Change Your Image
cltcurran
Reviews
The First Omen (2024)
Refreshing an overdone storyline
Loved this. It's a horror film for horror fans, and not necessarily fans of The Omen either. There are elements of so many different horror films in here and yet the scenes are memorable and new. There are a few stand out great scenes I will remember.
It's a fab refresh of what has become an outdated and clichéd storyline and that is because, above all, it is tongue in cheek and amps up the ludicrous elements so it is darkly funny. I was smiling the whole way through - it is right up my street!
The effects are all practical (until the beast scene at the very end) as well which I always congratulate a film on. The effort is much appreciated when CGI is minimal.
It is true that it isn't a very scary film. There are creepy moments but overall the horror is in the graphic nature of the scenes as opposed to how spooky it is. But I wouldn't call The Omen scary as a franchise anyway, you get what you expect from it in those terms.
Imaginary (2024)
Original and not what I expected
I enjoyed the film. It's not ground breaking and it has elements of other films weaved in like Beetlejuice and Coraline, and it feels a bit Wan inspired, but it manages to produce something pretty original all the same. And it isn't similar at all to films you'd expect It to be like with sentient toys involved.
It has some genuinely creepy moments even if it does depend more on jump scares and I don't think it takes itself too seriously which is essential! This can't be said of Night Swim which failed mostly because it wasn't taking the opportunity to mock itself for how silly it was.
I do wonder what the point of the father was in the film and if there was a rewrite at some point because Mr Tough is a character that never shows up which seems strange considering he was described so specifically. Seems like at least a scene was cut. But overall I had fun!
The Black Phone (2021)
Thin plot
Haven't read the story yet, but the author said the film makers had to invent parts to pad it out and I'm not surprised to know this. I'm not sure the short story warranted a film.
It isn't a scary film. There's one jump scare and the threat of abuse present though I never actually felt very tense (the only actual violence happens between the children, several times, and at the hands of a parent which is distressing but not frightening) and there is the supernatural element or two, but it is more of a thriller than a horror.
Ethan Hawke clearly has talent for being creepy. Potential for being creepy. I don't think he's in the film enough to say he's a brilliant bad guy. As I say, the threat is present but there are very few scenes with the actual kidnapper and everything is subtly suggested. There's a game the kidnapper likes to play called Naughty Boy, we know what part 1 of the game is, but it's vague what the other parts are. I'm sure it's probably best to be vague when dealing with details about kidnappers and children, but there just seems to be bits missing (the bits that contain the actual horror).
The kidnapper is also a magician apparently and this is intriguing to me! The town must know him as a magician? He must do kids birthday parties, even, I presume. This must be why no one queries how often the black van he drives (with Abracadabra on the side so I guess he really is working as a magician and it isn't something he just tells the kids) is seen. It must be why the cops have never questioned him despite one of the only details they know about the kidnapper being that he leaves black balloons. Balloons...magician...tenuous link, sure, but they start depending on a child's dreams to tell them where the kidnapper is, so...............!??!
Also, there are plenty of links to Stephen King. I like King but there is no need to reference him to the point of having a kid in a yellow rain coat and the dude that played Eddie in It Chapter 2 pop up. Considering the film is quite subtle in ways, the "this is King's son's story, this is" is a bit blatant.
It's no It Chapter 1, but it's alright.
Promising Young Woman (2020)
Dangerous film
As a cynical woman who had awful males in my family and just peripheral vision, even, growing up that gave me the impression there simply are no good guys - this film only reaffirms that! It literally drives home the message that even if you think a guy's okay, he'll probably have still been a part of something awful at some point and when exposed he'll treat you as badly as the bad guys do. Bro code is a disease.
It's still a fun film to watch. The ending is so tragic and then so satisfying that it's too good to be true, which is where I feel they went wrong. They go with the theme of complete hopelessness throughout, so why have an ending that gets one up on the guys? Might as well have just driven the final nail in the coffin.
Magic Magic (2013)
So stressful
I didn't know what I was going to be watching, but I'm impressed how much impact it had on me by the end. It's depressing and stressful, so I don't recommend this to anyone who's feeling down! A movie is never going to be too light hearted when it begins with leaving puppies to die...
The actors did a really good job, in my opinion.
Destination Fear (2019)
The reviews aren't fake...
They might be a bit embellished, but I like this show! The premise is a bit repetitive and the response "oh my god, this is the worst" to everything gets old, but the people are unusually likeable (personally can't stand a lot of ghost hunting presenters) on the whole. I buy their reactions. I definitely buy that Dakota is terrified of everything (though they're all braver than me to spend a night alone in a haunted place).
