nitzanhavoc

I'm usually an easy grader, seeing the best and noteworthy in each horror feature. This time, I found myself checking the remaining play time and anxious for it to finish already only 45 minutes in. I was simply bored, and this, to me, says everything.

The idea is spectacular, focusing on just how horrifying a malevolent smile could be. The execution, however, is disappointing to the point of frustration. If the point was to show yet another human document dealing with the cold and lonely descent to madness - why hadn't the trailers and teasers focused on that? If they wanted to, again, for the billionth time, show how difficult it is to have nobody believe you when you're seeing a monster - why create such a buzz around the smile phenomenon?

Unlike what the trailers had made us think (and quite deliberately, I'd say), this is a movie about coping with mental issues (not done as well as The Babbadook, for instance) and having nobody believe you about being haunted by monsters (not done as well as the original Nightmare on Elm Street, like 40 years ago).

Now, to be honest, the acting is absolutely superb, from the leading roles to the supporting cast to characters with two lines. The dialogue, and especially the non-verbal relaying of emotion and state of mind are just spot on, seriously, a huge round of applause for the entire cast. Everything else was simply disappointing, wanting and badly done. I really hope that some day we'll see better uses of the whole 'scary smile' trope, it has much potential and deserves much, much more than what Smile actually is.

The Horror sub-genre that could be titled "evil children" has been around for some time now (since about the mid-20th century), and by now it appears authors and screenwriters alike have exhausted their idea bank. The antagonist child, causing troubles ranging between mischief and actual murders, is either suffering from a mental illness (more often than not it's Antisocial Personality Disorder, aka Psychopathy) or is one way or another involved in an ordeal both supernatural and sinister.

Without risking any potential spoilers and sticking strictly to what viewers were told in trailers, teasers and plot descriptions - Orphan offers nothing new in this regard.

The story is basic and generic to the point of being bluntly unoriginal. A family who's suffered a tragedy looks to adopt a child who appears picture perfect at first and becomes increasingly menacing as the plot unfolds. If this sounds all too familiar to you even though you are yet to watch the film - rest easy, you're not at fault, as anyone would be hard pressed not to be able to come up with at least one other title presenting the same premise.

And yet, there is absolutely something special about Orphan, making it quite memorable even after over a decade. Here are a few examples:

-The antagonist is menacing, creepy, discomforting and at time plain horrifying. This is a combination of very clever character design by writers Mace and Johnson-McGoldrick, and the very impressive Isabelle Fuhrman (her acting, physical features and the costume and makeup design sum up to a nightmarish character).

-The supporting cast is absolutely incredible! First and foremost Vera Farmiga does an impeccable job playing the role of mother Kate, a tragic, vulnerable and emotionally unstable recovering alcoholic (if you've seen her in The Departed you know just how different the two characters are, yet she does amazingly well in both titles, showing true superstar qualities). Second, children Jimmy Bennett (Daniel) and Aryana Engineer (Max) are the perfect addition to the family list of those victimized.

-The Horror effect is achieved by utilizing two of the genre's defining features, which very seldom coexist in the same title. On the one hand, plain old "fear", achieved by the characteristics and actions of the antagonist and the helplessness of the victims; and on the other, the more modern discomfort, achieved by the severe "gaslighting" the mother has to go through and her sheer frustration when nobody believes her and she is left helpless against the system (and even some of those closest to her).

So, what's the problem? Well, some of the key features of the film were unnecessary and made no sense, to the point of being foolish and even comic (something you cannot ever allow to happen in a Horror film which isn't of an initially somewhat comic sub-genre like Slashers):

-The big plot twist is based on a certain illness which one of the characters suffers from. I checked the name, it is in fact "true" (there is such an illness and the described symptoms do exist), but it is still such a rare condition with such specific symptoms that the entire twist feels forced, out of place and unprofessional. Mess up the plot twist and you've messed up the entire film.

-Throughout the film the antagonist is seemingly unbeatable in pretty much any aspect. Omniscient and omnipotent, she reminded me of classic Slasher films where the walking killer is faster than a sprinting teenage athlete. Of course it's "scary" when the antagonist suddenly appears behind your favourite character, or when she manages to perform impossible tasks in a manner devoid of any basic logic - but it's also annoying and unprofessional.

All in all? I was very happy to see a Horror film get such a high rating here on IMDB (7/10? This almost never happens, even with titles deserving of higher ratings which are stuck at 4-5/10). I believe it's the first time in my life that I've rated a Horror film lower than its IMDB average. I also think Orphan is rewarding in its own way and is absolutely worth watching for Horror fans and casual viewers alike. I just hate to see such wasted potential and the blunt use of so many "cheats". I do recommend it, but don't expect to be mind-blown, as this won't be the best Horror film you've watched this year. Or this month.

This has got to be one of the stupidest most intelligence-insulting film I've ever wasted my time on. Every passing moment is another reason for a face palm, and they only get harder. Only watch this if you're looking to get drunk or high and make fun of lousy cinema.

The first thing I can say about Ghost Ship is that I've seen it before around 10-15 years ago, and watching now sure didn't feel like experiencing an antique, or even a classic. Now, whether it means the film has aged well or the Horror genre simply hasn't developed is anyone's semantic choice. Fact is, just like many others of that 1995-2005 decade, the film still has story and Horror value for first timers today.

The cast is quite impressive, as most of you would most probably notice quite a few familiar faces, be it from before the film of after it: Gabriel Byrne (from more films than I could presume to choose or summarize here) as Capt. Murphy; Karl Urban (from LOTR and a little MCU, and others of course) as Munder; and of course the hospital duo - Julianna Margulies (from ER) as Epps, and Isaiah Washington (from Grey's Anatomy) as first mate Greer. However, besides the "all-star" value and with the exception of Marguiles - nothing really worth mentioning.

The plot and ultimate plot twist is quite smart, yet unoriginal, very fitting of the "teen screams" that came to power during those years (a sort of "who done it" with Horror elements, as "suspects' keep dropping like flies and most of the audience has already guessed the ending half way through). This isn't to say the twist isn't at all surprising, even experienced viewers might miss out on the clues, but it isn't one of the great ones.

All in all? A fun and relatively short Horror flick worthy of watching if you happen to come by it, but I wouldn't go searching for it or pay to watch it. Nothing remotely bad, but nothing really worthy of taking with you.

I have written pretty thorough reviews for the first and second titles of this under-developed franchise. I will not be doing so for this one. Blair Witch is an amateur attempt to live up to the fame and genius of its predecessors, one that has failed tragically. I firmly believe that even the rare chosen few who have recognized the 2nd title (Book of Shadows) for the spectacular creation that it was (and still is) will not be able to avoid shedding a tear of grief for the death of the brilliant idea that was once The Blair Witch.

The beginning of the story is actually quite promising. Approximately 15 years after the incident at Black Hills Woods the younger brother of Heather sets out looking for his sister, accompanied by his best friends (one of which is shooting a documentary about it) and two internet weirdos who initially uploaded a footage they claimed to have found at the premises. A very nice combination of the framing plot of each of the first titles. From there? Every single possible mistake is made.

