Reviews written by registered user
|16 reviews in total|
I honestly don't understand why this movie receives so much hate. Not
only was it made with great attention to little fun details, but also
has a message to it. But what's more important - this movie gets to the
root of horror: a scary idea. It does not rely on special effects - it
purposely makes itself cheezy B-movie style flick to throw away
everything but the centre piece - an idea of stopless killer.
It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. It has acid for blood and it can't be killed.
We have seen this countless times in the Terminator, West World, Alien, Friday the 13th, even in the book of Revelation it appears as the 7 headed dragon character. It is a classic human fear.
But not only is this killer can't be stopped, he is also a killer clown, like Pennywise, the Joker, or Stanley Kubrick's Johnny Clay from The Killing - another classic horror monster.
The movie is full of horror references, but not just for the sake of it - they are essential to the movie's point that it's trying to make: although we are trying to pretend that the horror clown is soooo funny, when left alone in the dark with him, we pee our pants no matter how fake he looks. Because that saw in his hands doesn't look so fake anymore.
It is sort of a look at horror as a genre: to understand what is essential to it, you have to let go everything that is not. And when it comes down to one thing, it comes off so simple: just scaring people! Isn't it what the horror genre is all about? And this is why this movie is brilliant. And the clown is creepy as hell, even while I'm writing this I'm looking behind me from time to time.
This is even worse than Blair Witch 2. One of the worst sequels I have
ever seen: completely untrue to the first movie, lacking the tense
atmosphere and unsettling mood, unoriginal shameful pile of rubbish!
The first movie was about a group of campers who get in trouble in the
middle of nowhere, a classic set-up for this sort of movie. The
atmosphere was suspenseful and gripping, the characters were decently
believable and the story was simple and thrilling. Why are we suddenly
in high school? Why does the movie Cabin Fever suddenly has PROM in the
plot? Why all the needless and pointless gross-out? I don't know and
frankly I don't care.
This movie was done in the dark years of the sh*t sequel wave, because of which movie makers are still ashamed of using numbers in their titles. Cabin Fever 2 is one of the reasons why.
So apparently the right thing is to cause property damage whenever you can't get your way. Nice message, Spike Lee, way to masquerade your deep anti-white racism as black struggle! Thanks for radicalizing black people for 25 years, this helped the US so much! I don't see your skinny ass taking part in no riots but hey, it's about the message, right? Which is - what, that you should use terrorist tactics whenever someone doesn't conform to your demands, that black communities should be exclusive from anyone who's of different color, and if that person wishes to enter the community, he should totally conform to any demands voiced by the majority in it? That the law isn't for everyone, and if a thug gets himself killed over his stupidity, it's OK to go berserk on the owner of a business who executed his constitutional right to protect his property? Ironically, the scrawny ass guy with the glasses who provokes the big guy with Love and Hate knuckles is a perfect analogy for Spike Lee, people like him are pushing the blacks into confrontation with whites, then step back and get them killed, then use their death to push their agenda. Pathetic.
This is one of the most inaccurate attempts to make a dramatization of the real life events. The movie takes so much liberty with the story, it just comes off as a lie. The main villain looks nothing like Ed Gein, and his actions are nowhere near to what Ed Gein had done in reality. The way the movie was done, he might have as well pop out a chainsaw and wield it around. There is a much better independent movie called Ed Gein (2001), so I'd recommend to all who are interested in the gruesome case of Ed Gein to watch that one instead - this one is just a bad attempt to make a slasher movie out of real life. And it appears that my review is too short, because I really have nothing else to say about this movie, so I'll just write this down at the end. In the words of The Critic, Jay Sherman, "It stinks!".
The movie follows a crew of British filmmakers lead by comrade Fake
Accent through the Russian equivalent of the Blair Witch forest filmed
in UK, so that they could shoot a shaky cam documentary about ghosts.
At first the movie looks like it's going to tell a story about some real brutal Russian stuff - a serial killer like Chekotilo, or a story of some 90's Russian mafia massacre: these things were real and they did take place in forests like this, which would make the movie really scary and uncomfortable.
But instead, the movie falls victim to all the Russian stereotypes you can imagine, including KGB, secret spy stuff, Luger pistols et cetera - I was surprised the crew wasn't attacked by bears on unicycles. It takes away from the story very much.
But the movie still was somewhat interesting to watch, it creates atmosphere and tension, and the scenes which were supposed to be scary do look pretty scary.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
You know what would've been nice to see in a movie about an expedition
to an alien world?
If I wanted to watch people doing space stuff in a space ship for one and a half hours, I would watch Apollo 13.
But when I am watching Europa Report, I expect to see a little more of Europa than one measly 10 step surface walk and 3 seconds of an alien.