I agree half the show being about the presenters is a bit of a waste of time (like how Most Haunted wasted half their original hour long show just walking around telling you things instead of getting to the good bit) but there isn't a lot of the dramatisation you get in American ghost hunting shows. It feels a bit more genuine.
Scream 4 (2011)
It takes a MAN to do something like that!
This should have been the end of Scream. It is the best sequel as others have said and if it had ended here it would have been the first successful horror quadrilogy (to keep all the main characters played by the same people and the same director) ever, surely? Which would have been quite the claim.
It does feel like Sid surviving was an alternate ending that they decided to go with, but I would have liked it to have ended with a nice genuine psycho like Billy finally getting Billy's desired ending and killing Sid. The fact she's female turns Stu's statement that "it takes a man to do something like that!" on its head, too, which is delightful! Jill doesn't have any significant trauma to have driven her to be a psycho, which is incredibly rare for a female villain (sure, she is a woman scorned as her boyfriend cheated on her but that's not her motive, that just gives her someone to frame).
I think she's the perfect character to pick up where Billy left off because his excuse for being a psycho (that his mum left due to the affair his dad had with Sid's mum) is as silly as Jill just being jealous of Sid being the hero all the time. These two are just natural born killers, because those motives are not ones that tend to drive people to kill!
This film is also way ahead of its time and could easily have been made in 2022 as just not wanting to work and instead wanting to be famous by going viral is as current as it could possibly be. The new Scream released in 2022 actually can't come up with a more modern motive than that!
Scream (2022)
Wasn't expecting that...
I had the desired response to the surprise cameo appearance. I didn't even really care why he was appearing! I didn't see it coming so I was pleasantly surprised. Of all the cameos I thought would happen, the original ghostface killer (deceased) was the last I'd have expected... Turning the original ghostface killer into a kind of hero, though, was very confusing to me.
Surely if Billy appears to you (to anyone, regardless of if you're his spawn) he won't (just..?) encourage you to kill ghostface, he'd be willing you to finish his story and finally gut Sid (and Gale, both of whom foiled his plans and killed him) like a fish. But no..? Billy encourages our new heroine to kill ghostface and has no opinion on the fact Sid and Gale still live... Doesn't seem like our Billy!?
The film goes on about not offending fans but I say Billy not coming back as his legitimate psychopathic self and as some kind of murderous guardian angel to his daughter (who he never met and might not even have known about) is messing with the original.
I don't think I agree with the requel bit. Remakes, while often terrible, are a separate entity. They don't touch the original. No matter how awful, they're irrelevant when they're not canon. But making something canon is riskier business.
This film is Scream 5 whether it's called that or not and there's a lot more that you need to be careful of when carrying on/taking over a franchise.
I wasn't super pleased with how formulaic it still is and it's a bit more predictable than before.
You can guess the killer(s) and even guess the motive, which is odd because that's something you couldn't guess in any other Scream film (in Scream 2 for example you have no way of knowing Ms Salt is Billy's mum so you can't guess). Motives were always kept entirely hidden until the final reveal. In this one the motive is even explained earlier on in the film.
But it gets a six because the actual slashing isn't bad, it's even quite tense at times, and I'm fangirling over a Billy cameo...
Chucky (2021)
Such a relief.
I was worried that the series would create a back story that encouraged empathy for the sadistic murderer (that we love, and fear if we grew up with his first films) but I'm so pleased they went down the lesser used "he was born evil" route... Such a relief. That is a road almost never travelled in films made outside of the 80s and for the most part I appreciate the more complex histrionics that make everyday people become monsters BUT we are talking about a killer doll here! Any humanity associated with Chucky is long since forgotten, anyway!
Horror films do not have to adhere to the rules of reality/realism and this movie character is the absolute epitome of abandoning realism, so being evil just because is the perfect motive and I appreciate how true to fans the series is.
I am entirely envious of Fiona Dourif's strange father/daughter relationship that lead her to act as Chucky. I am so enthusiastic about how camp Child's Play has always been and the queer storylines are not at all out of place. Only fans of Child's Play will really appreciate this series, I'm sure, but chef's kiss.
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
I'm so late to the party...
...but I dunno why anyone would hate this film, unless they hate funny things and impressive comic book style animation. I don't wanna know those kinds of people or like the same films as them, so that's okay.