First and foremost - the film is way too visual, and I mean that in the worse sense possible. Sad attempts at faking bits of a fear factor through plain distasteful gor; low quality shots in which you can't really see anything (you just know "oh, I'm supposed to be scared now" because everybody on screen is screaming); and the worst - an attempt to actually embody and present the evil presence of the Blair woodland. I mean, seriously, how desperate could you get?! One of the most basic and crucial components of the fear factor which has kept spectators on edge for 21 years is the fact that the evil doesn't have a face! That's how every viewer is prompted to imagine their worse graphic nightmare. The second you show it on screen, everything's gone, and it's not because of the cheap unoriginal figure itself. Last but not least - after around 40 minutes in which absolutely nothing new happens, suddenly the plot and conclusions of a full film are clumsily crammed into 15 minutes of screen time. Seriously, the original film students back in 1999 could have shot a better film.

Now, credit where it's due - the final five mintes or so are very, very well made and quite terrifying. That's the only part I'd keep and add to the Blair Witch chronicles. But you can't expect anyone to forgive 75 minutes of mediocre stale disappointments to just becasue the final 5 were good (or even great).

Is Blair Witch bad? No. Should you watch it in order to get your personal closure, after watching the original TBWP 21 years ago? Absolutely. Is it going to be half as good as you've probably hoped? No. Far from it. So lower your expectations in advance and do not spend a penny on this.

In an article titled "Telling the Untold Stories of The Blair Witch Project", the writer thoroughly explains how, following the absolutely incredible success of TBWP, the small independent studio which has come together for the sake of producing the film was bought by Artisan (which produced the sequel). The original creators told Artisan to give the hype (both praise and backlashes) time to die down before releasing a sequel, for which they had many profound ideas. However, Artisan weren't there for the story, for the sake of creativity or to continue the groundbreaking original creation. They were there for the money. They bought out the rights for the franchise in order to ride it out and milk it dry, and that meant striking at the iron while it's still hot from all the buzz around the original film. That meant a sequel, stat.

The aforementioned article refers to Book of Shadows as an "atrocious" film which has completely buried the franchise, snuffing out the flame of what had the potential of becoming a supernatural Horror masterpiece. It even compared it to Batman & Robin, a symbol of bad cinema. I'm here to tell you otherwise. Not because I'm some juvenile rebel or a pathetic edge-lord saying bad=good for the sake or controversy, but because I truly and honestly feel Book of Shadows got a raw deal. I am here to say it was the perfect sequel to TBWP.

First - the setting. Thousands making the journey, indeed the pilgrimage, to the black hills woods where the original film was shot, or rather - where allegedly the footage made by the original missing students was found. The small town has become a tourist attraction, and everybody has an opinion. Some enjoy the extra attention. Some want to be left alone and feel invaded. And some like to live out the good ol' fashioned American dream and make some money by offering tourist attractions. That's how four tourists (again, with names identical to the actual cast for the whole authenticity effect) find themselves on a commercial tour. That's how things start going wrong.

The choice of stereotypical characters is very reminiscent of classic slashers. One "Wiccan" who never misses an opportunity to state how offended she is by how witches are perceived as evil beings when they're actually "daughters of nature"; one Goth poser claiming to be a psychic; a romantic couple made out of one believer (perception creates reality) and one sceptic (group delusion and mass hysteria); and the tour manager, a stoner with a past of mental illnesses. However, each character is developed beautifully, in a manner which offers excellent service to the plot. By the end, anyone paying attention will have been able to point out exactly why each character type was chosen for the film.

Finally, what really makes Book of Shadows great is that it truly feels like a fan-art film made for a cult classic, even though it came out just one year after the original. I watched TBWP yesterday, and Book of Shadows made me feel it's been ages. The narrative driving the plot presents the entire phenomenon as ridiculous, mocking those naïve and indeed pathetic enough to fall for the publicity stunt of the original film, all the while showing blunt and harsh scenes which create a lot more than reasonable doubt regarding the involvement of a supernatural force. The ending, of course, is the final spectacular step and is an excellent conclusion, combing a plot twist with a tragic outcome.

Now, yes, the entire film is too much of a franchise blowing its own horn and ascending itself into the status of a cult classic. That's vanity bordering narcissism. But don't forget these are different creators and a different studio, so they're basically paying homage to the original creators. Yes, they're doing so in order to build the foundations for their own future success, but still, it feels honest and innocent in the film itself.

Book of shadows isn't TBWP. It isn't supposed to be. It isn't a cinematic breakthrough, it isn't the invention of a new genre, and it isn't an act of genius. But it is the PERFECT sequel to TBWP, and I hope at least some of you can recognize that and enjoy this amazing film without letting the critics control you into hating it. As a cinematic creation - a 6/10; as a specific sequel to TBWP - a solid 10/10; that would make it an 8/10 in average, so I added one more point on account of my personal experience and pleasure. Atrocious? No. This is how you make a sequel to a masterpiece. Buried the franchise? Sadly, yes, for over a decade, but in my humble opinion - for every single wrong reason in the book.

Not being that in touch with Horror hype I haven't heard about the third Blair Witch installment until rather recently, so I've decided to watch the first films again (it has literally been over a decade). So after watching this title again I checked some of the trivia details and some web articles, a process which has lead me to the unfortunate conclusion that I can't recommend TBWP to any new spectators.

The story is quite simple (which is part of why it works). Three film students travel to an old city surrounded by woodlands in pursuit of information about "The Blair Witch", something between local folklore, an urban legend and a myth. The videotape some sites, interview some locals, and head for the woods for a night of camping before heading back to civilization. That's when things start to get wrong, as the trio gets hopelessly lost, tensions become high and someone (or something) obviously tries to make them feel unwelcome.

I know, thinking of that setting almost makes you able to visualize some of the scenes, and most chances are you wouldn't be far from what's actually shown in the film. That's because most Horror fans (and even certain fans of mainstream cinema) have by now seen titles exemplifying how the "Found Footage" sub-genre has improved and matured over the years (and I'd say it has become boring and tedious, but that's just my own thoughts and isn't relevant). No, in order to appreciate the Blair Witch you had to have been there, way back at the turning point of the millennium, when there still hadn't been a "Found Footage" sub-genre and perhaps two films (UFO Abduction of 1989 and its remake Alien Abduction of 1998) have ever used the "documentary" shooting style in a thriller or Horror film. I was too young to take part in the hype, but from I've collected - a website came up telling of a videotape found in a deserted camera in the woods near what used to be the town of "Blair". With no reason not to - people believed it. With no information to contradict this intuitive conclusion - people thought they were actually going to watch an authentic found footage. The producers handed out "Missing" flyers of the students (actually a cast of two actors and an actress) during the debut screening in the festival, the cast itself was forbidden by contract to make any public appearances, and most spectators simply didn't know any better.