And after waiting for 120 minutes for our red shirt crew to die off, what do we get as a reward for our patience?
A goddamn giant octopus! There, I saved you 1,5 hours. There's a giant glowing octopus on Europa.
I mean, seriously? SERIOUSLY? 100 years since Herbert Welles War of the Worlds, and you still couldn't come up with anything more original than a giant octopus?
There is very little that can be done in a new way with a Manson Family
movie at this point. There has been made at least a dozen movies about
that case since 1971, one of which came out while the trial was still
The formula is always the same, and anyone who at least read through the Wikipedia page about the Tate/La Bianca case would know exactly what's about to happen: first Charlie is loving and philosophical, then he becomes gradually more crazy, building up to the point of Helter Skelter and, ultimately, the climax.
So it's at least refreshing to see a new sort of Manson, sort of timid and meek, just a misguided ex-con who created a situation that got out of control. It's a little provocative, probably appealing to the pro-Manson crowd, but nevertheless, it is something new.
Problem is, this performance by Ryan Kiser comes off as bleak and dispassionate, and the change in Manson's behavior does not make sense, the character doesn't change gradually - in fact, he almost doesn't change at all, he sleepwalks through the movie up till the end, and there is zero of real Manson's energy put into this performance. I never seen Charles Manson outside his prison interviews and rare footage available on the Internet, but I am sure that he was never this boring in real life. People have always described him as wild and energetic, and Ryan's Manson is anything but these.
In short, if you are interested in Manson Family, check out this movie, but don't expect anything radically new, the story has been told a dozen times, and there's little that can be added to it but speculations and interpretations.
Made to hitch a free ride on the success of Michael Dougherty's movie
Krampus, this rushed lost X-files episode offers no scares, unlike
Dougherty's previous holiday classic, Trick'r'Treat, but a ton load of
Krampus: the Reckoning has all the elements of a god awful fake- buster (a movie made to be confused with a popular blockbuster and capitalize on its success): it has the worst CGI you have ever seen, an over-complicated plot with too many elements that go nowhere, wooden actors, obvious post-production dubbing and so much other signs of a cheap shill of a movie that you can't help but expect a boom Mic to appear in the shot at some point.
But the worst thing about this movie has got to be the main child actor. It does make me feel like the world's biggest a-hole to pick on a little girl like that, but man is Amelia Haberman awful in this movie. I don't know if it's bad direction or was there no direction at all, but her character does not come off as sinister, or intimidating, or scary, as it's obviously supposed to be - no, throughout the whole thing she acts like an annoying over the top little brat who tries so hard to act like Hannibal Lecter that you just want to slap her in the face and say "Enough, no TV for a month!"
The least you can say is that she's memorable enough to probably get better parts in the future, though I do hope she tries better in more serious roles in the future.
I am mad at this movie for tricking me and I am mad at the shysters who make such films. It's garbage.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This movie is probably the most accurate depiction of a sociopath ever
created on the big screen.
Miranda Wells, ingeniously depicted by the famous "Gone Girl" star Rosamund Pike, a nurse in a local hospital, who is a bit odd, but an all around nice person, gets horribly raped by a no good small time criminal William Finn. But, surprisingly enough, instead of hating on Finn, Miranda visits him in prison, and even hires him to fix her porch... then she drugs him, locks him in her basement, tortures him and probably kills him, revealing previously to that that she have let her mother die, and that she enjoys hospital work because it allows her to inflict pain on patients while treating them (much in a fashion of a dentist in "The Little Shop of Horrors" musical).
Miranda Wells is probably the most accurate depiction of a sociopath ever created on film. Her Oscar-worthy acting in Return to Sender very well answers the question of why people almost never suspect a sociopath serial killer until the body count goes up way too high. With no offense to Anthony Hopkins performance in the series about the psychologist gone murderer, real psychopathic serial killers rarely act like Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs in real life - they are much more likely to look like Miranda: likable, charming, a bit odd, but nothing more.
The movie portrays all these qualities in a very subtle, very cinematic fashion, which works very well: it allows the viewer to profile Miranda, like a detective, which makes "Return to Sender" that much more great of a thriller. We know something is coming, but we would never see it. This is why sociopaths are so dangerous, and "Return to Sender" does a grade A job at explaining it.
At first the movie takes a pretty serious turn, but then starts jumping
back and forth as if not sure what tone to contain, so it just
The actors are decent and the characters are interesting enough to be invested over, but the story suffers from all the psychological triller clichés we've seen a thousand times before.
The ending is one big giant letdown, and the last act of the movie is just characters explaining the plot to the audience - which is not such a bad thing considering how confusing the film is due to its tone-shifting issues - although you can't help but keep expecting the phrase "And I would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids" to pop up. Don't waste your time on this one, watch 'Silence of the Lambs' instead.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |