baileycrawly

It's interesting to note that my favorite of the Insidious movies so far is the one that's entirely unrelated to the prior franchise. This, I suppose, is a testament to the brilliance of horror icon Lin Shaye and the acting chops she brings to the table for this franchise.

I feel like a broken record, and the irony of my praising Lin in every single Insidious review thus far is not lost on me... however, she truly is a phenomenal presence the likes of which this series wouldn't survive without. And this film puts her front and center and forces her to really carry the film... which she is ready, willing and more than able to do.

This film is the modern day Dream Warriors, a third entry that outshines both its predecessors. Typically, choosing to abandon the core story in a horror franchise and, instead, venture into the past is often a death rattle to the franchise, however this story is in hands that are more than capable of handling the subject matter with the respect it's deserved.

Having dismissed the Insidious franchise in the past as superfluous shock-scares with no substance whatsoever, I must say I'm pleasantly surprised to finally be proven wrong with my intial assessment.

Also... the final scene of this movie is one of my favorite last moments pre-credits in horror movie history. Absolutely second to none phenomenal!

Insidious: Chapter 2 doesn't hold a candle to the original Insidious, but I don't think it's ever trying to recreate the glories of its predecessor.

This film is a perfect representation of the talents of James Wan as a director, having a lot of fun with the IP he cultivated with the original film and stringing in a handful of fun homages to past iconic moments in horror history throughout.

The plot of this sequel is much more in-depth than its predecessor, which was also a welcome addition although there were a handful of scenes that felt, arguably, drawn out far longer than they needed to be. However, it's forgivable for the experience as a whole when it comes to this movie.

The true shining talents in this film, once again, are Patrick Wilson and Lin Shaye (although her role is much smaller in this film). It's always a joy to watch the those two absolute horror icons on the screen together any chance we get.

Overall, Insidious: Chapter 2 is a far cry from Insidious, but it's still a fun horror movie and a worhty follow-up to the enormous Blockbuster hit.

Having just revisited Insidious for the first time since its initial release, I can honestly say I'm floored. Seconded only, perhaps, by Sinister, Insidious could very well be in the top five scariest horror films of the 2010s.

James Wan proves, as he always does, that he is a more than capable tour de force within the genre, weaving a very plot-loose film that still manages to maintain the tension throughout.

More often than not, when you're watching a modern horror movie with "jump scares," these are nothing but cheap, poorly executed gimmicks to try to jolt an audience and, while this film does have a couple of those in here, the overwhelming majority of the movie is captivating and genuinely terrifying.

Patrick WIlson absolutely shines, as he always does, and genre icon Lin Shaye gives a truly second-to-none performance. Where this film lacks plot points, it more than makes up in the scare factor. All in all, this was a very satisfying viewing with an ending that still left me craving more.

Exactly what a well-crafted, justified horror film should do. The quality of the sequels we got, however, is still up in the air (for me, anyway). That will be determined as I view them.

Wonka is an interesting film. As far as origin stories go, they don't exactly set it up for something you would ever think would be successful. And then, with the likes of the handsome (and talented) Timothee Chalamet in the cast, it's easy to think of this movie as something hastily made simply because the "Willy Wonka" property is still viewed as profitable by the studio.

And, while that may be true to an extent, this movie was overall pretty decently made. Timothee not only delivers his trademark second-to-none acting chops in front of the camera, but he also adds singing to his repertoire (something I, personally, have never seen him do in a role). He's got a gorgeous singing voice, which serves to make this even better.

There are lots of little homages to Gene Wilder and the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory film as well and, although they often feel like yet another soulless act of fan service (isn't that everywhere these days?), it still holds up pretty well on its own.

The music is fun and catchy, the characters are easily sympathizable and relatable, and the story flows well enough to keep me fully interested throughout the duration of the film. Where it starts to fall apart, however, is in the lore... particulalry surrounding the Oompa Loompas and how they came to work for Wonka.