Think about it. The web page. The characters' names being identical to the cast's names. Missing person flyers. A footage which in all standards looks precisely like a real documentary. Who could have known? Who would have guessed but the cynics and nay-sayers (who have an annoying habit of being right)? Watching the film under the impression the events were real would indeed justify the film being unofficially dubbed "the scariest movie of all times". And as much as it might today seem average at best both as a Horror title in general and as a "Found Footage" film specifically - numbers don't lie: 40k budget, near 300m earnings. That is how you make a legend.

If any of the anecdotes (true as far as I've been able to track) mentioned here have made you curious and you wish to experience the thrill over two decades after - go right ahead and watch this, just don't expect to have your mind blown. Remember, this is the film which officially gave birth to the Found Footage sub-genre, it was a cinematic and creative breakthrough, but s was the light bulb (and you're reading this on a computer or portable device). If you'd rather enjoy the legacy - go watch any other Found Footage Horror out there (any Paranormal Activity title comes to mind, of course) and know that it wouldn't be here without the pioneering genius of the Blair Witch Project.

As with pretty much anything I find on Netflix (especially when it comes to Horror films), I approached Eli with little to no expectations. That's the only way to enjoy a Netflix movie - expect the worse for the off chance that you'd be pleasantly disappointed. Horror is a very neglected genre, so add to that Netflix's vow of overpriced mediocrity - and you should pretty much expect any Horror film there to be terrible (not according to the trolls here, actually terrible). This method really proves itself when it comes to Eli.

Eli suffers from one of these immuno-deficiency diseases familiar to most of us from one show or another. Even breathing unfiltered air would pretty much kill him, slowly and painfully. Hearing of a specialist expert running a top notch medical facility - his parents spend their final cents trying to get him the help he needs. However, as the trailer and description show, something is off about the center, the doctor, and pretty much everything.

Most of Eli's misadventures around the facility are quite off-putting, thanks to the shameless use of physiological cheats (i.e. 'jump-scares") in every other scene. It works, of course, you get startled and have to catch your breath, but there's nothing creative or remotely impressive about it. Yes, "jump-cares" are startling just like erotic scenes are arousing, it's the human body being itself and nothing more. When that's the scariest thing about a Horror film - you know you're witnessing a failure. Then again, not every Horror film needs to be an instant classic or a masterpiece for the ages. As long as it's fun - it works. And yes, Eli succeeds in being fun. Mostly because the audience doesn't really know what to expect and what's actually going on until the final scenes.

And speaking of the final scenes - a plot twist is one of the most important features of a Horror film, it's what makes good (or even average) movies great. But it has to make the minimal amount of sense. Eli's ending is, well, trying to combine the best (or at least good) of two worlds and ending up putting delicious hot fudge on sweet and sour chicken. Some things are great in and of themselves, but should never mix. The idea was quite original and required some courage to attempt, but like I've said - a failure.

All in all, Eli isn't great, it's not even good. And yet, you don't finish it feeling like you've watched something terrible or wasted your time. It could be an entertaining experience, as long as you don't mind trademark Netflix mediocrity at its worse, and you aren't expecting anything impressive. Considering we're talking about Netflix - Eli just might be the only decent Horror film to watch right now (I didn't check), so lower your standards and try to enjoy. At least a little.

As most of us know, Netflix has a serious problem when it comes to producing a Horror/Thriller movie that's half as good as their acclaimed TV shows. They usually try to mediate that with click-bait trailers and descriptions that turn out to portray an annoyingly inaccurate picture of what the film is actually about. On the other hand, once in a blood-moon they might actually make a Horror/Thriller film that is pretty incredible and very impressive (Open House, for instance). And then there are the rare occasions of films like Rattlesnake that are simply honest, fair and hit the spot.

The trailer and description are accurate and fair. A single mother + little girl duo are making their way across several states in order to reach the woman's parents for a new start following whatever stereotypical scenario you'd be comfortable imagining with the girl's father. On the way, during one of their stops - the girl gets bitten by a Texan rattlesnake. An old lady living in a near trailer offers a cure, for a soon to be discussed price (which as the trailers show ends up being the murder of a human being of the mother's choice).

It might be the on the spot acting by Carmen Ejogo (Katrina Ridgeway, the mother), who really did a superb job of showing us how worn down, confused and downright lost she is in this fantastic and terrible predicament. It might be the rather simple plot, with few interactions and even fewer meaningful ones. It might be the perfect presentation of the mother's struggle against her conscience and very being, wanting to save her daughter but not to become a cold blooded murderer. It might be all of the above. The result is a compelling story you simply won't be able to leave once you get into.

This isn't to say the film is without its faults. First and foremost, I personally found the extremely short time it took the mother to fully believe the supernatural and impossible causes of her situation to almost destroy all suspense of disbelief. A blunt reminder that this is just a movie and nothing real (the bane of any good fiction). Second, some of the characters (the bartended in particular) are such a ridiculous stereotype, unjustified in any way. This serves no purpose whatsoever and yet receives much too much screen time (considering the whole thing is about 80 minutes).

Be that as it may, Rattlesnake is compelling, discomforting and pretty unnerving in a beautifully unassuming manner. It doesn't presume to tell an epic history-changing story, it simply means to do what it does, superlative-free. They even managed to squeeze in a little plot twist towards the end! So while far from being a masterpiece - Rattlesnake is definitely a must-see for us Horror/Thriller fans, especially amongst the ocean of mediocrity that is Netflix cinema.

As all of us Netflix subscribers know only too well - as far as films are concerned, we compromise. The occasional hit series makes the myriad of mediocre-at-best original movie productions seem somewhat fair, as no one can expect a streaming service to excel at all fields, right? And when it comes to Netflix - it's obvious the "feature product" is not the movies. So when Netflix actually offers us the kind of experience delivered by Fractured - one must take it with both hands and live it to its fullest.

The background is generic to the point of being textbook stereotypical, a means to cheat the audience into feeling deep empathy toward the main character, Ray Monroe. A struggling husband and father who obviously tries his best but never quite cuts it, who's also a recovering alcoholic and altogether displays a rather pathetic demeanor. How could anyone not feel sorry for the guy?! Cheap, Netflix. Very cheap. But it works.

Following an accident in which his daughter is injured - Ray rushes with his family to the nearest hospital (in impossible traffic, of course, because it's still important to emphasize the "poor Ray" narrative). There, the audience receives a traumatically accurate and realistic portrayal of how it feels to be a family arriving at the emergency room when you aren't a member of parliament or a multi-millionaire celebrity. Never-ending queues, insufferable behaviour by staff members who dehumanize patients on account of their own fatigue and frustration (yes, I know, I broke the law of "never criticize health professionals they are always the victim"), but eventually - Ray's daughter gets treated and sent down for a CAT scan, accompanied by her mother. And that would be the last normal thing to happen.

During his daughter's said accident - Ray suffered a head injury, and anyone who has watched a suspense film in the past two decades knows exactly what that means: it's time to play "keep the audience guessing". What is really happening? Is ray suffering from head trauma induced psychosis, or is the bluntly more malevolent explanation actually possible? Is he actually an antagonist, or a victim of terrible circumstances and even more terrible people? The answers, once given, catch even the most experienced and well-prepared viewer off guard.

