doesn't seem ashamed about her station as the film unfolds, so neither should the film watcher. She knows what she is; she has two daughters to whom she ALSO seems to know (And she doesn't seem to factor that into her promiscuous behavior even though she has tried to have her trysts away from them) and is curious as to what she does with these men as well. Ok.

Then a veterinarian comes to town and enters her life and seems to calm her behavior for a while, even to make you think she could fall in love with him. And settle down? The hope is there - she seems to be headed to a 'one woman' man; he appears to be directed towards being a family man as he looks to provide a father figure for the two young girls. Ok.

But then comes next is what I found deeply disturbing and threw me for a loop. Again, it's important to note it's all for interpretation because (thank goodness!!!!) this review is my interpretation. The veterinarian finds Tamar back to her old doings, having an encounter with some man from the village. The Vet realizes this woman will not change. He goes back to where he was staying with her and her daughters. The daughters had fallen asleep, so he put them to separate beds, one in the bed he and their mother shared.

Then we see him strip naked (back view) in that bedroom, and then we see Tamar, the mother, peer through the window, horrified. She runs to her neighbors' homes - seemingly for help. Then we see the neighbors/men of the village beat this man senselessly. He crawls up in a fetal position, and she comes over to him and holds him.

I get this is to show two incredibly damaged individuals (although there was no hint of the Vet being so ''til the end of this film). But I did not need that conclusion. I could not draw anything from it than what I believed happened and for me, too much for this film watcher; over the top and when it comes to children, and film-this was not necessary - and I am not being prudish (I got through the film this far!) but as a woman - she could have done better with the theme.

I found it an "excuse" to contrast the character's overly promiscuous behavior to throw in a very, very bad scene to show how more disgusting men can be no matter how long she's been doing the town for years and in that she hasn't been too interested in her daughters and how they may see her (and in little spots, you see the daughters are not blind to her behavior). But it's now "the guy" who is that bad one, not the woman who has been doing the town. Wow. Not Cannes Award material, in my two cents. Please understand me; I see the symbolism throughout the film, but that does not negate my interpretation as shared above.

My review does not recommend this film, but if you're going to watch this for curiosity's sake, be warned it isn't for everyone and may leave you feeling like I do - to wish I had taken a pass on it.

"A Knock at the Cabin" is not a bad 'film'; as I watched it, it had more of a feel of a theater play. That could throw some viewers off as 'film' these days is built on so much more to get folks in their seats. But I liked the presentation. Although there could have been more character development, it is a character study.

There is a situation presented to a same-sex couple and their daughter that will need to have a problematic sacrifice to make to 'save the world' from 4 folks that appear at their cabin out of nowhere. And there are the struggles of each character (inner and outer struggles), such as whether to believe or not. It was very on the surface, not diving more into the dilemmas each character had to arrive at to decide.

Dave Bautista was fantastic to watch in this; I just wished to know more about his character and all four. For example, the film allows one to get into the characters' background more visually; in theater, it may come in a spotlight monologue moment. But here, neither, and it lessens the intended impact.

I must mention another film that reminds me of "The Rapture," done 32 years ago. It had some of the same choices. In that one, there was more of a dive into each character and the situation they were in-going in-ending in.

"A Knock at the Cabin" needed more character development, similar to 'The Rapture' because as it went along, it built your interest in the character background, which made me care about what happened to the characters at their ends.

In contrast, I didn't care as much about 'the end' in "A Knock At the Cabin" cause you really can guess. I wanted to know why these folks were chosen, how they were chosen, who they are, etc. - and maybe that much was left on the cutting room floor. If so, wrong decision. If not, it was needed. The film wanted me to get into - which made "A Knock At the Cabin" more surface than the required depth.

However, I watched to see how it would pan out. It had its points and while could have been better; it was a solid 5 for me.

Let me say that the production design, costumes, and music (I'm buying the soundtrack at least) were nice but not enough to hold this picture.

It seemed to want to tell the story of the beginnings of Hollywood from the silent film era to the talkies -- and those who came across it. It was crazy, crazy, CRAZY - times back then, and this film went with the crazy, decadent, drugs, deprived, sex-filled underground, euphoria and depression of it all. Good idea, but this film didn't pull it off.