Look, I can fogive Hugh Grant in part for doing a relatively terrible job in the role (he was focused primarily on the payday of it all and, at this point, who can really blame him?), but what's a little bit harder to forgive is that, given that this film is billed as the origin of Willy Wonka, the inconsistencies of where, exactly, the Oompa Loompa characters came from and how Wonka ended up being tied to them is completely inaccurate and muddled to the story present in the book as well as both film versions (although more extensively in Tim Burton's rendition of the tale).

Overall, if you can suspend your disbelief and forget (to a certain degree) about the finer details of the original story, this is a fun little piece of moviemaking magic that isn't afraid to have a good time. And you should, too, if you relax and enjoy it.

I want to close by giving quick props to the satirical elements tackling the government, coroprations and their shady behaviours. Sure, it was played up for laughs but I can't help but feel the industry is taking a few (light-hearted?) jabs at themselves with the story behind this film.

There are few popular movies that the majority would consider to be the peak of cinema, and even fewer of those that I would agree with. E. T., however, is as its star, Dee Wallace, once said: "This is our generation's Wizard of Oz." E. T. is a rather simple story on the onset: an alien from a foreign planet touches down on Earth, misses his chance to get back home, gets found by a young boy whose entire life is irreversibly changed by taking in the little alien and helping him find his way home.

Every single emotion in this entire film is nothing short of purely authentic. Dee Wallace, although earlier on in her spirituality work, managed to channel some of the most intensely beautiful and poignant emotion into this film, exiting the film just as the audience finds themselves with tears streaming down their face.

This is movie perfection. This is movie magic. This is a movie that, much like The Wizard of Oz, our society will still cherish ten generations from now on formats and devices we couldn't even dream of existing in the modern age. This is a truly special work, and it will forever be remembered for its unparallelled perfection.

This film is such a huge let-down!

It didn't really need to happen, and my assumption going into this one was that they had found some way to justify bringing the characters back again... yet they didn't. They just brought them back for the sake of bringing them back.

There aren't enough appearances from the supporting cast that returned, and this film feels very much like a copy-and-paste of what came before it, with some of the jokes being lifted directly from the first film.

Aside from money, there's no reason for this movie to even exist. It's clearly the result of a studio who hoped to trap lightning twice and a writer/director who either found themselves bound by contract or simply stopped caring.

Either way, it's a shame that a movie as fantastic as Another Gay Movie was would be tainted by such a lacklustre sequel.

Mink Stole delivers this line toward the end of this film, and I have to agree with her.

Eating Out was sold as a gay parody franchise, a wasteland where promiscuous sex, nudity and sensuality were not only permitted, but accepted. This film dials that down to near oblivion.

The audio mixing of this film is atrocious, the script is horrendous and the drama is bland and boring. As someone who was practically raised on teen drama series, the fact that the drama couldn't maintain my interest is a testament to just how bad this film truly is.

The beautiful Daniel Skelton appears as Casey, reprising his role from the previous film... but his character is really wasted. Skelton himself has upped his acting chops in this film, but unfortunately the direction seemed very odd for his character in this film. A character that I cared so much for in the previous entry is now as bland and boring as the rest of the characters in this hit-or-miss (but largely miss) franchise.

The problem as to why this movie had such a huge dip in quality can be attributed to one particular thing, that I've observed. The best entry in this franchise is directed by Glenn Gaylord, who directed the third entry exclusively. This entry, the direct follow-up, is directed by Q. Allan Brocka, who also directed the first entry. This may be a project he's passionate about (generally the director of the original is the original mastermind), but this is neither a genre nor franchise he should be involved with.

This was a huge letdown. It's impossible to follow the plot when it sounds like you have plastic cups taped over the microphones. If you were going for the "bootleg cam" style, you got it, but most normal people aren't going to want to sit through that. Sorry.

For the third course, All You Can Eat, I feel like I finally got what I was craving the entire time... except, if I had it my way, I'd have gone back for 3 or 4 more helpings of this masterpiece.