I didn't seek it out, but it came on TV one evening when I was prepared to watch a film and I was so entertained. It's obviously a visual treat but the humour in it is also brilliant. I know Marvel is occasionally silly/humorous, but it doesn't make me laugh the way this film did and it was almost a constant barrage of funny lines once it gets going. It's great... Just simply a really good film and premise and I like it a lot, in case you can't tell.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)
Spengler's legacy
This film is mainly a loveletter to Spengler and there isn't anything wrong with that. It is on the serious/sentimental side for a franchise that was purely silly and fun and that's probably what is baffling people (although I think the kids are cute and silly enough and Rudd makes for some comic relief, though sadly Murray isn't the comic saviour we want). That's probably why the 2016 one is winning out in some people's opinions, because that simply stuck with the silliness that we're familiar with.
It isn't serious and sentimental in a very modern way, however. No one can accuse it of losing the silliness to make an important political message or the like - it's simply sentimental because we've lost a Ghostbuster in reality and he's made far more important in this film than I think his character ever was in the original. Maybe that inevitably makes it less silly, anyway, because he was the serious one of the Ghostbusters.
I love that they use real models for the gatekeeper and key master dogs like in the original. That kind of effort makes it for me. If they'd CGI'd it all I'd have been disappointed. I also like that Gozer is still right out of an 80s music video.
I'm a bit sad they left it right till the credits to give us the theme song! Even a snippet of it would have made the car chase scenes a bit more exciting for a sad old fan like me.
Also I don't really see the point of Finn's character - aside from him being the driver his part in the film seems irrelevant. I'm sure Phoebe could have fixed the car herself.
Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021)
British film in disguise
I can't believe I didn't know this has a Reece Shearsmith cameo in it before seeing it. If only he'd had a hand in writing it - that would have elevated the comedy horror element which is that man's forte. I guess it would have been too clever to be a Marvel film then though...
I feel like Tom's brought some Brits along for the ride and I'm here for that. Even if their American accents are trying. I agree with the rating though. I went without expectations (surely people didn't go with high expectations after the first one, which was too just a bit of fun), and just for the fun and I had an alright time. So many good actors and yet... Just alright!
Malignant (2021)
Step back in time
If you appreciate 80s/early 90s horror you'll see how this would then have been a cult hit! It reminded me of Darkman a little bit and films like Braindead. It actually has more style than this period, a very distinctive Wan style of course, but the premise is very much of a certain time in horror. Maybe 2021 isn't the time for it to some, but I happen to be someone who still enjoys delightfully nonsensical gory films that are unapologetic.
It's fairly creepy and serious in the first half and feels very Insidious, but the second half is insanity and it's glorious. Unashamedly bonkers.
Where did Gabriel learn those fighting skills??
The Night House (2020)
Nice surprise
I hadn't even heard of this before going to see it (I see mostly all horror releases in the cinema) and I was pleasantly surprised. Not everything adds up (some things were left on the cutting room floor, I think. And why is he naked..?) but for once I didn't care to let this bother me, because I was totally engrossed in the film and the lead actress is brilliant. The entire film is like a one woman show so it is essential that she is brilliant. I really enjoyed it and that's, for once, all I have to say!
Candyman (2021)
Ambition is Helen and Anthony's downfall. All it needed to be.
The original isn't only alluded to in this film, it's inescapable so anyone who says "don't compare it" doesn't know how impossible that'd be. Helen's voice features in this film retelling the myth and Anne-Marie, the mother of the baby Helen saved (and the owner of the decapitated rottweiler), has a cameo. It all comes back to Daniel Robitaille in the end, to the original.
I think this is a mistake, though.
From the trailer I thought maybe Sherman (the new guy with a hook for a hand that gives sweets to kids and gets brutalised by the police) was a new modern re-telling of Candyman to replace the old one and that the main character in this film would hear that story, become obsessed as Helen did before him, and lose his mind/become Candyman himself (because Anthony, the main character, is living in the gentrified Cabrini Green, almost exactly the same way Helen was living in a middle class apartment building that was originally meant to be the site of Cabrini Green - there's a lot of parallels). That's the film I thought I'd see. A whole new Candyman that was just a lovely nod to the original.
When I heard Tony Todd would feature in it I didn't think he'd "be" Candyman, I thought it'd just be a cool cameo! Like some wise old dude in Cabrini Green who warns Anthony and we'd all go "aaahh!! Did you see? That was him that was!" Like how Stephen King appears in some of his own films. This film felt like it would be an ode to Tony/to the original, but not a direct part of it.
