nightmarelyre Reviews

The Encounter (I) (2010)

Propaganda That Should Be Offensive To Everybody

[1/10 · 26 August 2016]

As somewhat of an Agnostic who have nothing against Christian movies on principal, I still found this to be a offensively bad, poorly made and biased propaganda piece that did the complete opposite of what it tried to do.

The film centers around a small group of different people who find themselves on a forest road in the middle of nowhere, only to find that the main road they are traveling has been closed down due to a storm. Instead they all detour to a side road to find a diner to take shelter in, only to find out that the guy owning it is in fact Jesus. Then he starts to grill them about their hidden dark pasts in an attempt to rekindle their faith.

Now this concept in of itself could maybe have worked if it was played subtly. For example, if it was left ambiguous whether or not this man is truly Jesus or not. Perhaps have the protagonists open up about themselves in believable ways by their own will to create an actual on-screen relationship between them, and to give real weight to their decisions to change their ways. Instead, we have Jesus practically forcing his way into their minds and threatening them with eternal damnation, while acting like a straight up sociopathic serial killer and stalker.

I can't stress this enough, this is the single worst portrayal of Jesus on film I have ever seen, even worse than Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, and that portrayal was intended to be bad for the sake of comedy. He plays on people's pains and fears to manipulate them, going as far as to force a girl to forgive her sexually abusive dad with threats of eternal damnation and an awful future life, and literally demands the people in the diner to bend to his will. I thought Jesus was supposed to love everybody and ask people to love him back on their own free will?

It doesn't help that the protagonists in this movie are all bland stock characters with dull, lifeless acting bringing them to life either. We got our obligatory straw Atheist, the bickering couple contemplating divorce, the troubled girl who is losing her faith due to trauma and the born again Christian who is basically already in Jesus' good graces. But she is ordered to leave her boyfriend anyways because it amuses Jesus and because her boyfriend isn't Christian. None of them feel like real people except for the straw Atheist character, who surprisingly seem to act somewhat rationally to begin with outside of being a massive jerk, before eventually succumbing to the granary.

Gluing this story of abuse and misquoting of religious text together is also some really shoddy technical work, that at times is at the levels of a home movie. Cheap stock thunder effects, tons of noticeable continuity errors, an obvious home camera that is carried by the camera operator most of the time, and a sound designer that thinks panning dialogue entirely to the left speaker is somehow a good idea. It looks and feels cheap and amateurish, even for a low budget production.

In the end it's hard to even describe what happens in this movie, because it is just really an hour and a half of incredibly uncomfortable or ridiculous interviews with paper thin characters being interrogated by some sort of being claiming to be Jesus. Quite frankly, if it wasn't for the fact that Satan appears in the movie towards the end (named DeVille, because it's that sort of movie) I would have expected the big final twist to be that this is Satan pretending to be Jesus or something.

At the end of the day, the movie is terrible not because it is Christian, but because it's a movie that tries to scare non believers and people like me, who find themselves caught between camps, to repent. Hell, the film itself states this outright. As such, it not only ends up as an absolutely dreadful viewing experience (unless you riff it the entire time), but also a disservice to religion as a whole. It unknowingly paints Christianity as an evil force that is only marginally better than the alleged damnation you would face otherwise, rather than the positive force in somebody's life it's intended to be.

The only positive thing I have to say about this is that it is at least not A Little Piece of Heaven with Kirk Cameron.

Ghostbusters: Answer the Call (2016)

Surprisingly Pretty Awesome

[9/10 · 27 July 2016]

Going in to this movie, I was rather skeptical of how good it would be. Not because of the leads being played by women mind, I think that being controversial is rather sad in 2016, but more due to the inherent nature of reboots and remakes, as well as speculations about overt racism gained from the trailers. At best I expected it to be an inoffensive modern-style "quirky but not exactly funny" type comedy movie, instead it turned out almost as good as the originals to me.

The film have a similar plot structure to the first film as expected. A team of scientists who dabbles in the paranormal get sent to investigate a alleged haunting in a local public building, and when they find undeniable proof of the haunt after being attacked by a ghost they decide to start a ghost busting service. During the course of the movie, they pick up another member of their team, do various jobs and slowly uncover a bigger picture to explain why there is a sudden increase in ghostly activity around.

The new cast of Ghostbusters were in of themselves a pleasant surprise. I am not familiar with the previous work of Leslie Jones, Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy and Kate McKinnon, but they all do a great performance that punctuates most of the jokes nicely, and their on-screen chemistry helps tie the movie together and make it give the same feeling of teamwork and friendship that the originals did. Also thankfully, instead of just trying to emulate the personalities of the original team they were smart enough to make all of them new interesting characters in their own right, while still making sure they don't stray too far from the old team's dynamic.