This, the third franchise entry, is missing every single flaw that was in its predecessors. Switching things up and choosing to follow a different storyline with (for the most part) new characters was a genius decision, and they handled it really well, managing to provide an entirely new story without harming the continuity of the franchise entries before it.

This film is actually, genuinely funny and the acting, while campy in parts, feels like it is the way it is as a result of deliberate choice rather than poor writing or bad acting. Everything about this film, from start to finish, was fun, sexy and even heartfelt. It pulls off everything the first 2 wanted to accomplish but just didn't seem to quite hit the mark on.

Shout out to Rebekah Kochan as Tiffani von der Sloot, who provides one of the most entertaining opening scenes I've seen in a movie in quite some time; Mink Stole for being herself and bringing her trademark charm to yet another gay movie (her screen time is criminally minimal but she doesn't disappoint when she's on screen) and Daniel Skelton, the gorgeously delicious eye-candy and talent behind the whole thing. Skelton's Casey was the first sympathetic character in this franchise for me, the very first one I cared about. I don't know if any other actor could've brought exactly what was needed to the table, but he didn't disappoint.

This film is responsible for renewing my excitement and anticipation for the forthcoming entries.

Sloppy Seconds... well, the leftovers are definitely better than the first time around, but that's really not saying a whole lot.

There are some very attractive men in this movie, and they're doing more than enough together to get a gay man's attention, but the scenes in between this are spotty, underdone and often feel rather boring to watch.

Helmed by a different director than the first film and bearing just a few returning characters (and even fewer returning actors), Eating Out 2 proves to be another case of, quite literally, eating out: you're not getting a good meal, and certainly nothing that would ever sustain you long-term... it's fine in the moment, but it really doesn't offer anything of substance beyond that.

Perhaps the one thing that sets this film apart from the original (aside from its willingness to showcase the male anatomy that was not present in its predecessor) was that this film does not maintain the faux comedy feeling the script of the original film did. This one knows when it's funny and it's not trying to be funny any other time.

It's difficult to see how Eating Out received a sequel, let alone a 5-film series, but perhaps there will be a shift along the way to showcase why this series is worth the effort, I don't know. This one is certainly one with a positive message at its heart, but it feels really out of place in such a sloppy (no pun intended) and half-done film.

I also would be remiss if I didn't throw out my obligatory Mink Stole shoutout. She never fails to make the most of even the most terrible of films. It's always a joy to see her on the screen again and I look forward to seeing more of her in the upcoming sequels.

Eating Out is another one of those "well, at least I can say I've seen it" movies. It wasn't all bad, but it was really wasn't very good at all.

This is a good example of the writers thinking they're on a million-dollar comedy writing kick. While some of the jokes really do land and are quite funny, there are so many instances where it's obvious that everyone except the audience thinks the material is funny.

Story-wise, it's actually not too bad. There's a lot of potential for comedy interlaced within the storyline here, had it been executed just a little bit better. The script is extremely weak, to the point that it's rather difficult to tell if the problem lies with poor acting or strictly poor writing.

That being said, the final act of this film is really well done. It's funny, it's tense, it's sexy... it does bounce itself back at the end, but the final act isn't really worth sitting through everything you must endure to get to it. It was, quite literally, one of the longest 83 minutes I've had in the last few years, and I've seen a lot of bland material lately.

Nobody goes into a parody expecting the movie to be genuinely good, but this was everything I needed and then some. This movie is witty, hilarious, sexy, fun, well executed and so well written it left me with a tear in my eye and an enthusiasm to seek out the sequel.

This movie perfectly (and hilariously) captured some of the highlights of my own gay youth: falling in love with one of your teachers, loving a member of your friend group, first experiences, awkward interruptions... the whole lot. The relatable bits caused me to cringe and laugh at the same time. This movie, which is definitely an American Pie parody, did for me what American Pie could not. Where that series never once resonated with me, this movie makes me feel seen and represented. And it warmed my heart.

The only shame is that I just discovered this gem tonight.

Dear David Gordon Greene,

Please stop taking horror franchises and trying to spin new trilogies out of them. Seriously.