I don't think it needed a better script, but it did need an hour and a half of editing as it seemed there was more to it in parts, but the continuity wasn't there. It didn't need all the over-the-top sex; we, the audience, got it the first time around kind of thing. That's what was way overdone. But it seemed like the film was getting into the lives of 'real' folks from that area but stopped short - which was also unfortunate. I didn't have enough, even after 3+ to want to care about any of them. Not even a bit, and that was unfortunate as well.

Although, I thought maybe (without big spoilers here ) -- if they took the part close to the end and placed it at the beginning of the film (while hokey and typical Hollywood tacked on) - and left the end montage at the end (yeah, I got it -- and that WAS the most interesting part to me) it would have helped.

That, and an hour and a half of editing.

Well, this had very neat special effects, and watching those kept me interested in the film throughout. I am a fan of the first Hellraiser and the second. This seemed to have element of both. But overall for me, it made me not wonder any more if Disney remade an adult franchise horror genre. While it had an "R" rating, eh, PG 13 may have worked without.

I was not all that impressed with the story line here because what I found more interesting in the original was the adult themes. Here we had "Reilly, a young female adult with a drug issue, no real where to live, and her gay brother Matt who tried to help her but couldn't. Then there was a story of some millionaire who wanted to experience what the Cenobites gave and...well, I just didn't care about the rest of it, really. Some Gen Z and Generation Alpha stuff with the old Gen Y'er looking for fulfillment, which was also a part of deadening the story for me. Not horrifically-creative at all.

About the Cenobites...for me, disappointing. And it wasn't because "The Priest" was female. That was interesting, for 5 minutes. What turned me off was two things: one, that the Cenobites reminded me mostly of moving through the film like they were in a production of "Swan Lake" wearing creative rubber suits.

At one point in the film (The Billionaire's house/puzzle), one of the Cenobites actually reminded me of "Vampira" walking in the movie "Plan Nine From Outer Space" and two; even if the rubber suits didn't concern me, they were powdery- too powdery, maybe even too pretty. The horror of it, the S&M of it - or anything adult that NONE of us would ever want to see , wasn't there so to speak. It was like that design/make up team was held back and was told to be more concerned with making them look like X-mas merchandise such as dolls and things to sell, more commercial than a "never would I buy this in my life!", but now an "Eh, not soooo bad".

Yes, I gave it a 5 because there were parts that were visually interesting, but I also have to say, "too many chains-a-flying". We get it, but I think we needed to get ...more. Especially when they used the line: "We have such sights to show you". Sorry, it didn't show me jack.

As I watch this entry into the Marvel Universe, I find that I enjoy experiencing something different and learning about a culture I know little about. Each episode I find interesting. I also see elements of a "tween" Ms. Marvel and a clash of cultures.

Captain Marvel crosses many multidimensional paths, and watching this is a thought to keep in mind. We have a female teen comic geek who is an artist living in New Jersey and whose family is Muslim (The actress Iman Vellani is believable as teen Kamala Khan). As a typical teen, she has a close male friend she will also lose as he gets into an early college acceptance program.

Many teens have an issue with family, no matter what they are, because they have things their family expects of them. One of them isn't being a superhero comic book geek. However, Kamala Khan finds a bracelet her grand-mom from Pakistan sent with other stuff. The bracelet is more than it seems, so she sets on this adventure.

There is nothing exotic about New Jersey where she lives, so Kamala did dream, and now something is happening that may be exciting for her. She becomes amazed, scared, and confused by the things happening to her with this bracelet - as most teens would. She now has (the typical) bad guys coming after her as she discovers what that bracelet is and who she looks destined to be. And maybe who that is may not be good.

Ms. Marvel is an adventure series for tweens, but I find it interesting with that take. I like the New Jersey -Muslim - Pakistan dichotomy. The action in places can be a bit high (especially in Pakistan, the death count, etc.). And you're not sure whether Kamala will be up to whatever she finds out.

By episode 4 - the audience is thrown a bit of a curve - is Kamala a "superhero" as she thinks, or something in her culture that may be worse than even she doesn't like. There are a few more episodes to go, and I am interested to see how this ends up for her. I do like the effort and will see how this season ends.