The movie also have a colorful gallery of amusing side characters, which helps keep the comedic pace of the film up while allowing the protagonists to partake in character building and drama at the same time. Of particular note is their dimwitted secretary, who's cartoon-ish stupidity is rather unbelievable from a story telling perspective, but as far as using him as a device for funny gags and jokes he is pure gold. If there is one character who could have maybe used a bit more depth though it would be the main villain, as his motivation seemed rather shallow, though I can see why they wanted to keep it straight forward as to not slog down the pace with needless exposition.

The jokes themselves start off rather worrisome, utilizing toilet humor and goofy shenanigans that seems really out of place (and aren't very funny to boot), but after encountering their first haunting the humor thankfully starts to mature. Throughout the film a lot of creativity is put into setting up fun ideas for comedy that for the most part pays off, such as having a haunted Metal concert, playing with expectations regarding comparisons to the old films, and showing the Busters' ghost fighting equipment get gradually more ridiculous the more time they have to tinker with it.

However, while I do consider this majorly a comedy film, it does action very well too. The ghosts themselves and the proton pack special effects look gorgeous in CGI, and the fact that it looks "fake" really doesn't bother me in this case as it makes perfect sense that ghosts wouldn't look "realistic" when they are spectral manifestations of dead people or whatnot. The action set pieces have a lot of great eye-catching moments too, especially in the final act where the movie completely lets loose with every over the top idea it can muster, and the end result is something I haven't said about a film in a long time: it's a fun ride.

Yes, the movie have some issues I want to point out. The plot itself, while solid as a framework for great entertainment, doesn't have the same depth as the first film. While Leslie Jones' character have a much bigger role here than Ernie Hudson had and is given just as much love as the other Busters she is still somewhat stereotyped at times. There is some rather awkward and cringe-worthy dance scenes here and there, which seem to only exist due to the studio thinking women can't appreciate a film unless it has something stereotypicaly "girly" in it or something. Though for the most part, I feel these flaws are easily ignored just because of how much joy this film managed to bring me. As a deeply cynical and jaded person who is tired of the modern times depressing mood, this film came in like a breath of fresh air with it's genuine 80's sensibilities, and is a much needed shot of adrenaline to the dying body of mainstream comedy movies.

In the end, all I can say is that it's worth a try. You might be pleasantly surprised if you have the right mindset going in.

The Pagemaster (1994)

Unremarkable Propaganda Cartoon

[3/10 · 15 May 2016]

The Pagemaster is a live action/animation hybrid movie about a young boy (played by Macaulay Culkin) who worries a lot about the world, being obsessed with death statistics and thinking through things twice. One day the kid is sent out to the store, but runs into a thunderstorm on the way and has to seek shelter in a library, where Christopher Lloyd plays a creepy librarian that has no bearing on the plot. While waiting for the storm to stop, the kid goes on to look at the books when he slips and hits his head, and is magically transported into a alternate animated world where books come to life and he has to learn some sort of lesson about... something.

Look, the plot doesn't really matter. This film is first and foremost an attempt to try and make children read more books more than it is a coherent story. Once the kid gets transported into the magical world, he meets three anthropomorphic books with paper-thin personalities who guide him through a theme park ride of various famous book characters, where nothing feels like a cohesive narrative and none of these characters are given any sort of weight to them.

Dr. Jekyll, Ahab from Moby-Dick and Long John Silver appear but their inclusion in the story has no bearing on the plot, and gives no indication of who they are, why they do what they do or why these are considered to be classic books. Why would Dr. Jekyll drink this potion to make him into Mr. Hyde? Why is Ahab out to kill this whale? Why is Long John Silver such a legendary pirate? None of these questions are even acknowledged, it is assumed that the viewer will be so curious of these one-note displays of out of water characters that one would just go pick up the book on that alone, but I don't really feel inspired to read at all by this.

Because on top of being a confused narrative with tons of plot holes, poor pacing and very little character or meaning behind it, it's also just a bad propaganda film. When I was a kid I didn't even think about the fact that these characters were from books or that I could go read about them while watching this because nothing they did affected me or made me curious to look closer, and as an adult all it makes me want to do is hunt down better cartoons.

Then there is also the attempt at some sort of second moral about overcoming your fears or something, but it makes no sense what so ever. So, what, this kid who is already clearly suffering from anxiety hits his head and is either transported into a dimension where serial killer mad doctors, pirates, dragons and sharks are constantly trying to kill him; or suffered major brain injury and had one hell of a scary fever dream depending on how you look at it, all while his dad and other kids make fun of him for being a coward, and this is supposed to help him somehow? Or is it supposed to be about how escapism can help you cope with your fears, but only escapism in fiction books and nothing else? It's very muddled and to me at least comes off as somebody's grand-dad complaining about "them kids these days being sheltered, unlike in my day", which isn't all that inspirational.