This movie is so wildly inconsistent with the movie it's supposed to be a sequel to. The tone doesn't match the original, the possession is no more special than the hundred other copy-and-paste "demon possession" movies we have out there. It's quite bloated, the acting is bland at best, the storyline falls completely flat, it relies solely on jump scares that don't land, overall it's just a boring movie. I don't remember the last time I sat and stared at the time on my phone in a movie theater as much as I did watching this.

Ellen Burstyn is the only saving grace this movie has, and her talent was largely wasted in this one. She isn't given nearly enough screen time and, although she does a very good job delivering her material, she's working with a piece of garbage script that is completely inconsistent with her character in the original (and, since this is a sequel, it's fair to compare the two). This movie was a letdown from start to finish, in every department.

The only good thing to happen in this nearly two-hour mess happens in the very end and, since I obviously can't spoil it, you're going to have to watch it for yourself, but the only thing in this movie that grabbed me happened at the very end, right before the credits rolled. It's the only positive I can talk about with other people when it comes to this movie, sadly.

I wanted to love this movie so badly. But, given the fact that it's provided to us from the man responsible for the fan service-dependent Halloween trilogy that recently wrapped up, I guess I got exactly what I paid for. As a diehard fan of Friedkin's masterpiece, I was bitterly disappointed and I'm now a little ashamed to even say I watched it.

How do you outdo yourself with the tenth entry in a franchise? Well, Saw certainly did.

Saw X is more story-heavy than its predecessors, with half the runtime being devoted to John and his story, it's a bit of a slow burn but it was well worth the time.

Tobin Bell yet again shines in this movie, perhaps outdoing every performance he's given this franchise in the past.

It pays off in the gore department when it gets going, it's a very gooey and satisfying story, and the motives behind the kills in this movie is, perhaps, more well done than any other entry in the movie.

Having seen most of the franchise to date (I did miss Spiral), this one was the most intensely pleasurable and darkly satisfying movie I've seen in a good long time. The Saw franchise is absolutely alive and well, and I think it's got some promise for future sequels.

Remember to stay for the mid-credit scene!

The Nun has always been a low point in the Conjuring franchise. Many people, myself included, went into this film hoping to get an Annabelle-style experience where the first film failed to live up to the hype, but its sequels are solid. Unforutnately, this is not the case.

The plot is extremely underdeveloped, the effects are subpar, the acting is acceptable at its absolute best and the overall tone of the movie doesn't match the intensity of any of the other films in the Conjuring universe. The last 2 Conjuring films (The Devil Made Me Do It and The Nun II) have been extremely subpar offerings that didn't meet up to the hype or expectation fans of its predecessors have come to expect.

The Nun was always a real stinker, and this further drives that point home. However, perhaps even worse, given that it's the second awful entry into the franchise, it feels like it might finally be time to retire the Conjuring entirely and move on to something different. This was once a franchise with so much incredible and exciting potential, to see it slowly fizzle out like this is downright disheartening.

Bland and boring religious propaganda meant to guilt and shame people into following Jesus. Recorded in their native language was a nice touch for authenticity, but it's distracting for the viewer when the movie itself is not even entertaining enough to hold the interest. This movie ultimately wasn't even worth the effort of putting on.

Not to mention, this movie was apparently marred by curses. Buddy who played Jesus allegedly got struck by lightning and that's just the beginning of the issues. Would something truly blessed by a so-called "god" be marred with such difficulty and tragedy?

If you want a legitimately GOOD supposedly cursed movie, I highly recommend The Exorcist. OR, if you're into high fantasy with ridiculous storylines that would not and have not ever ACTUALLY happened, another cursed film I would recommend over this is The Wizard of Oz. In many ways, "God" is a mirror image of Miss Gulch.

Whether you love his work or hate everything he's ever done, this movie drives home the inevitable fact: there is NO creeper without Victor Salva. Despite his past, he was the creative genius behind the character and its lore. He was the maestro who expertly wove an amazing story that's not only endlessly entertaining, but viewed as a modern-day horror classic.