The audience of the entire movie theater show on the opening weekend was favorable primarily to Jurassic Park: Dominion. Although for me, there were a few neat parts in the film, there were also too many rehashes from other Jurassic Park and Jurassic World films placed here.

In this particular theater, the audience was wide-ranged, from 5 to 80+. There was a melding of those fans of the Jurassic Park 3 films with actors Sam, Laura, and Jeff. Then, some were aware of the more recent 2 Jurassic World films with actors Chris and Bryce. And were interested in seeing them all together to deal with man and dinosaurs. This story didn't dive into that as it should, and I didn't like the locusts' tie-in. But the Biosyn connection could have been written much better in my observation but wasn't.

Also, I happened to be sitting in the row ahead of several parents who had brought their children. All these children, ages 6 to 8, were only there for the dinosaurs - not the story. Some parts of the 'story' were traumatic. (I do want to add as an aside, I did have to listen to one six-year-old boy behind me who at least 5 times kept sadly asking ask his dad if the "dinosaur ate the bunny ." (Come on, folks - don't bring your 6-8-year-old to films like this if you're not prepared to explain! This dad did not.)

The point is, depending on where in the series one lands, whether or not we will be entertained. Those who are fans and were there from Jurassic Park all the way through - get it. The general audience has seen this all before; that's true. Jurassic World: Dominion has more re-treads from the previous 5 films instead of offering something fresh and different, presenting a better send-off for the series. I recognized this, but it still had some entertainment value, just not enough. For example, I was entertained by Malta's 'underground' black market scene. As I watched, it seemed like it could have been developed more independently from all this.

On another note, another opportunity lost was the introduction of a Therizinosaurus which realistically arrived in the Cretaceous period and not the Jurassic. Maybe I was one of the only folks in the audience that could not easily bend that suspension of belief, and it made me wonder why they did it. It's not like there weren't other Jurassic period dinosaur they could have developed.

But if this was one of those sly introductions they introduced to bring the audience into the Cretaceous as a tie-in for the next trilogy, they missed the opportunity to explain. However, that's too much of a deep dive for most of the audience, and who'll care? I'm mentioning this as another opportunity among many lost through shoddy writing, plot holes, lousy editing, or COVID-19 production, eh, take your pick.

There was so much potential there, but it ended up choppy and rehashed. While I was happy to see every character from the Park and World get together for this last outing, they deserved well better send-off.

I usually watch the entire series before writing a review. Still, I felt the need to chime in now after reading how disappointed others seemed with it after three episodes. But not for the right reasons in many of the cases.

As a viewer, I am enjoying this, for it has attempted to answer a few questions I had of Obi-Wan since the first Star Wars: A New Hope. When it began, you have an adult Princess Leia giving her droid a message to find Obi-Wan and claiming he was their only hope.

Also, I wondered why, when found, Obi-Wan spent his years 'hiding out', especially from one folk in particular. It wasn't until decades later that I asked my brother, a big Star Wars fan, to summarize how powerful Darth Vader grew in that time and how afraid Obi-Wan was of him. I still wondered --why - you know - because of all the things around the Star Wars Saga I NOW have seen, etc. I never forgot what my brother told me: "You'd probably try to wash your hands of the evil Darth Vader you helped train and hide too." I thought, oh, I think I get it.

So with three episodes in, this series is making it more transparent for me. What MAY have occurred with Obi-Wan's years running away. Other challenges he might've run into while 'looking over Luke .'He was hiding from what he inevitably sensed and knew he had to face and knowing 100% Darth Vader would be his death.

A few 'Star Wars feature films filled in some of my pondering about Obi-Wan: he was "out there hiding." But after reading many of these UNNECESSARY hate-filled and negative posts, I'm curious to know if those reviewers are here to critique the series. And for other posts, I'm curious to know what folks think Obi-Wan did in all those YEARS? That his "hiding" was whimsical and stress-free as he watched 'Luke' grow up? That there would be no encounters, etc.? Well, this series helps answer some of that.

The Obi-Wan Series wishes for its audience to consider those years of 'hiding,' being there for 'Luke' - to help teach him the ways of the force to come to battle with these folks. Three episodes in, I am being entertained by this series for that purpose.

However, I am curious about reviews that have made this piece of entertainment so divisive and -- political. Many aren't even reviewing the show at all. It's Disney or about race! It's Star Wars, for goodness sake; I'm not even SURE if it's a concern among the humans. Deceit, lies, and power are more -- and all are willing to bowl each other over for it to be in service of the most EVIL, who doesn't give two hoots about them either, to do HIS bidding. Upon further thought, there's a lesson. Maybe it's hitting too close to home for many of those unrelated negative reviewers. And just to prove my point, in 5 minutes that my review was up, 12 people already voted it down. Are real people who have actually SEEN this series reviewing -- or bots?

But for this reviewer, it's entertainment, and so far, it's following the formula. It has the bad guys, the good guys, the primary evil, and the 'hero' Obi-Wan. He's constantly running, doubting, afraid of the student now as the epitome of evil and, as we know, out to destroy him.

I see no issue with ANY of the actors. I like watching Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan and love, love, LOVE James Earl Jones's voice as Darth Vader. The overachieving evil here is with Reva/Third Sister, played by Moses Ingram. The actress is playing it well because the character is ticking off folks left and right. As a character, Reva joins the list of evil Star Wars power grabbers but fits the 'formula .'On the same end, so does Fifth Brother, played well by Sung Kang, seeking the same power of evil and appointment and acknowledgment of Darth Vader. And the ten-year-old precocious little Princess Leia, played by actress Vivien Lyra Blair, is acceptable. Leia, this character, is a ten-year-old in a situation where she has to think beyond her little droid at times. We have to remember she's ten and doing things beyond what a typical ten-year-old would do, but hey, this is Star Wars. I like the character.

I must acknowledge the deep-diving Star Wars fans who know a lot more than I do. I appreciate their reviews breaking this apart scene by scene, timeline by timeline, and pointing out inconsistencies based on what they believe should happen. They are loyal and would dissect this series with what they know. I can't dive that far, just seeing it for what it is - entertainment.

Obi-Wan Kenobi, the series on Disney+, works for me so far. I am invested in watching this to the end for what it is - A "Star Wars" saga. Crazy characters, power-hungry, nice CGI, wardrobe, and decent production sets against a backdrop of Star War's most significant drop-out Obi-Wan Kenobi. It 'ain't' perfect for some of the die-hard fans "Star Wars, and it's perfectly fair for those reviewers to state that. I know the base characters, watched most of the Star Wars films and entries, and so far find this very entertaining.

I saw the original Candyman in the 90s, and this story's version was headed not far from it. What happens here is that it is bogged down with additional elements that did not have to be. I saw nothing political in it (and folks who keep equating EVERYTHING to politics need to stop!!!!), This was just a bad direction for what may have been a good update.

The original tale, generally skimming, was about a grad student finding out about an artist (Candyman) in a love that should not have happened in those folks eyes back in the 1800s. As she researches the tale of how this tale terrorizes Cabrini-Green residents with her friend, they discover the tale that saying Candyman's name in a mirror will summon him. Well he eventually comes and terrorizes, but the grad student gets framed for the murders he does 'cause no one else is in the vicinity but her. When the grad student has to go on trial for murder, Candyman says he'll help her if she helps him continue to terrorize the folks at Cabini-Green. The grad student is also involved with saving a baby from Candyman, and in the end she saves the baby from the bonfire and throws herself into it, saving the baby (but the flames kills Candyman).

Now -- that that's out of the way, looking at this film - it looked as if it wanted to dive deeper into the tale with a promising artist who lives with a rising star artsy-house manager. The artist is down be down on his creative luck. He finally hears the story of "Candyman" from a man in the laundrymat and uses it for his art exhibition, and his vision fails.

I'ma stop right there --- because the film goes down from there where it could have been so much better. At times , confusing and rushing to an end whose theme seems to tell the tale to all one can. Why?!??!

I mean, there was a more coherent script, I may. I did like the shadow art in this so there's a few more seconds there. If Tony Todd was featured in this version more, more involved, eh, maybe I could see continuing the tale. I did feel cheated for the barely there on screen-time of Todd as even in those few seconds, he became the most interesting thing of the film for me.

These were my 90s Kids. HBO late Friday nights...then to late night network TV. Edgy, funny, strange, and often crossing that red line, and once crossed, you're wondering - what the heck was that?!