Other than the smart story and great utilization of clever plot twists - two more features make Fractured great: first, the soundtrack, reminding us what amazing things one could do with a piano and how the right music enhances everything a scene wants to tell; second, Sam Worthington, completely forsaking his typecast from Clash of Titans, Terminator Salvation or Avatar and really proving some incredible acting skills and character range. Rest of the cast have done well too, but Worthington's performance simply put them to shame.

Is fractured a masterpiece? Far from it. But it's also one of the best films ever shown on Netflix, so I honestly can't recommend it enough.

Friday the 13th. The legendary Jason, the hockey-mask wearing machete virtuoso, the maestro of slash whose trademark woosh-woosh-woosh ha-ha-ha theme music has been the Horror soundtrack of generations. This is really what this film is all about, another taste of Jason and a respectful homage to the classic Slasher of the 80s. In my opinion, it isn't a remake at all, more of a late addition to the long anthology.

If this is your first encounter with FT13, you're in for a guilty pleasure. The plot is as logical as any urban legend, the characters ridiculously stereotypical and too stupid to live, and of course there's the occasional unnecessary sex scene in full nudity in case anyone mistook this for a serious film. The thing is - this is what Slasher films are all about. All these shortcomings serve to make the antagonist all the more stupendous, terrifying and too awesome for words. By the middle of the film you'll be rooting for that guy.

In all honesty, I think I would have enjoyed this film even without being a devout Jason fan (though it definitely would have made me one as, like I've said, sheer awesome). Some of the characters are actually quite relatable (the main plot revolves around a guy trying to find out what happened to his sister, so you know, you're all like "good for you man, I hope you don' die a gruesome awesome death"). The acting isn't terrible (albeit far from impressive) and the cinematography really does its part in emphasizing how huge yet dexterous Jason is.

So, if you're a fan of the original films, you simply have to watch this, if only for the sake of having your condescending catharsis while criticizing it for being as good as the original. If this is indeed your first time - I would recommend looking for the original films before you dive into the tribute. Jason rules, had to say it again. He does.

I usually enjoy watching (and reviewing) mostly Horror films, but as any Netflix subscriber is surely aware by now - the options for this genre are quite limited. Therefore, I've decided to "settle" for a suspenseful thriller, read the short description of Circle an figured it should have certain Horror elements (at least as far of modern Horror is considered). Luckily, I was right, and more importantly - Circle has turned out to be quite a rewarding experience.

From the very beginning the setting reminded me of the Saw anthology: a bunch of people (I believe it's around 50) wake up trapped and are forced to try and figure out how to survive. Very soon they find out that every couple of minutes one of them is killed, and moreover - they're supposed to collectively decide who it's going to be. It's important to say that aside from the eventually apparent cause of their captivity and the manner in which the "lucky" chosen are in fact chosen - Circle has very, very few Sci-Fi elements. If you're looking for a film that's actually Sci-Fi - you might be understandingly disappointed.

As the prisoners grasp their predicament and begin trying to first make sense of it and later survive it - Circle becomes a bluntly and painfully realistic criticism of humanity and human society. Racism, egoism, deceit and apathy draw a very unflattering picture of the average human being, and the audience can't help but wonder: is this me? Would I be able to remain human in the face of such circumstances? And besides, how would one define "remaining human", by the norms and conventions of society, or by a more subjective moral attitude (which is just as legitimate under the circumstances)?

The story, in my opinion, is exquisite, though it's important to stress that credit is due to the book, not the film. I also found the acting to be pretty decent, though none of the characters left a lasting impression. Also, the ending involves quite a plot twist followed by a pretty surprising conclusion, which serves to create a series of rapid unpredictable events. While I'm admittedly a sucker for good plot twists - I can't help but feeling that I might and should have seen it coming, so other viewers might be a little annoyed with how obvious the ending was.

All in all, I'm very pleased that I chose to give Circle a chance, even if only to witness the incredible dark and grim interactions between the characters as they settle the struggle between their consciences and basic urges of self-preservation. While my first recommendation would be that you read the book - to watch the film would be a close second.

If you're a Netflix subscriber and Horror fan, you're probably aware of the challenge of finding a worthy Horror film to watch. While the selection of foreign films is indeed impressive, English films are scarce and many of them turn out to be mediocre at best and forcing a conscious choice to lower one's expectations and standards. Wanting to watch a nice Horror film and not feeling like a foreign one - I've decided to try Life and definitely wasn't disappointed.

As I'm sure you've already seen in a trailer or read in a summary, Life tells the story of a space mission to retrieve Martian land samples believed to be containing organic life forms. As expected, said organic life form turns out to be a lot more dangerous than initially perceived by the shuttle's crew, who find themselves forced to fight for survival. However, if you're thinking of a Dead Space, Alien or Starship Troopers scenario - stop right there. The "alien" is far less fantastic and nefarious and therefore a lot more convincing and authentic. It isn't a terrifying hunter, simply and organism fighting for its own survival and which turns out to be a lot more evolved and superior.

The characters are relatable and very likeable despite some pretty unimpressive acting and direction (except for Jake Gyllenhaal, who was incredible, and Ryan Reynolds, who proved beyond a doubt he's much more than an action-comedy actor. Very impressive, way to go Deadpool!). The setting is utterly discomforting due to it being so different and remote from mankind's natural habitat (you know, outer space, no gravity, no air and nowhere to run). However, the plot itself is the main attraction, as it's suspenseful and keeps you at the edge of your seats all the way to the end.

And speaking of the end - I'll say it right now, it counts for about 2-3 points in my rating. It's so simple and "easy" that at first it felt out of place and illogical, but a few second of thinking about it made everything fall into place. It's surprising, despairing and in every way terrible, leaving the audience with a very distinctive knot in their chests. In the Horror genre, combining such a twist with such a feeling (which definitely stays with you for a bit) makes for an excellent ending, and I personally firmly believe anticlimactic endings is perhaps the greatest bane of Horror today.

All in all, while lowering your expectations and standards will indeed help you enjoy the film all the more, Life is far from being another average act of mediocracy. It's compelling, suspenseful and terrible and delivers a very highly entertaining Horror experience. While many might disagree with me (as this is all just my personal opinion), I would recommend to anyone and everyone (even those who aren't regular Horror enthusiasts) not to miss out on this one.

Usually when it comes to Netflix originals I initially lower my expectations in hopes of a pleasant surprise in the form of an average and entertaining film. In this case - I have to say I was mind-blown. The Perfection just might be the best Psychological Thriller/Horror film of the year, and then some. This is of course my subjective opinion alone, but I do hope this review might convince to give this gem a chance.

I usually begin with addressing the plot, but as for The Perfection - the cinematography is absolutely the key feature, both artistic and impressive. As a teen I remember I'd seen a French film called A la Folie Pas Du Tout which featured a nice "fast rewind" effect showing the past 10-30 minutes in like x7 speed in order to bridge some knowledge gaps by uncovering new information, as sort of a plot twist. This was the first time I've seen this technique utilized for a more sinister purpose, and I must say I loved it! Add to that the occasional "flashback shot" revealing the character's hidden emotions - and you get one of the most innovative cinematography ever used in Horror.

As for the plot - it pretty much revolves around the newly found relationship between two cello protégés who apparently sacrificed way too much to reach such a status. As expected of a good Psychological thriller - nothing is what it seems, and as expected from a good Horror story - the truth is terrifying and flirts with the fine line of revulsion. Not cheap jump scares, very little hints of nudity and eroticism (and not nearly as blunt as in many Teen Horrors), just a very cleverly designed and thoughtfully planned story which unfolds slowly yet compellingly.

Personally, I've enjoyed every single minute of The Perfection and am not ashamed to say I find the majority of reviews and rates here to be bluntly unfair and even unauthentic. The only shortcoming I could come up with if I deliberately tried would be the lack of an actual plot twist towards the ending, as I believe a genuinely surprising ending which catches the audience completely off guard is what makes a good Horror story great and a great one a masterpiece. Other than that? I can honestly say I thank you for reading this, but now stop and go watch it, it's worth it.

If you're anything like many others - you've already learnt to always lower your expectations before watching a Netflix original film (their shows tend to be quite impressive, or so I hear, but their films are usually mediocre at best). This attitude has honestly served me well while watching The Silence, as I've actually found myself quite entertained. While not more than average - it isn't bad and definitely didn't feel like a waste of time. Mostly unimpressive, still fun.

First of all, I'm quite impressed with the latest movement of "sense deprivation" Horror films. Hush put us through the experience of a deaf victim trapped by a stalker; Bird Box (another Netflix original) has told the story of evil entities who can only afflict their victim if seen by them (therefore putting us through the experience of people forced into voluntary blindness of sorts); and now The Silence presents a scenario in which speaking above a whisper might bring upon a terrible fate, through the eyes of a family fluent in sign language (pretty "convenient", but serves the plot). While all these films haven't yet fulfilled the full potential of this genuine idea - all are, in my opinion, equally entertaining and rewarding in their own way.

The Silence begins with another cliché end-of-the-world event, this time in the shape of CreepyPasta-looking deadly creatures who hunt by sound. It's actually less silly than it sounds, but not by far. The plot is very roughly and bluntly divided into three parts, each receiving pretty much the same amount of screen time: exposition (what happened, how and to whom); initial coping and survival (what do we do now?); and the encounter with the actual enemy. It pretty much felt like watching three episodes of a mini-series with at least four, as the ending is pretty disappointing and leaves too many loose ends untied (not just enough to be an intriguing and debatable open ending, just not really an ending in my opinion).

Nothing about The Silence is extraordinary, for better or worse. The story is okay, the acting is okay (aside from K. Shipka who was very impressive as recently-deafened Ally, managing to design her speech to be just a little off, very authentic and convincing!), the cinematography and soundtrack is okay, everything is just okay and just enough to have a good time if you don't expect to have your mind blown or your feet swept.

I've always been a devout fan of story-centered Horror films with smart and surprising plot twists and endings. To me, these films (for instance many titles by James Wan) embody the perfect combination of Horror and Psychological Thriller (most titles of the Saw anthology come to mind as a shining example). As a fan of such, I must pay proper respects to Cube, which just might be the title that had originally presented this particular sub-genre years before the first Saw reinvented it (even though it sadly fails to deliver an actual plot twist).

As the plot summary and trailers have most likely told you already - Cube begins, continues and ends with the struggle of six strangers who awake to a living nightmare in which they're trapped inside a giant maze rigged with traps. The way I see it, Cube relies on three main features. First, the film's main feature is deception, as everything we're made to think we know about each character on one hand and their devastatingly discomforting predicament on the other first comes into question and later, at times, shatters completely. This serves as a metonymic representation of the fact that nothing around is familiar, known of comprehendible, both in the maze and in the characters' lives as part of human society.

The second feature is discomfort, which has become a key characteristic of many modern Horror films that have crossed the classical boundaries of a haunting ghost or a hunting killer. From the start, the main antagonist is the setting (i.e. the maze), into which the characters have been forced and out of which they barely have a prayer of escaping. As stress, fatigue and of course hunger and dehydration are gradually added to the equation - the characters become paranoid and distrustful, sometimes for good reasons. The genius single location and lack of any flashbacks and past/future scenes only serve to enhance the sensation of discomfort: there's nowhere and no time to which the characters can escape, the nightmare is real and is the only thing that exists for them.

The third and less profound feature is the philosophical dimension added by the characters' different perceptions and attitudes regarding life's rules of conduct and terms of endeavor, so to say. As they discuss and relate their own individual explanation to their situation - questions of life, humanity and personality arise, making the viewer constantly think and ponder while following the characters' attempts at survival and escape. While this might have been considered a relief from the aforementioned sense of discomfort (since focusing on anything but the reality of the nightmarish predicament might give a false sense of hope) - it turns out it actually feeds the fear and despair, as each explanation is both realistic and authentic (to the extent you'd attribute logic and rationale to conspiracy theories and sci-fi scenarios) and more terrible than the other.

The acting is professional and excellent, the story is original and innovative and the plot is compelling and suspenseful, always keeping the viewer on edge. Even the minimalistic soundtrack is great, although too much resembling a Slasher theme in my opinion. The only let down for me had been, as I mentioned in the beginning, the blunt lack of an actual plot twist, or an actual ending. While the open ending could be considered another element of discomfort and lack of clarity - I firmly believe a smart plot twist would have made this film perfect.

And yet, made over two decades ago - Cube still sets a standard few Horror and Psychological Thriller titles manage to meet today. It isn't frightening of that scary (as it doesn't really rely on fear), but a true psychological Horror combining discomfort, torture, despair and pursuit which manage to exquisitely deliver every stressful and agonizing sensation to the viewing audience. While this is solely my personal opinion - I can't recommend this film enough, even to those who aren't particularly fond of Horror films.

This is one of those times in which I find myself lacking for words. I don't condone including spoilers in reviews, not even for the sake of a much required debate and discussion. I personally find Animas to be original and innovative, even groundbreaking in its take on teenage angst while coping with mental illnesses. It's the sort of films whith an effect one couldn't possibly grasp without watching it, beginning to end. Due to this very reason, it's almost impossible to give a fair spoiler-free review, as in such films any piece of information constitutes a potential spoiler.

The story revolves around the relationship of Abraham (Ivan Pellicer), nicknamed Bram in what I believe is a homage to the great author of Dracula, and his best friend Alex (Clare Durant). Having met as kids 10 years earlier - they now try to come to terms with high-school graduation as two stereotypical "Goths" dealing with anxiety and depression. It is also quite bluntly implied that Alex might want more than friendship, as she finds it very difficult to accept Abraham's new (and first) romantic relationship.

Simultaneously, a completely different plot takes place, one that is under the surface and is initially described solely by Alex's close encounter with a certain stalking figure, displaying what could be perceived as supernatural qualities. The truth of what happens is only revealed towards the end in quite a stunning plot twist, but not towards the very end, so the characters still have time to conclude the affairs while still leaving plenty of loose ends for a completely open ending.

The acting is superb, especially considering I believe none of you have ever even heard the main cast's names. Everything is right on the spot and these two should have a bright acting future ahead. The cinematography is exquisite, utilizing effects and angles in a manner which really enhances certain otherwise average scenes. Even the soundtrack fits like a glove and is utilized professionally and impressively.

The problem? The first hour or so is spent in utter confusion which leads to boredom. I had to struggle with myself to keep watching and have actually watched it over the course of two days (during two viewing sessions). The sheer mess of things does indeed serve to create a much more impactful effect once things do fall into place and become clear - but I can't help but think the price is too high. There had to have been a way to write a more compelling build up while still maintaining the plot twist's impact. Honestly, I'm certain this is the main cause for yet another film getting such unfair rates and reviews. Additionally, while Animas is an exquisite psychological thriller - it isn't a Horror film, and quite frankly I'm getting quite fed up with all these deliberately misleading tags and trailers. This isn't Horror, why present it as such?

All in all, the first hour feels terrible and like a waste of time, while the rest of the film turns the entire final product into a masterpiece, if one only allows themselves to forgive the first part and be dazzled by the sheer genius conclusion. I don't know if I can wholeheartedly recommend it in general, as I'm sure many out there would not find the overall experience rewarding. At all. From my part - I'm grateful to my curiosity for keeping me onboard so I could have my mind blown, even if it took a lot of effort.

Due to Netflix's rather poor selection of Horror films, I've found myself lately trying many of its foreign Horror titles, namely a few Indonesian films. The 3rd Eye is in a good place in the middle, as it's average and mediocre, nothing more and nothing less. It's far from being a great film that would leave a lasting impression, but it's just as far from being the terrible mess that certain reviews here have claimed it to be. Entertaining enough for a one time watch as long as you don't expect to be swept off your feet.

The plot and pace are good enough, as is the acting. Unlike most reviews here I actually liked the CGI used to show the ghosts, which are actually quite terrifying. The jump scares are numerous and often, and while the very use and utilization of them qualifies as a cheap cheat in my book - they do serve their goal of scaring you straight. The most negative feature by far, in my opinion, is the terrible attempt at creating plot twists that are not merely unoriginal - but bluntly stolen from all too familiar Hollywood films. Such an attempt was unnecessary at best and damaging to the overall viewing experience at worse. I honestly don't understand why the writers would create such a story, all of which is meant to try and make the plot twists more "twisty'. Too bad, as the film could have been more than average and even good had it not been for such amateurish writing (this is also what has made me rate it 4 instead of 5, as no plot twists or even bad original plot twists are better than stolen ones).

All in all? The film is enough. Scary enough, interesting enough and entertaining enough. I wouldn't recommend watching it as I wouldn't recommend avoiding it. I would, however, say that if you find nothing better on Netflix and want to enjoy a nice Horror film - The 3rd Eye could do the trick. As long as you initially lower your expectations and realize that you aren't about to see anything remotely innovative or exciting.

I knew it, I just knew it. After two excellent films with the sequel slightly outdoing the first - what were the odds of the third not being an utter disappointment? Slim to none, if experience serves. And so it was. Sabrina is not a bad Horror film, I would say it's even above average, it simply doesn't remotely meet the standards of the two previous titles (i.e. The Doll and The Doll 2). I hoped it would, I really did want to continue the blissfully terrifying journey, but all good things must come to an end.

From a pseudo-academic perspectives - Sabrina's main feature is that it combines, burnishes, enhances and conveniently presents all the aspects that served to slightly downgrade the first two films, so it's quite easy for one to understand what went slightly wrong in them and terribly wrong in this one. First, the illogical and unrealistic features, i.e. mortal injuries shrugged off as if they were nothing more than stepping on a Lego piece barefoot, or a character sleeping through a commotion in their bedroom but rudely awoken by noises from a different building. Second, something that had come to mind in the first two films but became too blunt in this one - the role of authorities. People injured and killed by supernatural events, and where is the police? We see the protagonists receiving medical care, but how come they aren't questioned as suspects? Seriously, this just might be cultural ignorance on my behalf, but is this how Indonesian social norms are? A simple "I am a psychic, officer, this person was killed by an evil spirit!" gets you off the hook? Seriously, is this how it is there? Such features really damage suspense of disbelief which is crucial in supernatural films (that are quite unbelievable to begin with).

To that I must add that while the acting in the two previous films hadn't been all that impressive - the acting in this one, namely by young Richelle Georgette Skornicki as little Vanya, was simply an eyesore. I realize she's a very young beginner and shouldn't be judged too harshly, and I also realize at least part of her unconvincing role is due to direction, but still, she was the one thing that felt fake and unfitting acting-wise.

Also, again unlike the first two films in the bluntest of ways, some scenes in Sabrina felt completely out of place. So out of place that it was embarrassing, honestly, I can't help but wonder what drove the director to add them. For instance - I'm very much not a fan of gore, especially when it is so obviously pushed into a film for its own sake. Sabrina actually had less scenes involving gore and ridiculously exaggerated amounts of blood - which only serves to emphasize the sheer redundancy of the one or two gory scenes. Almost like the film was done and ready and suddenly the director remembered "damn! I forgot to add gore! Quick, edit a scene!". Honestly, people who enjoy gore (completely legitimate, to each their own) wouldn't be satisfied which such a small amount and people who don't, like me, would simply be frustrated by such an unnecessary addition.

And finally - the plot twist. The one thing that to me makes good Horror films great and turns great Horror films into masterpieces. The first and second film had excellent, smart and sophisticated plot twists that I believe caught most of the audience completely off guard. This one? Couldn't have been more predictable. Honestly, anyone who saw at least one of the previous two films would know the "twist" 20 minutes into the film. This is perhaps the most felt downgrade from the other films.

However, to be fair, as I've said so in the beginning - Sabrina is not a bad film. For instance, certain changes from the second film are actually explained, instead of leaving it to the obvious to fill in the gaps (an all too familiar method in cinema today and since ever, unfortunately). Also, the doll itself is much better than the one in the second film, and even the fact that it bares the same name is explained in a satisfying enough manner. The story is compelling, the scenes are suspenseful, the antagonist is terrifying and presented in quite an innovative and original way compared to most other films involving possessions. Also, just like in the previous two films - exorcisms are done in a manner unfamiliar to most of us, meaning not in the Christian way (no criticism or offense meant to Christians or Christianity). After hundreds of films using the sorely overdone Latin catchphrases and "the power of Christ compels you", it was blissfully refreshing to see a Muslim exorcism! While this has been a feature of all three films and can't be considered a distinct advantage of this one - it was still, as said, refreshing to see.