And then there's this, the latest victim of a society that wants everything and everyone to be so politically correct that they could not (and would not) ever behave out of line. Sure Salva's past was abhorrent, and maybe it's acceptable to not want another movie in the franchise involving him... but instead of running your franchise into the dirt with a piece of garbage sequel like this, why not let it keep its legacy by not doing further titles? Movies like this will only ever drive interest toward the predecessors, putting more cash in Victor's wallet. He's a smart business man in selling the rights, make no mistake.

They go out of their way to discount Victor's work, while at the same time failing to even do something slightly entertaining with the property. And I'll never forgive having the legendary Dee Wallace in your film for such a diminished, unnecessary, poorly written and minuscule performance. She is capable of so much, yet this film gives her so little. She still delivers every bit she can with the material (as she ALWAYS does), but it doesn't give her much to work with.

I hope the actors are paid well, and I hope the distributor enjoys the $4.99 I shelled out to see this film, for it will be the last non-Victor Creeper project I ever fund or watch in any way, shape or form. Enough is enough.

My first encounter with Mindy Kaling was as Kelly Kapoor in The Office, an always-funny, on-the-mark comedy that proved that even the mundanities of life can have a sense of humor about them. When she wasn't working in front of the camera, she was tirelessly working behind the scenes, writing and producing some of the show's highest moments and most entertaining episodes. In short, Mindy Kaling created a reputation for herself as a genuinely funny comedian... and, really, what more could you ask for? Gender and ethnicity don't matter to me when it comes to comedy; all that matters is the same basic question we ought to ask of every up-and-coming wannabe comedian: are you funny? And Mindy proved, during her time on The Office, that she was not only funny, but she was funny in fresh ways, and she was able to hit every mark and make some truly laugh-out-loud jokes.

Admittedly, I haven't followed much of Mindy's career outside The Office. It's my favorite TV show, after all -- not to mention one of the only sitcoms I can watch on repeat every day for the rest of my life. But hearing that Mindy had done a spinoff series of Scooby-Doo, a property I've grown to love throughout my childhood years and beyond (although more as a guilty pleasure these days), I was pretty intrigued. We have someone who is genuinely funny and has the full potential to truly breathe some fresh life into these characters in a portrayal unlike anything we've ever seen before.

And, to her credit, that's exactly what we got: something unlike anything else we've ever seen. But uniqueness alone does not a good show make. Remember, Yoko Ono is "unique" in her own right, but I highly doubt you're going to be streaming any of her records after reading this review.

Where do I even start to talk about Velma? It's the second massively disappointing project done with the Scooby-Doo property in the 2020s (with Scoob being a close second place). "Velma" showcases the creative ramblings of an out of touch comedian, someone who thinks she knows what the general public is going to find funny but ultimately misses the mark at every step along the way in her journey. The characters are so wildly inconsistent with any of the other entries in this massive, decade-spanning franchise that the very act of calling them by the names of beloved Scooby-Doo characters feels like blasphemy. The show is a parody, but the ultimate parody the show commits is parody against its own source material, which is never something you want to be doing. Velma is a show spun off from the Scooby-Doo media machine, yet it actively mocks the very material without which it would not exist, insulting the viewer for being -- or having been -- a fan of the source material along the way. Considering it was greenlit by Warner Bros., it's rather ironic that the company that nurtured this IP for so long is now actively allowing others to come in and mock their own cash cow. And yet, they're not only funding and enabling this... they're greenlighting a second season of this nonsense.

Profanity is totally fine in a comedy show for adults, however it feels rather tacky and distasteful to take an IP that was, first and foremost, made for kids and turn it into something that would be unwatchable by its original demographic. Further still, it's such a massive departure from everything that made the characters so endearing that, had the original creators of the franchise been here to witness this, they would've likely left feeling deeply disappointed and disrespected.

Most of the attempts at "humor" in this show are based solely on the cringe-factor. Much like The Office, this show seems to try to thrive on the "I-can't-believe-they-actually-said-that" comedy trope which, while pulled off in a genius way in The Office with the likes of Steve Carell, Rainn Wilson, John Krasinski, B. J. Novak, Jenna Fischer and, of course, Mindy Kaling, falls completely flat in Velma. Every attempt for a "fourth wall break" feel forced and unnatural, every attempt to show awareness that this IS, in fact, a show, caused my eyes to roll so hard they almost rolled completely out of their sockets. The scripts are weak and juvenile, the humor is not funny, the mystery is not engaging, the jokes (with very few exceptions) don't work, the characters are one-dimensional with no real development as the season progressed... from start to finish, this show was a disappointment.

This show reeks of a stale writing room, a large group of "yes-men" who think they're making some of the most evolved and relevant jokes that have ever been committed to screen... and people either too sycophantic or intimidated to speak their mind and say it's stupid. Nobody watching this show is laughing, except out of pity alone, except for the select few people sitting in that writer's room.

Perhaps the best question would be "why watch it, then?" Like a glorious trainwreck that one is victim to, unable to turn away despite wanting to do nothing but that very thing, we keep watching in the hopes that it would get better, holding on to the wish that this show would, somewhere along the way, manage to redeem itself. But it didn't.

And the fact that Warner Bros. Has officially greenlit a second season of this show (which, I think is safe to say, next to nobody is asking for) just goes to show how out of touch they've become with the very people who financially support and enable them to continue making content for all of us. If your content falls flat, it's time to rejuvenate it and find a better formula that will work financially and critically. You can't have one without the other. So, please, WB, give us an animated series in the Scooby-Doo universe. I even implore you to explore some territory that hasn't already been covered. But please keep Mindy Kaling as far away from it as you possibly can. She's not a good fit for this IP.

A Serbian Film is a nasty, gritty, filthly little movie. It pushes the boundaries and isn't afraid to "go there," even if the "there" it's going for is gross-out gore, jaw-dropping taboos and intense scenes of sexuality that, at the very least, feel like they should be illegal.

Ignoring the shock antics of the film (for just a moment), the movie itself is largely average. The first 45 minutes or so are an absolute slog of slow-moving storytelling, which really builds to something of a character study as the movie progresses. However, the last half-hour or so, gore and sex aside, are a rather interesting story, told in a really unique way.

Now, most people who watch this movie won't be able to see past some of the more intense scenes of gore. And, while they obviously look fake on-screen, it's a dealbreaker for many... and rightfully so. This is relentlessly gritty and holds nothing back. It's not a pleasant film to see, but it does portray a rather intense image of the exploitation of the porn industry.

Overall, I probably wouldn't recommend you watch this movie. Especially if you have a history of abuse of any kind, because this movie is dripping with it. Personally, it was average but not terrible. I probably won't watch it again, but I don't exactly regret having seen it.

If Terrifier was an incredible horror film (and, believe me, it is), Terrifier 2 is everything you could possibly want from a slasher. Damien Leone is still at the top of his game in this sequel, a rare instance of a sequel far surpassing its predecessor. The gore and kills are amplified to a huge extent and pulled off in full gory detail, the acting is greatly improved and the overall budget of the film makes this feel much more mainstream in the best of ways. Elliott Fulham in particular shines in this film, going from an interviewer of rock artists to a kickass punk in his own right. And, of course, David Howard Thornton absolutely blows it away in a brilliant performance of miming.

Everyone in this franchise has an incredible level of talent and I hope to see a lot more of Art in the future.

Superman and the Mole-Men certainly doesn't hold a candle to at least the first two Christopher Reeve-helmed Superman movies, but it isn't a bad little film either. More a plot attempt to sell a television series to a network than an actual film, Superman and the Mole-Men certainly has a made-for-TV feeling to it.

It takes its subject matter more seriously than the Superman films that followed, but that doesn't make this film inherently bad, either. It's good if you're looking for a fun way to spend an hour. It's not game-changing in its field in retrospect but, as the first "film" adaptation of a DC property, it does manage to hold up relatively well. I enjoyed it, and I would absolutely watch it again.