The best thing one could say about this movie is that it has a remarkable all-star cast (albeit with less than remarkable performances at times), some decent looking animation and some flashy colors to distract kids with. However, the lack of a proper story, the manipulative attempts at shaming kids for their taste in media and a confused tone that can't decide if it's supposed to be cynical, whimsical or thrilling makes this end up as a forgettable and mildly unpleasant watch. Only recommended for the nostalgia value or for hardcore Macaulay Culkin fans.

The Skateboard Kid (1993)

Marvelous Cheesy Fun

[10/10 · 7 May 2016]

Some movies kinda defies rating it on it's artistic merit. Yes, this movie is a dated artifact of 90's cheese with abysmal editing, special effects, plot, characters and any sort of tonal cohesion. Yes, it looks like somebody's first film school movie if that movie was a family comedy that just so happens to have a animated talking skateboard voiced by Dom DeLuise in it. But really, at the end of the day this is the sort of movie I feel is only fairly rated on it's entertainment value, and this is a laugh out loud romp of ridiculousness.

This is a movie about a kid who creates a magical talking motorized skateboard in his garage, in between being in a rivalry with a local skateboarding gang who does nothing but jump in slow motion to garage Thrash Metal all day, before getting involved in stopping a evil car salesman from marrying a pawnshop owner to steal her family's lost treasure. This is literary the easiest way I can explain the plot of this movie, it's that incredibly weird.

In between this loose resemblance of a plot there is all sorts of goofy things going on. A random slapstick side character goes on to basically break everything, a bumbling cop gets hassled around, there are several chase scenes set to cheesy Hair Metal and the talking skateboard tries and fails to be funny. Everything is also filmed and styled like a bad 90's music video and has major 90's nostalgia value attached to it which makes it even better.

And oh yeah, the talking skateboard can fly.

This is the sort of movie you want to watch with some friends and gander at how weird it is. It has tons of laugh out loud moments, a great soundtrack and is just short enough to not outstay its welcome. A great bad movie night addition to add along Troll 2 and Birdemic.

Halloween II (1981)

A More Frigthening (And Silly) Follow-Up

[7/10 · 17 April 2016]

While the original Halloween always seemed kinda over-rated and cookie cutter to me (see my review of that for more details if you want), the sequel I feel manages to be a more cohesive viewing experience that sorts out a lot of the problems I had with the first film. Well, that and it's also bloody hilarious at times

The story of part two starts right where the first one stopped. Serial killer and metaphorical bogeyman Michael Myers have been shot by Dr. Loomis, however when he goes to look at his body he finds him to be mysteriously gone, and he and the police have to go look for him to prevent more deaths. Meanwhile, the surviving girl of the first film Laurie is taken to the hospital, though it's soon apparent Michael is also on his way there.

What I noticed quickly with this one is that the pace seems much better. There are a lot of spots where not much happens still, however they feel creepier this time around as Michael is shown much less sneaking around in the shadows while we are still aware he is there somewhere, making the suspense building work better as it plays on the fear of not knowing where he is to a greater degree. Another thing is that there is stuff happening at a more regular pace in this one, which yes includes more killing and horrors this time around, but also more character interactions and more varied locations and sets, which makes it feel more forward moving than the first one.

However there are still some things I feel could have been improved further in this department, as it feels some scenes would have a bigger impact if they were put in a different order. The side plot with Dr. Loomis seems to be put on pause for a big chunk of the second act which makes his chase to hunt down Michael feel less frantic than it could have, and there also could have been more focus on Laurie and her having to deal with the trauma after the events of the first movie. There is also a new character who is introduced in the Dr. Loomis side story who is also working with the psychiatric ward, however since she is introduced so late in the story she is not given a lot of character building or much to do at all, which I was disappointed by.

The story itself in this one is an improvement though in my opinion. While I found the first one to be too obtuse and vague to get anything from it, more is done here to give motivation to Michael and give some hint as to why he is basically invincible, which I feel is much needed to suspend my disbelief, while still keeping a shroud of mystery around him to make him more disturbing. When scary things start happening here I also found them to be much more memorable and effective, especially one scene where Michael is walking towards someone while they desperately try and get an elevator door open, which I also appreciated.

The movie also uses the concept of Halloween to much greater effect this time around. Halloween costumes play an important part of the plot development early on, while the more prominent spooky decorations on display everywhere contrasts with the real danger of Michael Myers nicely, and it all basically feels much more Halloween-esque and like it's uniquely tied to this specific holiday.

There is also one other thing that made me like this one a lot: cheese. I have a soft spot for horror movies that are unintentionally funny at the same time as being legitimately scary, and I feel this movie tread that line in the same way as the first Nightmare on Elm's Street movie does. Both in the intro and outro of the movie they play an completely unfitting accapella song about the sandman, some of the kills basically turn into gallows comedy slapstick, and funniest of all an out of nowhere 80's action movie car explosion that is so over the top I half expected Arnold Schwarzenegger to pop up, all in between tense and gut-wrenching horror.