All in all, Sabrina is quite entertaining and enjoyable, particularly for viewers who haven't seen the previous two films. Most of my criticism is due to the sheer disappointment due to Sabrina's overall low level in comparison. I would recommend watching it if you indeed saw the two others (for closure's sake, albeit an unfulfilling one), as well as if you've seen a trailer and found yourself intrigued. Or simply if you're a fan of creepy dolls. While I'm glad to have watched it - I would recommend to everyone to lower their expectations if they don't wish to feel their time has been wasted for naught.

I set out to watch The Doll 2 with certain worries, mainly that it would follow the unfortunate and all too familiar tradition of Horror sequels that (a) are barely remotely connected to the first title and (b) are nothing but a greedy attempt to capitalize on its success. My, was I blissfully wrong! The Doll 2 does follow in the footsteps of other sequels, but not of the Hollywood persuasion, but of Asian Horror (meaning the sequel is just as great as the first if not better). First review I've seen here offered what was in my opinion very unfair criticism, lamenting how The Doll 2 was simply "more of the same". Indeed, it follows the general rules set by the first film, as a sequel ought to. That's not criticism, that's praise.

Much like the classic sequels of old (the Friday the 13th anthology comes to mind) The Doll 2 picks up right about where the first film ended. None of that "different story, different characters, different everything possible, same antagonist" equation defining most of today's Horror sequels - but an actual sequel the way it should be. The relevant characters (and cast!) of the first film appear in this one and play a significant role, but without overshadowing the new and more central protagonists. The story, plot and especially pace are also much like in the first film. Very little room to breathe as one occasion is rapidly followed by another, without wasting any screen time and without a single dull moment. In fact, I actually believe a little more build-up could have served the plot well, but the story and pace are great nonetheless. Seeing an almost two hour film and thinking "it could have been longer and still excellent" is in my opinion quite a complement.

And of course, the plot twist. I'm a sucker for plot twists, I believe they are the one thing that makes good Horror films great. But they have to be smart, surprising yet authentic and not forced and of course they have to make sense. Just like in the first film - the plot twist in this one meets all the criteria. While not as shocking and mind-blowing as in the first - it catches the audience (at least most of it) completely off guard and takes the plot to a whole new level. Well done!

Finally, the last nail in the coffin of the "more of the same" criticism - the last third of the film completely changes the rules of endeavor. The film is an emotional rollercoaster of empathy and contempt, fear and relieve, love and hate and discomfort and catharsis. While the first film was indeed great - it didn't offer these features and in such a professional and intelligent manner. Undoubtedly the one reason to prefer the sequel.

Now, to be fair, the less impressive parts. First of all, while the doll itself is quite disturbing, I still haven't decided if it's as creepy as the one in the first film. I'm actually not sure if I like it more, less or the same. To each their own, I suppose. Second, and indeed "more of the same" - an exaggerated use of blood and completely, utterly and to me annoyingly unnecessary gore scenes. I know the axiom is that Horror needs some gore, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Third, I found certain scenes to be, well, not in line with the film's general mood and simply too banal (although just one or two while the rest are right on the spot).

And finally, the bane of the first film - the blunt and ridiculous lack of basic logic just for the sake of serving the plot. People suffering deadly injuries only to shake them off and carry on as if they've received a mere papercut. I of course realize the problem with such criticism in a Supernatural Horror film - but these films too follow a set of rules which each film sets from the start. The supernatural aspects revolve around the doll and the haunting, not the characters' constitution. I realize the necessity of showing the characters getting physically hurt, but some balance was in order and things should have been made to make more sense. When you see some of the injuries you'll realize that no broken bones and not even the slightest effect of such amounts of blood loss are simply too fat fetched. Additionally, a person naturally sleeping through loud noises in their room but being awoken by screams from next door is simply preposterous. All this wasn't in any way nearly enough to spoil the film for me, it just felt silly, I can't understand why such foolishness found its way into such a great film...

All in all, I personally enjoyed and even loved 99% of what The Doll 2 has shown me on screen and taken me through, despite the aformentioned criticism. The first film was great and this one is even better. I of course describe my personal experience alone and can in no way know what other viewers' personal preferences are - you might just hate this film and curse me for encouraging you to watch it. But I do so nonetheless. It's an amazing piece of Indonesian Horror and one of the finest Horror films of this decade. Watch the first, then watch this one and join me in hoping that the third is just as good!

With the exclusion of Chucky, I've always found tales revolving around creepy possessed/supernatural dolls to be quite scary, be it in text or on the screen. Dead Silence by James Wan (the Wan and only) is one of my favorites and the famous namesake of Anabelle was in my opinion the best and most horrifying feature of the film. Therefore, after the Netflix buzz around the new Sabrina film, I was quite excited that the first two titles were also available, so I could watch them in proper order.

The vast majority of features in The Doll are truly great. The story is interesting, compelling and suspenseful. The pace is right on the spot from the exposition and build up, through the overture and to excellent final plot twist (which succeeded in catching me completely off guard despite it being rather cliché). The antagonist is terrifying despite rather sloppy CGI (which is only apparent enough to be noticeable during the final scenes). The scenes are well made and compelling. The characters are authentic, realistic and relatable and the acting is professional and on the spot despite being less than impressive. Even the soundtrack is awesome.

On the other hand, I couldn't ignore the less enjoyable features, especially the vast amounts of all too familiar clichés, some of which had been specifically taken from the "The Conjuring" anthology. Additionally, there's the exaggerated use of cheap jump scares, despite the fact that they were well executed and absolutely achieved their goal of making me jump in my seat. Also, I personally found the gory parts to be completely unnecessary, not being a fan of gore and excessive amounts of blood for their own sakes. Some films are based on those features and are made specifically for fans of gore, but this one isn't and has absolutely no reason to attempt to be. However, the worst feature of the film is by far the complete lack of logic and realism in some of the scenes, all for the sake of fitting the plot. Like a guy suffering multiple deadly stab wounds only to shake it off when necessary, then collapsing exhausted when the plot needs him to. A very amateurish feature in a film that's otherwise anything but.

All in all, The Doll is an excellent film which for me delivered everything I hoped it would, and then some. While not a masterpiece it's good enough to be considered great and one of the best Horror films I've watched this year (and by far the best Indonesian Horror film I've watched to date, though I haven't watched that many). I can only hope the next two titles of the trilogy are as entertaining and terrifying.

Oftentimes the experience of trying the sad selection Netflix offers under the Horror tag is less then rewarding to say the least. Fortunately for me - The Rezort was not one of those times, far from it. While a relatively low budget production, in my opinion what it lacks in grandeur it more than makes up for in an original plot and an innovating story. Personally, I have never seen such a take on the whole Zombie Apocalypse scenario therefore found The Rezort to be both refreshing and very entertaining.