Ultimately, the thought this short film left me with was that Christoper Reeve was vastly superior in the man-in-tights role.

Bowie lived a life of glitz and glam, nobody's going to deny that. From Ziggy Stardust to Halloween Jack and everything in between Bowie was never afraid to be overtly theatrical.

So, for a theatrical production based around Bowie's life and legacy, to have to walk out saying this movie was TOO theatrical, leaning too heavy on its glitz and glam, is really a powerful statement on the finished product.

There are some positives to this viewing experience. The visuals are rather striking and, as another user stated previously, serves as a sensory overload. There are countless instances of Bowie performing live on stage which will appeal to any Bowie fan. And, of course, remastered interview footage. The vast majority of that footage has been made available on YouTube, leaving little that had been lost to time, but many of these interviews are remastered in such a way that it's aesthetically pleasing to behold.

The flaws in this film set in rather quickly as well, however. The first is its length; taking out the unnecessary fluff would reduce this film to, perhaps, 72 minutes, which would be much more comfortable. The idea of narrating the film with archival Bowie footage is a good one, in theory, but this idea begins to fall apart in the context of the film. There's no narrative direction; there's nothing to connect one element to another. From start to finish, you're simply watching a series of events happening that Bowie, conveniently enough, was involved in. Accompanying this is a series of seemingly random film and stock footage interspersed throughout. A longtime Bowie fan will pick up on these references, but the average fan will find nothing but confusion there.

Watching this film, it's hard to differentiate if you're watching a David Bowie film or a Pink Floyd one. This creates a huge issue when you're dealing with someone as consistently interesting and unique as Bowie was.

While it's a wonderful thing for the estate to finally sanction and support a film on his life and work, this is the entirely wrong way to go about it, in my opinion. This feels more like a cash grab than anything else.

It's tempting to compare this to the iconic 1978 film, and there are some areas where comparison isn't just inevitable, but unavoidable. However, holding this to the same level of expectation as the film isn't entirely fair.

Firstly, it's a TV movie, not a theatrical release. And it couldn't be more obvious. This is a stripped-down Grease, a little more complicated technically than a Broadway stage performance, but not to the scope of anything that came before it. It has a "budget" feel to it from start to finish, which doesn't make it inherently bad. What could've been a production that thrived on the spontaneity of a live performance ultimately suffers greatly as a result of its reductions. The acting is on par with television acting - good enough to do the job, but with a great deal of room for improvements and enhancements. Try though they may, this fails to live up to the energy level that one likely has come to expect from a production of Grease as well. The dance moves are all there, but they just don't feel the same.

The biggest reduction of the film was the inclusion of modern music, noticeably DNCE's Cake By the Ocean which, although performed in a style more reminiscent of the time, is quite jarring. A modern-day pop song just doesn't sit well in a period piece from multiple decades ago, no matter how you slice it.

The old favorites are done rather well. There was no skimping out on the production value of the music itself. There are modifications for TV, but some of the lyrics ignore the modifications made for the film in favor of the Broadway show which, despite being a fan of the movie, was a nice change.

It was really interestingly staged to give the mirage of a Broadway show as well, which added to the charm of the project as a whole.

Overall, it wasn't too bad. No something I would be particularly eager to go back and revisit anytime soon, but good enough to be a satisfying experience. Grease is STILL the word!

Some people will say to watch this film as a separate entity to fully appreciate it. This would be fine if it was a stand-alone release, however this was released as a direct sequel to Grease (and the marketing matches that claim). It's an insult to the intelligence of the viewer to expect them to forget the previous film in order to enjoy this one; if you're going to branch out the Grease name, it needs to be done in a way that compliments (or, at least, satisfactorily exists in the same universe as) the original.

This film drastically cuts down on the star power and is a victim of what I affectionately call "The Final Destination Effect," wherein you have an astounding leading film with one or more sequels that proceed to do almost the exact same thing. This film is nothing more than Grease without the flawless soundtrack, Olivia Newton-John and John Travolta.