This type of humor entertains me. Won't be for everyone. It did when I was younger and still does now. I missed the Kids In The Hall troupe; glad to see them - and some of my favorite characters made appearances (love you, Buddy Cole!), but some of the new sketches had me in stitches.

And the opening robber sketch - all I can say is for 59-61-year-old men--THANK YOU, Dave and Kevin! My telephone number is...(lol!!!) Brave, brave, brave, and stupid-funny. Another funny sketch was the male strippers. I didn't want to laugh because it was sad to think of overall, but these guys made it work. That's what I love about their skits.

The Shakespeare skit was disgustingly-amazing - a new line they crossed effectively well. And the 70s Apocalyptic DJ skits started funny but ended sadly. What a range for Dave Foley.

Not all sketches were over the top funny for me, but there was so much in the six episodes I binged on those didn't matter. And I like that they too made fun of each other.

I don't know how long this KITH will run, but I'll keep seeing my favorite characters squishing heads, the Brain Candy execs, and Paul Bellini (I still love seeing him!). As a big KITH fan, thanks for "selling your souls to Amazon." Good to see you all one more time, still edgy, still silly, still the Kids In The Hall.

Can I get a "bawk"?

I went in expecting a continuation of Spider-man No Way Home. What I got instead was more or less a continuation of Wandavision. I liked Wandavision, but I had to think of a few things that happened in there to make some of the continuation connection.

However, I like Doctor Strange and wanted the story to flow better about him. With a continuation of Spider-Man No Way Home, it would have been like that.

Instead, we are introduced to a spunky new character 'America Chavez', who could work the multiverses, not knowing how she does it. Of Wanda being full-on "Scarlet Witch ."And Doctor Strange is seemingly still trying to figure himself out but not being true to that. It was Strange being thrown into the trajectories of both America and Wanda, where each offers him glimpses into what he is - depending on the multiverse. America lets the audience know Strange is not as nice as we may think - in any universe. I think I would have liked to see that as well.

Make no mistake - the title helps you figure it out. "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness ."Multiverse is singular, not plural. That's important to know going in so the expectation won't be so grand on that scale. For me, it should have been tho'.

'Madness' is essential too in the title because who is "Mad" isn't quite all Doctor Strange. Yet. And for some fans, I can see where that levels some disappointment.

There is entertainment, and I believe that's at the hands of Sam Rami. The theater I was in loved his touches in this film. I'm not going to spoil it by telling, but Sam Raimi fans get it right off the bat when they happen in the movie. Also, the "Illuminati ."Again, the audience L-O-V-E-D that, as did I; but H-A-T-E-D how it played out as did I.

Yes, I wanted more of Doctor Strange and Wong than Wong spending most of the film hanging off a cliff and almost forgotten. More focus on those multiverses than on this with Wanda and America. But this was okay, too, as we met another person in the universe who -- could jump into multiverses. We can guess she'll play a more prominent role in one of the MCU films/TVs as we do need to know more about her as you won't find it all here.

And Wicked Wanda? More to her can be enjoyable, but I wanted more to dive into Doctor Strange's journey than Wanda's.

This is a movie that can't score any more than a middle vote. It's not as bad as folks make it out to be, but it's not that great either.

It was a dark, somber tale of a city with a vigilante of vengeance: The Batman. With this vision of Gotham, it started somber, and grew more somber and depressing that by the end - I wanted to get out and never return.

I understand Gotham was never a bustling city of Vegas lights, but this one as dark, damp, dank - hopeless. The Batman was damp, dark hopeless and really really vampire pasty complexion. (ahem!) Even with The Batman, you just didn't get that feeling that things would get a bit better - nope. And that's the issue with the film to me. That The Batman being in Gotham won't make any difference at all. So why bother.

There were a few good actors here, but ya never would know it. There were a few blow 'em up scenes, but nothing new. There were two villains but - they reminded me more of Dick Tracy characters than The Batman. However, the winners for me in this film was the Director of Photography and Production Designer(s). They made a hopeless, dark, city come alive on the screen. That's what caught my attention. The characters, the acting - eh, they worked with the dark and dank script they had. The idea seemed to make this Gotham and acting somewhat noir, but if that's the case, it didn't work for me.

But here's the thing about The Batman...the opportunity for a follow up film seemed dead-on and the possibilities of this getting another chance is there.

Make no mistake, this is a reality show about a talented Grammy Winning Artist with sold-out shows finding new backup dancers for an upcoming performance and stage show at Bonaroo 2022, which pre-pandemic audiences reached 85,000 folks!

Sounds harmless, right? Yeah. But this Grammy-winning talented artist is Lizzo, and the backup dance troupe she envisions for this show are plus-sized women like her, which she dubs "Big Girls."

However, many reviews about this reality program right here on IMDb have NOT been about that, which is unfortunate. It has been about personal preferences for women to look like "dancers " in shows. The reviews are full of negative stereotypes, mean, nasty adjectives and are missing the point of this reality show.

While some reviewers call this "watching unhealthy" or "promoting unhealthy" lifestyles, this reality program is doing something interesting. It's not doing any of those things; it's the opposite.

This reality show shows you how they have to go through the same grueling processes as ANYONE who wants to be a dancer/choreographer. The sweat, the exhaustion, the payoff - the HARSH rejection and getting the job for a lucky few.

The job. Yes, these are women auditioning for a job, a hard one. Being on the road performing in front of audiences. This reality show gives one a peek as all of them do in performing. As a reviewer, I can't write anything wrong with giving them the same props as I offer other dance performers on reality shows - good luck!! Bring on your best. Many did - some didn't. Jayla was my overall out-of-the-gate favorite, as there were a few others, and the game's name in this reality show is who can sustain the best stamina. STAMINA. There is nothing more healthy in dance & grueling, pressuring touring than stamina.

Even with the "ones that were chosen," there is still no guarantee they will make it to the stage for "Bonaroo ."Yep, just like in most performance dance reality shows.

There is the education here, and it seems like many need to be educated. Why is this really upsetting for those reviewers? Why are they so apt to write "promoting an unhealthy lifestyle" when those women are not sitting WATCHING life happen? They are auditioning and dancing just like ANY OTHER dancer - have THE SAME STORIES, and most importantly, the same talent. I question, all those writing bad reviews, did they look at the show(s); or did they just want to rush to negative judgment?

I applaud Lizzo and these dancers for allowing us to see how the process is none and WHY she chose to choose these dancers for her show. However, this reality show is not that spectacularly different from many dance reality shows. It follows the same formula as the ones preceding it. There's entertainment out there for everyone, and that's a good thing. We all do not have to fall for an appearance ideal, which is a good thing. As long as one is qualified and can do the work and gets the chance to do so - that's all that's needed.

I have not watched Yellowstone. My interest in Westerns was limited from Gunsmoke and the Riffleman as a toddler because my Dad was a western tv fanatic. For my interests in Westerns, movies like The Unforgiven, Tombstone, Good Bad, and the Ugly, Hang 'em High, etc., and my 'guilty pleasure' episode of the old Twilight Zone episodes called 'The Grave.' I wasn't a fan of the tv 'soap opera' Westerns. However, this has caught my interest.

I watched the first one thinking I wouldn't get further than the first 10 minutes, but as it went on, I got interested. This is an 'origin' story, but for me, without seeing the series, it was an origin of, I became curious as a stand alone.

It is slow going in the first episode (pilot) but picks up the saga of the trials of people moving west. It is brutal, violent, fraught with diseases - the whole ball of wax and some as the episodes progress. I want to know if they will make it with all they will face. The wild, untamed west is the beginning of settlements crossing America.

The actors and their situations in this have my attention so far. The family in focus with actors Tim McGraw and Faith Hill do well. With their on the brink of womanhood, daughter played by Isabel May, she is interesting enough and provides the narration. It doesn't bother me as much as it bothers others (I think it exists because she may be an 'origin' character in Yellowstone). Still, I will guess that narration will calm down or disappear entirely as the series progresses.

The law/leaders to take folks (homesteaders, German immigrants, etc.) from one part of America to the next. Actor Sam Elliott (whom I am a fan of) and LaMonica Garrett (who I'm not familiar with) are attractive for me so far enough to see where this will carry. Sam's character, for example, has the most heartbreaking opening scene, but how he rebounds is an exciting journey that interested me. (And I do like the cameos of other actors!)

With 5 episodes so far, I am interested in all these folks and their journey in 1883. Who knows, it may lead me to take a peek into the Yellowstone series - eventually.

Let me get this out of the way first: It astounds me of the negativity for this program as much as some of the placed glowing reviews that were TOO overly glowing. Not everyone will like everything, but character assassination of the viewers rather than telling why the show wasn't for the critic, it's just too much.

I like this program. It has presented some really great stories in the past three seasons. A few were - ehhhh/why? - but that happens when you're telling different pieces of fare. It's supposed to be like it is in the films - a comic bookish type nostalgia and for me it works on that level.

I like the Creep, I even liked the animation episodes (and I thought I wouldn't). My very, very favorite I think people should view and that I have watched and shared a lot is in season 1, double feature with "All Hallows Eve/The Man in the Suitcase". For both, I can tell the acting isn't all that top notch, but in a way, I don't think it's supposed to be, but the stories are good and kept me watching.

Others for Season One I felt the same way about were "Grey Matter", which had my favorite actors in horror in it and was kinda gross which made it all the better, "Lydia Lane's Better Half" which I snickered at as this was a good one showing how business women can really be with other women in business. Sorry ladies! And last but not least, "Skin crawlers", which made me laugh..a lot as there is so much pressure these days on looks and being fat and what extremes folks will go to - this is as extreme as it gets.

Season two I liked only "Dead and Breakfast" where this one tired to become more contemporary fixating on the "Influencers" trend, but it did have a good story with a nice "that's what you get!" ending. I didn't like this season as much as Season One as many of the shows seemed to be hurried.

Season three - I liked a lot more. "Time Out" was a bit different as it really is a neat story, and one I could identify with (even though a bit choppy) because I was asking "If I had that Armore, what would I do?" and of course the ending was expected but bittersweet. "Drug Traffic" was as weird as weird can get - and here, while interesting, the "monster" could have been better but it was still interesting; and in the same episode, "A Dead Girl Names Sue" was not what I thought it was going to be, and when you find out what it turns out to be - I felt really taken aback. This was a spin on what we all know, but - take a watch and make up your own minds. I also liked "Stranger Sings" but agree with anyone who think it could have been produced a bit better as it looked like it was going somewhere and by the end went South. The combo "The Last Tsuburaya/Okay, I'll Bite!" was really OK. The first one, I like Art and billionaires that burn money for their egos stories The last one was kinda weird in a freaky way but I'm a bit scared of spiders so I think it will affect horror fans in other ways tho.

So to close, this is a neat series. I'd predict horror fans will find a few they'll like, a few that could have been so much better, but it's all still done in the comic book from "back when" setting for much of it. And yeah, if there is a Season 4, I'ma take a look for sure as I find this overall...entertaining.

There is no doubt that this DUNE is visually wonderful. Grands sets, wonderful costumes, Oh my goodness - spectacular! Great music from Hans Zimmer! That's what kept me interested to start.

And that there are actors in this that are beyond prolific in their roles -- the adult main actors, Oscar Issac, Rebecca Ferguson, Dave Bautista, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Stephen McKinley, Charolette Rampling(!), Stellen Sarguard and so many more, when they came on screen were interesting and forceful and convicted in their roles. They had my attention from time to time too.

But the main male character young actor, Timothée Chalamet, just couldn't bring me into this more than what Kyle MacLachlan's portrayal did - as Kyle had that twinge of a 'mean-boy thing' going on that comes across in the roles he plays; and Timothée just doesn't have that coming across the screen with this. Timothée was lost and a bit milquetoast in the role. (To be honest, I wondered if the film was done 8 years ago if Kit Harrington would have been the better Paul... eh..) But this is NOT to dump on Timothée as I saw other material he acted in and did well. He just doesn't work for me in this Part One.

It is about 'story'. And just like the 1984 one, this too is, is eh -- for me but again...a visionary triumph no one can deny! It's not enough tho' to wrap myself around "the story" and be interested in "it's hero". Maybe because this is is 2 and a half hours of Part One.

Will I see Part Two? Will Timothée have more to chew on and prove me wrong about him in this role? Eh. Like I wrote, I love the visuals, the costumes, the music, the other actors. Dropping into a Part Two though... to see who becomes King of the Spices...eh.