Is it a perfect movie? Not at all. As mentioned the pace is still not the best, the acting isn't all that improved from the first one, depending on your opinions of what a good horror movie is the cheesy parts might be too much, and the music is also remixed in a way where it sounds more like Techno and is less spooky than it was before. However, I think it's a solid film none the less that is both entertaining and frightening to watch, has a story with more meaning and purpose, and also just feels connected to the holiday it's based on in a more substantial way. I'd recommend it for a scary movie night for sure.

A Little Piece of Heaven (1991 TV Movie)

The Scariest Movie Ever Made

[1/10 · 11 April 2016]

The title of scariest movie ever made is often debated by fans of horror. Films like Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Shining and The Exorcist are often brought up in these debates, however I would like to propose a new contender for this title, namely this film.

A Little Piece of Heaven is not just a scary movie because it is about a man who drugs and kidnaps children, tells them that they are dead and then forces them to slaughter his pigs at his farm under the pretense that they are in heaven and this is God's work, but because it plays up all these horrible acts of life threatening and traumatizing crime as a good and inspirational thing.

Infamous actor Kirk Cameron plays this "likeable" young man named Will Loomis, who with his mentally handicapped sister have to take over the family farm after the death of their grandfather. After finding out that working a farm while taking care of his sister is hard work, he decides that what they need is more children on the farm, and after seeing a young, black, orphan boy be told he has to move to a much worse orphanage than the one he currently lives in, Will finds out the best course of action is to kidnap the kid. Somehow.

But oh no, just kidnapping this child isn't enough for him. He first drugs the boy against his will, before then coming back during the night, vandalizing the orphanage by breaking their chicken coop (that they have for some reason) to distract the other children and care takers, before he sneaks in and takes the boy away. Then, when the boy wakes up, Will is unable to come up with a good explanation for why he kidnapped him and instead comes up with a lie about the kid dying in a house fire, and that he is now in heaven.

What follows is a horrifying display of mental abuse, gas-lighting, child labor and downright racism. The kid is told lie upon lie about every question he understandably have about this unbelievable situation, while being forced to work against his will on the farm (which, yes, includes slaughtering pigs) and being berated for the way he talks. Now you might say, "gee, a bunch of white people kidnapping a black child only to abuse him, force him to work and try and erase his culture kinda sounds like slavery doesn't it?" and yes, yes it does. This is basically a less gory 12 Years A Slave if we were supposed to root for the slavers.

On top of this disturbing display of human suffering is also the portrayal of Will's sister, Violet. From everything I could find it doesn't seem like the actor playing her is mentally handicapped in real life, and oh boy does it show. This stereotypical portrayal makes Forrest Gump seem like a sensitive and realistic portrayal in comparison, as it piles up every possible stereotype on top of each other into a big pile of offensive. While I know a lot of people have these symptoms shown in real life, it's just so obviously exploited to up the drama of the situation for maximum supposed audience pity without caring about being sensitive to actual people with mental disabilities here.

The acting of her character is also responsible for this feeling of not giving a damn about real mentally handicapped people. In fact, it's so bad I honestly though at first this was the worst case of Dawson Casting of all time and that her character was supposed to be a child despite being played by an obvious adult. Top this off with a constant use of the r-slur and it's downright despicable.

The movie does at least show some signs of maybe getting better at one point, however this is short lived. After dressing up as an angel to kidnap another child, this time a white girl who lives in an abusive household, which still doesn't justify the kidnapping and lying about her being dead, the cops finally start thinking there is something weird about these missing children and starts investigating. At this point, more and more people start showing up at the farm to ask questions, and after a while Will packs all their things and moves everybody to a new location to try and escape the cops. Now finally the movie will show it's true colors as a psychological thriller about an evil cult leader right? Wrong!

Instead, after being caught by the cops and the truth coming out about the kids not being dead, he is sent to court, but the black kid is used as a mouthpiece by the writer to have a sappy speech about how "they are a family!", which the judge swallows hook line and sinker, and instead of giving Will the life sentence he deserves he is instead given the order to look out for more children for a year!

The man who drugs, kidnaps and puts kids into slavery.

I don't think anything else I can say about this movie could possibly showcase more about why this is so disturbing. Other than all this really messed up stuff, the acting is stiff, the filming looks like a 70's grindhouse production, the sound design abysmal and the story absolutely unforgivable. This movie is not an inspirational movie about Christianity and family as it claims to be, it's a movie that glorifies death cults, slavery and child abuse, and quite frankly unintentionally paints religion as a tool of evil.

