cliff-33421

I went into The Others with no expectations. I read that the film was based upon the book Turn of the Screw, but I can't verify that this is true. It was cool to see Tom Cruise listed in the credits. It brought back some good memories of a once-lovely couple.

I started watching the movie assuming it was R, but had to close the movie and look at the homepage to see that it was PG-13. The movie is quite juvenile, and I think most horror fans will find themselves rather underwhelmed. If the film were released new today, I don't see any reason why it couldn't be branded as PG. Other than a few loud jump scares, there is nothing thrilling or horrific here.

That said, the movie is decent for what it is. Nicole Kidman needs no introduction - she is the most elegant, polished, and sought after actor in the world for good reason.

My only complaint with the film is the audio mixing. The film is 25 years old, so perhaps it didn't translate well to streaming platforms. Scenes often have a disorienting blend of overly loud music, crashing jump scares, and barely audible dialog. I had to rewind and turn on the captions to understand most of the Bible readings and general dialog. This film could really do with a remastering. With as popular as it seems to be, a remastering of the audio and an addition of deleted scenes would be a nice 25th anniversary for the film.

Someone wrote this during the writer strike, and the screenplay should have stayed in the shadows. There is a unique twist on a trope, but this screenplay has serious first-draft vibes. Art is very subjective, but when you art is objectively boring then you have a big problem.

This film is 120 minute long. The writer strike drew a clear line between writers and producers.

What you see with this film is a beautiful script ruined by producer opinions.

The end result is a drawn out, boring, confusing, recycled trope.

This script could have been something special, but the wrong people got involved. Or the good people were pushed aside. Or professionality was sacrificed.

I'm not exactly sure what happened, but I don't believe this film was the intended goal.

Too much dialog.

Too many plot holes.

Camera work is excellent.

Mileau and landscapes are top shelf.

The first two episodes were very engaging, but the third episode was terrible. I skipped ahead deeper into season one, and it was easy to see why this show didn't go past two seasons. You have 15 hours of episodes here, but if you want my opinion, don't waste your time. A few good ideas here, but nothing unique. The hole itself gives you an idea of how little the producers thought of this project. They love to talk about Chronos' sickle, but why this tiny hole? Because it was low budget and easy to film. I don't have a problem with low budget, but you have to compensate for that with plot and acting.

Curse of the Blair Witch (1999) is what writers refer to as "telling instead of showing." The point of this hour-long film is to blatantly tell the secret of the Blair witch's power: time travel.

This is also confirmed in the two later films; "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2" and "Blair Witch (2016)." Even the titles of these subsequent films relates to time, where the subtitle "Book of Shadows" comes before the main title "Blair Witch 2" and "Blair Witch (2016)" intentionally lacks a chronological indicator.

Specific mentions of time travel from "Curse of the Blair Witch(1999):"

• "Ellie is not very far from any of us at any time, and she chooses her time to appear."

• When describing the corpses found at Coffin Rock by the second search team, it was said that the smell of death remained in the air regardless that someone had removed the corpses. In reality, the corpses were still there, but Blair witch was manipulating time to hide the corpses from view.

• Finally we have the most blatant evidence of time travel: the backpack and associated gear belonging to Heather, Mike, and Josh hidden under two-hundred year old ruins. Also in this sequence, we see the timeless burned tree which exists in all of the films at all time periods.

I'm not sure why it took me twenty-five years to realize "Curse of the Blair Witch(1999)" exists, but I'll take any shred of Blair witch lore I can get.

I previewed this film during the Regal Mystery Monday event.

I will preface this by saying that action is my least favorite genre, but I will give the film an honest review based on its qualities rather than my personal opinion.

"Boy Kills World" is funny, bloody, and over-the-top in every regard.

If "Cabin in the Woods" and "Kill Bill" had a baby, it would grow up to be "Boy Kills World."

Bill Skarsgård and Famke Janssen work well together. I loved the television series "Hemlock Grove" back in 2013. Bill Skarsgård has obviously been hitting the gym hard, as he is absolutely shredded in "Boy Kills World."

If you enjoy the comedic bloodbath trope, then this will surely be enjoyable for you.

Found-footage is my favorite genre, and perhaps it is because of this I am rating The Outwaters as 6/10.

THE BAD:

-Too long. I found myself losing interest and actually laughing more than feeling suspense.

-Weak editing. The editing itself is professional, but the choices about what to cut and what to keep seems to be lacking experience. I think it is common for new writers to want to keep too much. They feel like the project is their baby, and they worked too hard to cut anything. They take edits too personally, and the end result is audience confusion. Seek the guidance of experienced writers who are already producing what you want to produce. Editing isn't personal; let the ego go and make deep cuts where ideas are not working.

-Too existential. Again, I think this is an issue relating to lack of experience with writing and filming. Mysteries and hidden clues are a great way to hook the audience, encourage research after the film is over, and promote rewatching and sharing with friends. The problem here is that there is so much existentialism in this movie that it is impossible to solve the riddles or understand how they fit together. A glaring example would be the title is obviously referring to the dry lake bed, but other than some vague bubble sounds we really don't get any information about what the title even means. And the sonar pings? Did they drown in the water in a previous life? Was he a submarine sailor in a previous life? Water is in the title, but water has no meaning at all in the film. And the bullet casings? Are those the booms we are hearing? Robbie shooting people in a previous life? Or is it dynamite from the mine? This is a big problem with amateur writers that I see a lot in beta reads - existential titles that have no discernable connection to the writing. Some other examples: the beginning of the film repeats "this happened before" over and over but at the end we see three skulls on pikes. So...when was this phone call placed to police? This could have worked if the idea was simplified a bit more, but the time travel plot is way too elaborate and ends up being boring rather than interesting. Are we to believe he killed his mother? How could he kill his mother if he is in the desert with his guts hanging out? And the random sixty seconds of Christianity and prayer was very bizarre, but perhaps that was the point - to show us that Robbie was so far gone that he was praying, something he would never normally do? If the writer and director are the only people who understand the movie, that's a very bad thing. "Show, don't tell" is a great rule to follow, but it's taken to the extreme here.