So, what happened?

Other reviewers call for second viewings of the film, which IS a fair request for viewers. Perhaps, in the very unlikely chance that a second viewing is desired, this review will be amended to make it more favourable. However, as it stands, it's simply an inferior film in every way.

It has twice the budget of the original, yet none of the fan favorite stars could be budgeted in. Sure, the money shows in the set design, costuming, music and post-production but, again, as a sequel to the incredible Grease, it's totally fair to demand more in the quality department. Had this been released with its own title away from its predecessor, it would've been viewed as a "knockoff Grease" in the same way a film like The Burning is a poor man's Friday the 13th... but that film is endlessly entertaining despite this fact.

This is what it boils down to, ultimately: sure, you could jam out to and enjoy such hits as "Back to School" or "Cool Rider," but the question remains the same: Why WOULD you when you could have "Summer Nights," "Greased Lightning" and "You're the One That I Want?"

Given that this film is simply a different slab of flesh on the same skeleton of the original, it's difficult to see where this film has relevance outside of offering the edgier people of society an inferior sequel to dote on as their "favorite" simply because preference of the original is too mainstream for them.

I ask again, and will until the end of time: what went wrong? This could've been a really fantastic film. They chose, instead, to copy the original and it had a detrimental effect, both on quality and at the box office.

Grease is a musical that managed to stand the test of time. 44 years after it's release, Grease is still as fresh, fun, catchy and energetic as it was the day it was released.

Olivia Newton-John and John Travolta (an actor I haven't been favourable toward over the years) absolutely shine in this movie, showcasing fantastic singing and acting skill that definitely lives up to the challenge of the script.

Being a toned-down version of the borderline scandalous Broadway musical, Grease still maintains a lot of its edge. It beautifully captures the spirit of the 50s in tone, music, set design and costuming. Watching this film is like stepping into a carefully preserved time capsule from a bygone era.

The editing on this film is fantastic as well. The cuts, such as that with Danny sliding under the car in Greased Lightning, create enough eye candy that no theatrical stage can ever convey to make this a truly interesting film to watch.

Grease is also yet another example of a paper-thin, cookie-cutter plot that simply works through the decisions in the writer's room. This film is every bit as delightful as it's soundtrack, a penultimate summery album to listen to during a long drive in the hot weather.

Grease is definitely a classic and headed directly to my favorite movies list.

This is Pixar's first major "miss" in the catalog for me. I suppose it's inevitable when you constantly churn out masterpiece after masterpiece, but BOY does this one ever fall flat.

The animation is really nice and smooth, the kind of thing you would come to expect from Pixar. The acting isn't too bad either, nor is the music. The problem with Turning Red lies in its writing, which is shallow as anything and provides a story that is geared more toward an older child audience.

When you're Pixar, your films have the benefit of appealing to all ages. Toddlers can watch a movie like Toy Story and enjoy the adventurous fun, and adults enjoy it too. This movie is, essentially, a coming-of-age story about a young girl dealing with the pubescent changes in her body.

A good message, and a kind of representation that SHOULD be out there... I just don't personally feel Pixar is the right company to be doing that. This movie doesn't feel like a Pixar movie, it feels like a bland, average middle-schooler comedy with some fantastic elements whipped in for good measure. It's like if Disney covered menstruation in one of their tv shows, going as far and as bold as the stations would broadcast, and then threw in some shapeshifting nonsense for good measure. The difference is, a film like this would be less jarring coming directly from Disney without the Pixar umbrella.

Pixar's unspoken motto, at least to me, was always "less is more;" they work on really good product and make each movie special, unique and entertaining. This movie is the first time that hasn't been followed.

It's boring. It's definitely towing the line between what is and isn't appropriate (especially for a Disney. Pixar film) and it just feels too derivative of everything else that's already out there. When your main character essentially turning into a monster every time she's worked up isn't enough to set your story apart from the hundreds of thousands of others... I don't know what to tell you, honestly.