No matter if you are Christian, Atheist, something in between or belong to a different religion entirely, this film is still a mean-spirited, disturbing, exploitative piece of work, and unless you are just out to see something really gruesome for the sake of morbid curiosity I would advice you to stay far, far away.

Halloween (1978)

Cookie Cutter Slasher With Some Nice Shots And Music

[4/10 · 11 April 2016]

Having been born after the era of the horror greats, I have gone back and watched most of them after the fact to see how they hold up. The first classic horror movie I saw many years ago was Psycho, which while somewhat problematic and outdated, at least held up as a pretty good film otherwise with great use of suspense, twisting the plot in unexpected ways and having a lot of character development both for the main character and the killer. The next one I saw was Halloween, and I just don't see why this is hailed as a classic honestly when compared to other movies of its era.

Halloween is a slasher film (not the first by any means though, Psycho, Black Christmas and Texas Chainsaw Massacre beat it by many years) about a boy named Michael Myers who kills his sister as a child and is then sent to a psychiatric institution for 15 years, only to escape to kill again. And that's about it really for the plot as none of the other characters are even remotely given any sort of character development, there are no twists to speak of and it's all very predictable.

The main character, a teenage girl played by Jamie Lee Curtis, basically just gossips with her friends most of the movie before going to babysit some kids while her other friends are out being killed in their underwear. She has no memorable lines of dialogue, no motivations of her own and basically could easily be replaced with a cardboard cutout, though credit to her for doing her best with the bare bones character she had to work with.

The only other characters we meet in the movie are Dr. Loomis, the psychiatrist who looked after Michael during his time in the psych ward, and the sheriff. The sheriff basically does nothing during the entire film, and has no bearing on the plot at all, while Dr. Loomis is a hammy scenery chewing ball of cheese who runs around shouting at people that the evil boogieman has escaped and will kill them all, which is both unintentionally hilarious and also give off the impression that he is completely unfit to work with mentally ill people and was probably the real killer all along (he is not though, the movie has no plot twist).

This lack of character development and a lazy mildly offensive "psycho killer" shtick at least could have been somewhat forgivable had the movie been really frightening or had some themes to it that could give you something more to think about, but honestly I feel the movie lacks that too.

The movie's attempt at creating suspense mostly relies on long loooooong shots of Michael stalking people while the admittedly spooky theme song plays in the background. However, it rarely builds up to anything. In fact, it takes almost an hour before we see any sort of action or horror unfurl after the intro sequence outside of a small glimpse of a dead man in a ditch that Michael killed off screen. Look, I am not saying every horror movie needs a ridiculous body count or anything, but you still need to have something unsettling happen once in a while during the build up, and this movie just has nothing to offer there other than Michael making a music video for Every Breath You Take, which gets old after a while.

The atmosphere in the movie is pretty spooky at times, I'll admit, with lots of dark shadows accompanied by the iconic film score, but fear of the dark relies on not knowing what is out there that you can't see, and this gets completely ruined when we get a good idea of where Michael is at most times, even with his weird out of nowhere supernatural teleportation skills.

The only time the film actually seems to try and utilize keeping the audience in the dark about what horrors are unfurling is during the kills themselves, which are mostly committed in dark, claustrophobic areas. However I feel it falls flat here too, as they look very unconvincing even in the cover of darkness, show no blood at all, have a goofy buildup (he is dressed up as a Charlie Brown sheet ghost before one of them for crying out loud) and make me feel completely unaffected when I had no connection to the characters at all before they were killed off.

All in all, there really isn't much to this movie that I can see. Outside of the flat characters and family friendly horrors there is no deeper theme other than "mentally ill people are spooky and the boogieman will get you!" which is both mildly offensive and juvenile; the holiday of Halloween is not utilized in the movie in any substantial way (the film could have taken place during Easter and nothing would change), and the whole thing is just sorta dull and middle of the road throughout.

Psycho and Texas Chainsaw Massacre are much more memorable and scary movies with much more substance to them, and are much better films to watch if you want to see some of the roots to the Slasher genre while also being entertained. Halloween is mostly just good for it's soundtrack and filming techniques, and is probably best left for film history classes rather than hallows eve movie nights.

Saw (2004)

A Masterpiece in Suspense, Details & Emotional Horror

[10/10 · 10 October 2015]

Saw is a horror thriller based around the premise of two people being stuck together in a room for unknown reasons, and with the help of clues laid out to them, their own memories and their willingness to trust each other they have to figure out why they were put there, who did it and what their kidnapper wants from them to ultimately be able to escape alive.

It starts off wisely with a slow pace for the first 15 minutes or so. The whole time during this scene we get to know the two main characters, Adam and Gordon, and how they interact with each other. Adam is at first the most nervous and afraid of them and have a hard time trusting Gordon for whatever reason, while Gordon seems almost unnaturally calm to begin with but his temper become more and more apparent as more details about their situation is known.

Their characters are both brought to life by incredibly well done performances, nearly all of their lines being delivered with an almost perfect level of realism, and the two actors play off each other brilliantly, really showing their relationship of forced trust play out and evolve in a way to keep you invested in their thoughts for the whole film.

After the introduction to the main characters, the pace starts gradually increasing as we start receiving pieces of the puzzle of what have happened here via the help of flashbacks, creating a cinematic jigsaw puzzle where more and more pieces are filled in as time goes by.

We find out a serial killer dubbed the Jigsaw killer might be behind their kidnapping, a person of unknown identity who abduct their victims and have them go through lethal games to test their will to live based on their sins in life. The killer's character is intentionally left vague for this film, but is explored more in depth in the second movie.

We are also introduced to a large and diverse cast of characters tied into the case in various ways, them also brought to life by excellent performances. The only acting I had any problem with was the somewhat cheesy acting of one particular character that I can't mention in fear of spoiling anything, but they are thankfully given rather few lines and other than that this movie really achieves to blend the line between someone just pretending and somebody really being there.

This is part of why the horror elements of this movie works so incredibly well. When eventually terrible things start happening to people we are emotionally invested in and care about due to their realistic and sympathetic portrayals, the horror of seeing them in danger is escalated to levels well beyond what is usually seen in mainstream horror films. Their reactions to their suffering as thus also manages to creep under your skin and make you feel genuinely afraid for them, which is where I think the accusations of this being "torture porn" comes from.

Because the movie is not really very gory. There is a couple of shots of some gore, some police case photos of earlier victims, but the real visual punch from the movie is how they mostly hide the visuals involving such body horror and instead focus on visualizing their fear. Camera techniques such as speeding up footage, sporadic editing, experimental use of camera framing and other techniques are applied to moments of horror to give the visual idea of fear, panic and suffering without trying to just gross out the audience with it, and instead disturb you at a deep emotional level.

The score also helps a lot, being held up by great industrial pieces that range from ambient electronic during down moments of character interaction to full out noise rock to accompany scenes of panicking, helping create an atmosphere of dirty grim locales far away from any helping hands while not giving the impression of there being no hope at all. And of course the now iconic theme song that plays once all the pieces of the puzzle is put together and we are revealed the big secret behind this will send chills down your spine.

The film is also filled to the brim with small details all around, being a movie that rewards re-watching it by suddenly catching a small detail you didn't notice before, or something you were confused by suddenly making sense when you see it from a different angle when coming back to it. This I think is a testament to how much love and care is put into this film by its creators, and all of this is incredibly done on a very tight budget and shooting period without ever feeling rushed or half done.

All in all it's hard to describe this film in a way that gives it justice without actually giving away too much, so I will end with saying that you should give this film a try. Clear your brain of the hype, don't go in expecting gore and excess, and instead try to look past the marketing and look for the core of the film itself. If you are anything like me, chances are you might be pleasantly surprised by the genuinely effective thriller you can find there that never gets old to watch.

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic: Brotherhooves Social (2015) Season 5, Episode 17

Lazy One-Note Joke Stretched To 21 Minutes

[1/10 · 5 October 2015]

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is a show that is often hailed for it's intelligent writing, great characters, positive messages and for being fun for both kids and adults alike, though one could be forgiven to mistake this for another lazy cash grab to be aired during a filler slot at a cartoon channel if one where to just watch this episode

The episode is about how Applebloom wants to attend the yearly Sisterhooves Social competition with her big sister Applejack, but in the last minute Applejack get called out on a mission, leaving Applebloom unable to attend. Meanwhile, Applebloom's big brother Big Mac is feeling down about how he feels he is drifting apart from his little sister and how she have stopped looking up to him like she used to when they were younger, and as such he comes up with a scheme: attending the Sisterhooves Social with his little sister in drag in an attempt to heal their family bonds.

What follows is 15 minutes of "hilarious" slapstick where Big Mac is unable to "pass as a woman" and constantly does "manly things" such as burping, smashing things and having an Adam's apple, as well as being scorned by other characters for "obviously being a stallion". The jokes are basically all taken from terrible 60's sitcoms, Adam Sandler movies and other lame ludicrous corny garbage that this show have been really good at being above for the most part before, and it all comes off as "well we need another episode in this season, I know, men in dresses are still funny right? Let's patch this together in an hour and get done with, recycle stuff from that older episode about Sisterhooves Social too!"