THE GOOD:

-The characters were well developed and the acting was strong.

-The audio and music was strong.

-The camera work was generally good, and there are many gorgeous scenes. As stated before, I think a bit more experience would yield better results, but overall the camera work is good.

-The first half of the movie was quite good. The problem for me was that at halfway through the movie, we went straight from plot building to horror. We skipped straight over suspense and terror and went straight to horror. 50 minutes of gore was really unnecessary, and it felt like two different movies completely.

In conclusion, I hope Mr. Banfitch does not give up on making films. I'm sure he learned a lot from this experience and will improve in the future. It's no small task to write a script, find funding, find actors, film and edit yourself, and market the film enough to have people renting it and reviewing it on IMDB. In my opinion - simplify the plot, reduce the existentialism, make a title that isn't an unsolvable mystery, and be willing to cut more unnecessary scenes. Congratulations Mr. Banfitch on producing your film. It must be very exciting to achieve this goal. I'm looking forward to your next project. Don't give up!

Solid actors, but underwhelming directing and camera work. I think the actors' performances far exceeded the boundaries of the directing and camera work. The ingredients for an incredible film are present, but the end result is rather amateur. A lot of scenes were simply filmed poorly, with the camera so zoomed in that the scene delves into nonsense. My main issue with this film is the "found-footage" viewpoint doesn't make a lot of sense, as the protagonist is often alone yet being filmed by a photographer to which she is conversing. I think this is a case of a good idea gone wrong. Maybe too many cooks in the kitchen? They tried to too fancy with exquisite ingredients, and the result was just a muddy mess. Should have just kept it simple and let the story and actors speak for themselves.

This film takes some wild diversions from the book, but based on its own merits, I think the film was excellent in its own right. The book is "better," but isn't that always the case? It's really not fair to compare a film to a novel. This is a beautiful film that deserves a much higher rating.

Despite my 10/10 rating, I did have some issues with the film. I think the vast wealth and deep history of the Blackwoods was not explained well. In the book, it was my impression that the house was entirely separate from the town and was surrounded by thousands of acres of forests and tall brick walls. The film makes the house seem like it's up on a hill but still part of the town. The film makes the Blackwoods feel disassociated from the town, but not completed separated like the book. Like other reviews have said, the book isn't violent and doesn't mention anything about abuse. This is a bit of unnecessary wokeness, in my opinion. Charles really wasn't an important part of the book; Uncle Julian was very significant in the book but minimized in the film. The girls spent a lot of time gardening in the book, and no time at all in the film. The film did a good job of not wasting time with gardening, but it was such an important part of the book that not including more in the film feels a bit shallow. I've read most of Shirley Jackson's work and I found some to be good and some to be bad. This book wasn't her best, but it was decent. It's hard to turn a decent book into a stellar film, but I think they gave it a good try and mostly hit the mark.

My biggest issue with the film is actually the musical score. They were clearly trying to use whimsical music to tell the audience how they should be feeling. The emotions the music was evoking didn't match the emotions and feel of the book at all, in my opinion. Maybe some others would disagree, but I never found comedy or humor in the book, but the film is basically a comedy. The book is a melancholic, ironic tragedy from beginning to end. Sure you could say that some scenes of the book are happy, but that is the ironic insanity of the characters feigning joy amidst tragedy rather than achieving tangible happiness. Personally, I think the film would have been stronger without music.

The first few seasons of Curb were hilarious, with many recycled and updated Seinfeld jokes, Easter eggs, and tons of characters and plot lines.

Unfortunately, the longer the show runs, the more it feels forced. I don't think I laughed a single time during Season 11. Pinning an entire season on a five foot fence was a terrible idea. It simply wasn't funny and I found myself feeling annoyed whenever the fence plot was brought up again. Irma wasn't funny at all, and the entire season seemed to have very few characters compared to earlier seasons. Season 11 of Curb feels like a business or money grab rather than a show written with passion. The Holocaust stuff feels very desperate, and I think it's just shock-value writing. They are out of ideas so they are going for the low-hanging fruit. Watching Season 11, I could only think back to all of the fantastic episodes with Cheryl, Ted, Lewis, the Blacks, Funkhouser, and so many more. Vince Vaughn was a fun addition to the cast, but he just disappears from the show

I love Seinfeld, I love Larry David, I love Curb, but Curb is making the one big mistake that Seinfeld didn't - trying to force new seasons after the show has clearly peaked.

The camera work and atmosphere was amazing. The acting was also top notch. Unfortunately, I found the plot to be fairly boring and poorly executed. So many missed opportunities for thrills. They show so many shots of the water tank that all mystery is removed from the film. You basically know the ending in the first five minutes. This movie suffers greatly from "show, don't tell" syndrome.