It could have been a lot more relevant to the BLM movement with Sherman's story of police brutality, and still could have maintained the horror and tradition of the original without having to resurrect the original. I thought it couldn't fail. I was very excited to see that film. I've been waiting two years for it!
The film I got was confusing.
From a horror fan perspective... The murder scenes are truly awful in a B movie sense. Not scary in the least (not even jump scary), bloody but not in any innovative ways, and the dialogue between the first two victims...my god did they deserve death! I think the writing is deliberately terrible here...? But it doesn't, importantly, succeed in being comical, either. It's just plain terrible. I think the murders are also deliberately brushed aside and made insignificant (to refer to Sherman's brutal end seeming insignificant to the public) but in what was originally a slasher horror part of the requisite is some good slashing!
Anthony's skin becoming (what I read from a critic) rotten honeycomb after being stung by a bee was kind of cool but minimised rather by the fact no one ever mentioned it! That was just bizarre to me. His girlfriend, Brianna, must have been repulsed surely but never mentions it, as if it isn't happening. This might have been the case, it might have been in his head, except other people can see it from what I gather ("do I look okay, mum?" - paraphrased)
The best horror scene is when the film truly becomes confusing unfortunately and Burke saws off Anthony's hand to make him the next Candyman, but as I say this just makes the entire film confusing so it's hard to enjoy the horror.
Why would Burke be motivated into creating a new Candyman when the Candyman he knew killed his sister? If it is to get revenge for Sherman and to kill the police that he's called to the scene then this misses the point of Candyman somewhat. Candyman doesn't have a revenge motive, or a motive at all really, and is summoned and kills indiscriminately. Is it suggesting any Black person who is arrested can say his name in the wing mirror and have the cops slaughtered in order to escape? But Candyman would also kill those who summoned him, too... I just don't see how he can become the antihero and symbol of social justice the film wants him to be at the end.
I don't know anyone well enough in this film to know what's going on, anyway. We only get a glimpse into Brianna's past, her dad jumped to his death in front of her, and yet she finds dead people at work and seems to cope well. Maybe they chose not to give the characters a past in a bid to avoid them being trauma survivors and to avoid a more classic telling of Black history. But in so doing I just felt like they were all complete strangers acting strangely for no apparent reason.
Anthony is an unlikeable main character. He doesn't seem to care about anyone but himself and we don't find out why he doesn't want to talk to his mum, ever (does he sense she's lied to him his whole life because he certainly doesn't know that yet?). His ambition to succeed as an artist is ruthless. It's kind of funny he must stop from smiling when someone is killed in front of his artwork, meaning his art gets a mention on the news, but it's not a normal response really! He might qualify as a narcissist or a psychopath.
BUT the idea of ambition being your downfall is another parallel with Helen. She's so determined to blow Purcell's paper on Candyman out of the water with her own that she goes and gets herself killed by the myth she's writing on. There's nothing wrong with this being the key to it all as Candyman has always been a story about poor housing and gentrification - why shouldn't the stories of the main characters be about blind ambition (with a fair amount of ignorance about what goes on on their own doorstep leading only to a drive to make a living off it) with a grave cost? There's no need to overreach and overcomplicate that.
I have no idea why Anthony becomes rotten honeycomb body man, I don't know what Candyman's purpose is for him if he has one (is the bee sting a Candyman calling card or just a bee sting?), I dunno what Burke's deal is or how he managed to lure Anthony into a laundromat to achieve his lifetime goal of resurrecting Candyman. Anthony seemed to go to the laundromat of his own accord so that was a bit of bad luck, I guess!
Anthony being potentially possessed by Candyman (becoming honeycomb man) only makes sense if he's possessed by Daniel, the original Candyman, because his art improves significantly after the bee sting (Daniel was a portrait artist of some standing) and why would Sherman bring bees with him when he didn't suffer the same bee related fate as Daniel..?
Candyman is an amalgamation of myths (bloody Mary, the guy with a hook for a hand in campfire tales, razor blades in sweets), but he very well could have existed as his origin story is plausible. That makes for a great myth and one that Helen buys into at the cost of her life. The new Candyman commits the sin of making Candyman too real and taking away the horror of what might be lurking in the shadows. The cinematography is great in parts. It's a visual treat. But where's the great story to tell your friends about at school? I can't imagine a new generation of kids daring each other to say his name after this with any genuine trepidation, but as a 90s child I certainly did...