For a show that tries to provide positive messages to kids this also feels incredibly out of place, as the message basically boils down to "don't try and be something you're not" and gives out a regressive view on gender roles and identity that completely conflicts with everything else in the show. Other characters such as Applejack and Rainbow Dash defy their traditional gendered roles all the time without being mocked for it, and even Big Mac himself got away with calling himself a princess in an earlier episode without anybody making fun of him then, so even if one is not offended by it or find it funny it's still completely off with the tone and message of the rest of the show and feels completely disjointed, like some sort of weird re-skinned episode of some other show rather than a MLP episode proper

The only positives of the episode is that when Big Mac is inevitably outed at the end they don't actually disqualify him for "being a man"; the judges admitting they knew he was in drag the whole time and that the rules where very lax on what they considered to be a big sister, and the real reason was the poor sportsmanship involved in pushing other participants out of the way and smashing things, as well as a scene at the end with Applebloom and Big Mac having a cute family moment together, but that is small comfort after having to sit through so much painful bottom of the barrel junk that actively seems to undermine the show itself.

It's 2015, it's the 5th season of the show, it's too late to try and turn it into Family Guy for kids. The writers can do better than that.

Mars (I) (2010)

The Worst Movie I Have Ever Seen

[1/10 · 29 June 2015]

I am no stranger to the depths of bad cinema, being a huge fan of movies like Birdemic, Troll 2, Ben & Arthur, The Room etc. but this one really takes the cake. The difference between this and those though? It doesn't have the decency to be entertainingly bad.

The movie is about a small team of astronauts being sent by NASA in 2015 to investigate if there exists life on Mars, the majority of the film being about their journey and supposedly about the romance between two of the astronauts: Charlie Brownsville, the man with the worst name of all time, and Casey Cook, the only major female character of the film with the most questionable name.

All of this is brought to life with production values that is borderline Birdemic-ian: Everything is recorded on a really bad green screen, adding in CGI backdrops that make the Eiffel 65 music videos from the 90's look like a PS4 game in comparison and then lazily slapping a Photoshop filter over everything to give the impression of this being animated actors, despite obviously not being so.

Mix this with acting that is beyond abysmal, a script that thinks quirkiness is more important than plot or meaning, incredibly stupid ideas such as putting a swimming pool in a space ship, and a absolutely disgusting plot twist that could be pulled right out of Foodfight and you would think this would at least be a memorable spectacle if not exactly quality film making. So why isn't this ending up as brilliant moon cheese?

Well, it's... just boring for the most part.

After the intro sequence setting up the universe and characters (and foreshadowing the plot twist), very little happens on their journey. Most of the time is spent relaxing, chit chattering, sometimes video-calling NASA or the president or the media, but there is no substance to it. No memorable lines or jokes, no character quirks beyond "we are quirky", not even any real character building showing Charlie and Casey growing closer to each other in any substantial emotional way, and in the end it all comes off as very dull, and it just feels like padding to turn a short film into a feature length one. There is a few times something silly happens, as mentioned they go swimming in a freaking pool in space which is ridiculous, but those moments are so few and far between they don't save it and it all becomes a blur of vague memories

That is, until the plot twist happens, and oooooooooh boy did that turn this from "incredibly forgettable" into the absolute worst thing ever.

!ENDING DETAILS SPOILERS FROM HERE ON OUT!

So in the intro to the movie, we see a few years before the NASA space travel starts, the Russian space program is sending up a satellite to scan Mars for life themselves. One of the workers loading it into the space shuttle is sick and sneezes on the satellite. It then turns out that his snot got mixed with the natural bacteria of the red planet and thus created life.

Yes, that actually happens.

To make matters even worse, once Charlie and Casey inevitably falls in love at the end, despite showing no signs of actual chemistry between each other, they decide to spell out their love together. In writing on Mars. Via urine. And wouldn't you know it, their urine actually creates intelligent life on Mars!

All I can say is, this is near unwatchable. If you want a hipster-y indie comedy you can do better, if you want a animated sci-fi adventure you can do better, if you want romance you can do much much better, and even if all you want is stupid and corny so bad it's good trash the long wait of absolutely nothing happening kills the joy of that too. All in all a very pretentious and unnecessary movie that is too normal yet simultaneously too weird for it's own good, and ends up as barely a movie at all.

The Exorcist (1973)

A Shock Film That Didn't Stand The Test of Time

[1/10 · 28 June 2015]

Being a huge horror fan who was born some time after the era of classic releases, I have been systematically working my way down the classics over time. To my fresh eyes, some of them have aged very well: The Shining, Psycho, Alien, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre even, while others sadly haven't held up:

The movie, as most probably know by now, is about a little girl who gets possessed by a demon (via playing with a Ouija Board of all things), her mother thinks it's mental illness, and then when it's pretty clear it's not they get in contact with an exorcist, along with a side story about a priest struggling with his faith in the wake of his mother's sickness and death but ending up agreeing to help with the exorcism in the end. Not a bad setup for a frightening movie rooted in religious imagery, however the issue here is how it's structured more like a drama film with some scary bits here and there rather than a full horror film.