More than a mere Zombie flick, this film is a human document. Unlike most other films of the sort the plot occurs well after the all too familiar plague of living dead biting people and turning them. It actually follows humanity's war against the undead and deals with the aftermath of the victory. Also unlike the scenarios often presented in such films - humanity has actually done quite well for itself in terms of survival, as "only" two billion people died and the plague has indeed been contained and all but exterminated. Moreover, the remaining zombies now inhabit a tourist attraction offering people a hunting safari experience shooting undead for their pleasure.

Indeed a human document, particularly human stupidity. The very existence of such a "rezort" is an affront to basic intelligence, showing just how dumb people could really be. Not just because the place was allowed to exist to begin with - but because it's shown as a prosperous business and people actually pay for it. Adding to that the fact that just like the joke shared via online dank memes there are indeed zombie rights activists (I kid you not) only stresses the implied social criticism, although not in the most obvious of ways.

The one problem I had with this film was certain aspects of the writing and direction. First of all, I do like it when the zombies are portrayed in a convincing manner, like possessing the ability to both walk and run (many films have them capable of only one of these basic motoric actions). However, also like most other films, zombies can't help but growl and be continuously noisy. So how come they still manage to literally sneak up on people? How could the director miss that? No explanation.

Also, I can't help but wonder what happened to all the cellphones, especially those coming with a basic flashlight option (i.e. all of them, every single type by every single manufacturer). I only wonder because during certain scenes the protagonists had to wonder around in total darkness. While I do realize the production needed darkness as an excuse to fake an implied fear factor - I do believe they could have taken the 5 seconds on screen to tell us an explanation (like "no cells allowed on the premises" due to any reason at all). That too would have been rather cheap, but at least acceptable.

And finally, of course, the all too familiar cheat of the car that suddenly won't start, because if it did the protagonists wouldn't have had to face certain death. It's not that the zombies attacked and made reaching the car impossible, or hung on to the doors and made the driver crash, or any other overused scenario. The car simply doesn't start, because. I can't help but be all the more frustrated on account of such screw-ups given how easily they could have been avoided.

Having said that, I still feel the Rezort was one of the better Zombie films of the past years. While not at all a Horror film and having only few impressive scenes, the story, the pace and the sort-of twist make the entire experience rewarding and entertaining. I would definitely recommend it to fans of the genre, as I honestly believe its good features far outnumber and outweigh any and all reasons to complain.

First thing's first - I did not know this was a remake. Perhaps it means unforgivable ignorance on my behalf, but I simply looked a nice film on Netflix and came across this. Trailer seemed okay, so I figured, what the heck? This means that perhaps my opinion would have been more harsh had I had the whole "I must compare this to the original and deduct one point for each and every difference" thing going. I honestly don't understand why people do that to themselves.

So, Bloodline was to me like a Friday night family dinner. It isn't made by a chef, it isn't a taste-bud orgasm and it might even not contain your favorite childhood dish. It's just nice. The film is a regular Zombie flick with a nice story and a main plotline which I haven't seen done so far (again, this is a remake, so I guess any compliments belong there and not here). The acting is good enough for the overall level of the film. I personally dislike the amounts of blood and gore (zombies tearing out bits of flesh don't impress me, simply looks like an unrewarding and unnecessary way to spend a budget, sorry) but I suppose a Zombie flick trying to be classic needs some of that.

All in all? I had fun. I was entertained. I wasn't swept off my feet or had my mind blown, I simply enjoyed the dynamics between the characters and the overall post-apocalyptic battle scenario. I'm sure you could find better Zombie flicks, as well as worse. Nothing much left to say, as for better or worse the film doesn't leave a lasting impression. Watching it won't be as painful as others here say, so watch a trailer and decide for yourselves.

As I find myself unable to figure out where or how to begin, I'll start off by saying that this just might be the first time a Horror film receives a fair rating on IMDB (as usually, for some reason, people who dislike Horror think giving it bad reviews says something positive or flattering about them). This film is downright terrible, with perhaps four scenes that are not boring, badly written/acted/directed and worthy of screen time.

Of course, most people have only come across this atrocity due to Netflix, where it's called "American Poltergeist 2" (despite having been released two years prior to the less than overwhelming American Poltergeist, so I have no idea how this even works). And of course, there's no ignoring the fact that it doesn't take more than a two minute "research" to realize that whatever "entity" the antagonist is - it's not a poltergeist.

The camera trembles too much. The acting is childish. The "twist" is so forced it's sad. But the first prize by far goes to the audio quality in like half the film. No, there is nothing wrong with your sound card, speakers, television set or whatever. The director has actually had the audacity to release this film in its current quality level (or lack thereof). I don't even think the overall product would have passed a freshman year cinema course, so even implying this is a film that belongs on a paid streaming service is an affront to basic intelligence. Whoever was responsible for putting this on Netflix should know that he single handedly cost them at least half a star of reputation.

I must say it's been a while since I've got to watch an actual who-done-it Slasher, so I'm quite glad I got around to trying Most Likely to Die. The key components, i.e. characters, relationships and social intrigues are all as cookie-cutter as can be, without even the slightest distinct effort to present something new. I get that, some films have no desire to reinvent the wheel and it's perfectly legitimate in such a classic sub-genre. Additionally, some of the all too familiar cheats are of course present and are quite significant for the plot to make the slightest sense (of course there's no cellular reception, has anyone ever seen an on-set slasher location in which basic communication devices actually worked? That would force the screenwriters to actually think!). On the other hand, this was perhaps the first time I've seen a Slasher film with an actually logical explanation for the car refusing to start in a desolate location, so at least there's that.

Speaking of the plot, it's nice, okay, sufficient and other such underwhelming adjectives. Sadly, the only real red herring and sort-of chance for a remotely surprising plot twist is proven innocent (thus removed from the equation) far too earl for my liking, so there isn't really a twist. The only reason the killer's identity could catch you off guard is that you didn't bet on the right horse, as there are no hints whatsoever, subtle or other. Nothing smart or well planned, nothing to leave you with any appreciation for the writing. Same goes for acting and direction. Seriously, you've just witnessed a gruesome death, how about a little more convincing scream and hysterics? You know, more so than when you break a nail...

Having said that, let's all take a moment to remember that this is a Slasher, not a psychological thriller. Not all films can (nor should) be Saw or Insidious (yes, I'm a big fan of the Wan and only). As a Slasher, Most Likely to Die has some very well planned killing scenes, and awesome and never before seen murder weapon, and a distinguished lack of forced pornography (some erotica though) and people dying solely on account of being stupid. Also, the killer is not given Jason super powers, is not walking faster than sprinting victims and it's implied he wouldn't be able to shrug off a bullet. All these features are indeed commendable.

All in all, anyone expecting a Slasher to be more than it is would surely be disappointed, and have no one but themselves to blame. Those who just expect a Slasher, offering some half-finished story and plenty of features bad enough to be sufficiently amusing, would surely be pleasantly surprised but at least a few scenes. I know I was and I know I had a pretty fun time watching this for the first and last time. NEVER believe any Horror film's rating on this site, as it appears to be a social or ego thing to trash them. Always assume the film would be two scores better than most ratings and reviews. Trust me, rating this film a 4 is nothing but juvenile.