I like what they did to this version of Supermarket Sweep as of late 2021. The top contestants FINALLY get to win money at the end of the game. That is definitely a plus.

I also like the shoppers. The Fall 2021 episode of this had me in stitches when one of the teams just though they'd...leisurely shop, while the other teams were running circles around them. Even I was screaming at them to speed it up. And the winners got $6K in groceries and bonuses, that sure is different than the 90s show, bonuses and prizes.

This is now a great game to win cash and prizes for a grocery shopping race, and it's entertaining.

Now about the host. I did not like the host in the 90s show so much. He was nice, but the show needed more energy from its host. In bringing the show back they choose Leslie Jones who dials it all the way up. That CAN be grading, but she can slide in a few comedic add ins to make it interesting, a tad above a regular game show host.

I'm not liking the supermarket 'actors', but I do like the featured person who wins $2k for being a good store employee. That's kinda a nice touch too.

The thing is, Leslie is capable of toning it down as in this season, she does. They added a male voice over while the shoppers are doing their relay. I can tell the show knows it needs balance and Leslie is entertaining with this new format. I like the show, it's much more fun.

I found this one of the better made for Amazon Prime Blumhouse films for what it was - a VERY low budgeted B rated film about what a community is and what a neighborhood is. It did remind me a bit of the premise of the film "Needful Things" all wrapped around the only thing a small fledgling community had, it's weekly little B-I-N-G-O gathering.

Think about it, where else could Satan go after the small town 'Needful Things' trinket shop? What else would people in a tiny rundown neighborhood that's trying to keep themselves together want more than anything that he could prey on? To win, to have LOTSA money. To weaken a neighborhood. Sure, but can Satan do this to a community?

To me, that's the idea of this film. It was okay. I liked the two old neighborhood BINGO ladies that helped the neighborhood once before (Adriana Baraza and L. Scott Caldwell), and the demon/devil (Richard Brake). A little disjointed at spots as there was need for more character definition, some more emphasis as to WHY some of the characters went the way they did but nice little tale, a little off from the usual Blumhouse fare some may be accustomed to (except for some gore in the deaths for some).

I had stumbled onto this good documentary on HBOMax and had no idea this Church of God likes skinny people existed. Run by a questionable woman using Christianity as her prop to turn out clones of herself and her beliefs, Gwen Shamblin, she operated for decades under this horrific religious guise. Families suffered, relationship suffered in ways I hadn't seen before.

Physical abuse of children. Forced pregnancies. Forced Divorces. Forced weight loss. Etc. All under the name of God, but you'll find that SHE was taking the god moniker for herself, and these folks followed - to a point.

And that is what this documentary puts across effectively.

This documentary also gets across that Gwen Shamblin-Lara and her Church of Heavenly Weight Loss, is also a cautionary tale as it seems so successful as we watch her and those in her orbit run amok with her lavish lifestyle

This tale ends unexpectedly tragic for all the main members and it's a doozy. And their end may make you think whether you're a believer of Christianity or not, that their God doesn't appreciate being mocked.

Let me explain what a "background noise" film is. It's one of those films that interest me, but doesn't call for 100% of my attention. So while I am doing something else, I have the film on in the background for "background noise".

With backgrounder films tho', if it gets interesting at points: I do watch it again with fuller attention. I've heard about enough of this, and once is good. I watched it for James Wan, he has made some of my very favorite contemporary horror films. This one, Malignant, had some very neat cinematic visual effects here and there that helped with tension and scope, but not enough to carry my interest throughout the film.

As an older horror buff, there were quite a few things I had seen done in other movies 100s of times before, and that kinda depressed me on a James wan film, He usually goes above such things and charts a different path. Not here.

This one was an almost "phone it in" kinda film for James from what I saw; but for me a "background noise" one. It's a story I've seen already told - and figured it out in the first 5 minutes. However, I found the "jail scene" reveal more funnier than frightening only because of that.

This is not to spoil it for the folks who have never seen this kinda thing before, they may find it horrific and engrossing. Go ahead, take a look, enjoy.

But for the other horror buffs out there, we've seen it before, will figure it out and there is where it becomes a let down or should have just been a good one hour installment on the "Creepshow" revival.