The movie is 2 hours long but could probably be cut down to 1 hour easily as it is padded with long stretches of nothing happening. One might argue this is to build atmosphere and suspense, and yeah if that is what it actually did then it would have been fine with the slow pace, the problem however is that it really fails to deliver on any sort of tension.

What we get is everyday dialogue in the vein of a soap opera, interluded with shots of dark hallways, flickering lights, doctor visits and flash cuts of spooky faces. This is not good building of atmosphere, this is a director trying to convey horror but not actually knowing how to get under the skin of audiences psychologically by using old tired tropes that I can't imagine were all that fresh even if the 70's. There is also an attempt to show the little girl gradually going from innocent child to pawn of Satan, though due to poor editing and a oddly put story structure we don't get to actually know her much, and there is long stretches of side plot in between her scenes which ruins any sort of personal connection the audience might feel to her beyond "she is a innocent little girl"

Which brings us to the other part of the movie: torture! Now movies like Saw and Texas Chainsaw Massacre are often labeled as meaningless torture due to their sadistic betrayals of human suffering, but at least there they have a purpose. It shows character and how they deal with being put through hell, it builds the universe, it gives an intensity to scenes as you feel the terror of the character being forced onto you in a powerful way. The Exorcist on the other hand falls more into the camp of Eli Roth's Hostel: torture for tortures sake.

There is no reason to show everything that is being done to the little girl at the hand of the demon; everything from self mutilation, defiling a cross, assaulting her own mother and using language you would expect a internet troll to use to rile people up. It practically reeks of indulgence in shock imagery and trying to tick people off on the part of the director and writer, especially when considering how violently and inhumane they treated their actors, making Rob Zombie seem like a Nobel Peace Price winner in comparison

Now all of this, all of it could have been okay if the characters and deeper meanings of the film had been good enough, but... there really isn't much character to go around. Reagan is "the girl", her mother is "the screaming lady", the priest and exorcist are "the knights in shining armor" and the demon is "the dragon", and it all boils down to a Saturday cartoon good vs. evil all in all. Their motivation is that they are good, and demons are presumably evil, and therefor they have to get rid of the evil thing. The mentioned side plot of the priest who assists in the exorcism don't really add up to anything other than the demon using his feelings about his mother against him to try and weaken him, it's really no deeper than a wrestling villain trying to rile up his opponent all in all. The simple black and white dichotomy along with the constant swearing and attempts to shock rather than trying to make the audience think makes it all sorta come off as rather juvenile

And that is the reason I feel this movie doesn't hold up: it just doesn't have a strong foundation to it. It's all style, iconography and shocking moments to tell your friends about and no heart, no soul, no humanity to ground it with. It uses it's human components as pawns in a game rather than characters to be known

As a drama it doesn't hold up due to the flat characters, as a horror it is not scary, as an exploitation special effect fest it has too many boring parts in between the gore, and as a religious film it doesn't work due to how vulgar it is. All in all it is a confused movie that wants to do too many things at once and ends up doing very little at all. Not recommended unless you just want to know the historical context of the piece and study the special effect use at play

Metal Evolution (2011–2014)

A messy and biased documentary

[4/10 · 30 May 2015]

What starts as a interesting look into the evolution of Metal and its always increasing number of sub-genres quickly turns into a narrow and biased look on the music based around a home made sub-genre family tree of questionable legitimacy and fact checking

The first few episodes are pretty interesting as they show where the genres have their stylistic roots, though it still misses something when they fail to mention Jimi Hendrix but do mention Iggy Pop & The Stooges, claim Judas Priest invented Metal in the same episode as Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple is discussed, and other such small annoyances that makes it feel less professional and more like a opinion piece on when the music he loved growing up started sounding like he liked it

Then comes the big turnaround where he just starts speculating due to a lack of knowledge. Genres like Shock Rock and New Wave of American Heavy Metal are coined despite those being descriptors of a visual style/movement rather than a musical genre, and the bands mentioned already exists in set sub-genres they could have discussed instead. An entire episode is spent trying to convince us that Grunge and Post Grunge is a Metal genre while claiming Nu Metal can barely be considered Metal at all. Alternative Metal, Groove/Funk Metal, Industrial Metal and Metalcore are all completely ignored or put in as small segments into other episodes. The list goes on, and it's clear he should have had a team of experts from different genre origins with him on his journey instead of trying to map everything by himself via just interviews

The one positive part of the show that makes it still worth a watch though is the interviews. There is a lot of interesting looks into the music, lifestyle, philosophy and, yes, evolution of the music from the mouths of the musicians themselves. It's just a shame that all have to be wrapped together by a very unreliable narrator with a very narrow understanding of half of the genres he discusses with very odd priorities that ultimately undermines the educational value this show could have had