horrorflicklover Reviews

Candyman (1992)

Don't Say His Name

[8/10 · 4 November 2023]

Although it wasn't quite what I expected, that's not a bad thing. I was actually expecting more of a formulaic slasher flick with a twist on the concept. Candyman had a unique and interesting backstory and implementation. It was a solid film, and holds up pretty well today.

This was a unique and cool take on a slasher film, I can honestly say I didn't see this movie coming. The motives of the main characters really drove the plot well. And it had a superb ending, that it was definitely laying the groundwork for well throughout the second half of the film.

The concept behind the Candyman's creation was particularly interesting, as it addresses such an ugly side of a society that hurt people for things that they never should have been hurt for. The sexual undertones are certainly present. Although, where you might expect to see a traditional revenge narrative, that's not so much what's going on, here. In fact, exploring the lore as to whether Candyman and his backstory were real, or was brought to life by Helen's doubting of him, really makes you appreciate the story and the Candyman's motivations even more. Especially when you tie that in with how the film ended.

I do honestly think that the Candyman's dialog was too Shakespearean. Maybe that was a good style for when the movie came out. But perhaps it's fallen victim to cliches, or maybe it just comes off as trying too hard. Much respect to Tony Todd for his work. Honestly, maybe I just didn't like it much.

But this was a good movie. And it definitely stood out among the slasher flicks of the early 1990s, before "Scream" really forced the genre to change its style.

The Omen (1976)

Have No Fear Little One...I Am Here To Protect Thee

[7/10 · 31 October 2023]

Although I wouldn't say that I found the film super scary by today's standards, it still stands on its own as a classic supernatural horror movie. It's a magnificent concept put together with a great story, class acting, and some creepy plot points to boot. That's what won me over.

This is a superbly acted film. Billie Whitelaw as Mrs. Baylock received much praise for her performance. Gregory Peck was a class act, Lee Remick and a young Harvey Stephens even gave it his all here.

The Omen had a great story, and it's well-told. I've seen reviews arguing that it missed crucial details. But I don't get that at all. It covered what it was meant to. The eerie happenings are gradually explained through some pretty solid pacing, and that lends way to the appropriate motivations for the characters.

The problems with this movie are that (like many horror films with that style that was common in the 1970s) it can tend to come off as rather corny. Most of the deaths in particular were just more goofy than scary. And if I must be honest, I felt that they could have done more with such a terrific concept. And not simply because I'm looking at it through a modern lens. Now I know That this isn't the Exorcist: It's not about demonic possession, it's about the antichrist. A false prophet that's meant to subvert Jesus Christ, and cause chaos in the world. No need for spinning heads and scarred, rotting skin. But the movie shows its age with some rather corny deaths, and lukewarm cinematography.

But that's not the entire movie or anything. In fact, it has some well-done, creepy scenes. The tone may have been a little inconsistent, but I've definitely seen far worse examples of movies that didn't know how they wanted to present themselves. And I did quite enjoy the story, and feel that it was the strongest aspect of the film. That's what really won me over. I'd say the film did exactly what it intended to do. It might feel dated after almost 50 years, but I'd say it's earned its status as a classic.

Blair Witch (2016)

While Not As Good, It's A Worthy, Scary Sequel

[7/10 · 28 October 2023]

Some of the reviews here...I just don't get it. "Dumbed down for Millennials." Do people not realize how old most Millennials are? We saw the first one already. And to that, if you didn't like the first movie, why would you watch this one? I hated *House of 1000 Corpses,* I never thought to sit through *The Devil's Rejects.* Just want more stuff to complain about?

I simply didn't think this was a bad film at all. I can understand the belief that a film like that doesn't need a sequel, but to argue that they did a bad job with it? I just don't think so. Blair Witch gave me what I came here for. It centered around the lore of the first film, and built upon its mythology. It amplified the hauntings and psychological drama. It had a lot of suspense, and a pretty good story, with its own interesting twist. If you can look past its cliches, it was pretty scary and cool. There are some parts of this story that I quite liked. If anything, they should have had more depth.

Where the film falters was drawing its plot a little too heavily on the first film, and too many fake jump scares and cliches. There are some plot points which are completely rehashed, and that was just lazy. And the movie should have done a better job trying to scare us without using excessive jump scares. But I'd also add that the movie is arguably less derivative than the first three *Paranormal Activity* films were to each other.

People also complain about the characters being pretty annoying, always shouting each other's names, running around like chickens with their heads cut off. But wasn't that the point? You're capturing people who are scared out of their minds, they're trapped in a loop they can't get out of, and one by one, their party gets smaller. How else would they act? I'll concede that they could have been written better. But we also agree to give a reasonable suspension of disbelief in horror films, due to the idea that scared people don't always think straight or act within their best interests.

I found it pretty entertaining. It's a sequel that gave me what I wanted. There's absolutely a good story here, and intense and scary action. The plot shouldn't have been as derivative, the subplots needed more depth, and they should have lessened the jump scares. But it was a good movie. I'd give it a solid 7.5.

Prince of Darkness (1987)

This Is Not A Dream...Or A Good Film

[2/10 · 23 October 2023]

I think my brother really wanted me to like this one. But it didn't age well at all, and I'm still hard pressed to believe I'd have liked it upon release. Was it just nostalgia? The concept is just really silly. It's boring, slow moving, not really scary, and definitely an unintentional period piece (but not in a good way). Outside of Donald Pleasance and Victor Wong (and perhaps Alice Cooper's endearing role as a vagrant), it's not really well-acted. And even at that, I'll echo the same sentiments about Pleasance simply playing his Dr. Loomis character from Halloween. And that might have worked with better dialog, character development, and more depth. The characters just kind of blend in, and the entire reason many of them are in danger is because they stand around and wait to get attacked. The dialog sucks, and the screenplay can't really decide what the film wants to be. For a movie with this much talking, how did it manage to not interest me in the subject matter at all? I mean (for instance), Nightmare On Elm Street 2 was uneven and boring at times. But at least it did a good job of telling its story.

The tone is just so campy. I really wanted this to be a very scary film, and it wasn't at all. It was way too goofy. For a film about the POD himself trying to break out of captivity and unleash terror upon the world, there was so much more that could have been done with it.

Awfully silly, campy, boring, and not a film I intend to revisit.

Poltergeist (1982)

Did Not Age Well

[3/10 · 23 October 2023]

Cited as a horror classic, this is one I don't have any desire to come back to.

For one, it felt like we were watching two different movies. I feel like this film starts in the middle of the story. There was no buildup, it went right in to the happenings. The...tone just started off feeling uninspired. You'd think that a family that had to face the reckoning that their home was haunted would act and feel more terrified and unassuming.

Once the movie started to really pick up, the characterization generally evolved for the better. And it definitely made the third act feel scarier. But that illustrates part of the problem. The plot and characters struggle to find a consistent tone. The film feels clunky, just not very cohesive. But even at that, I thought the concept behind the medium's methods were just silly. The effects gave me a mixed reaction as well. Some just came off as really silly, very out of place. Others were pretty cool.

I awfully disliked this movie's score as well. It absolutely didn't fit the scenes at all. The score is supposed to build up your emotions and complement the scene and cinematography. But this score made it feel like the film didn't know where it was going, or what it was trying to convey. Given how generally clunky the movie is, I can see why.

But I must say that Zelda Rubenstein as the medium Tangina Barrons was such an endearing character. In fact, if there's any parts of this film that I'll watch clips of on Youtube, it's of her casing the house for the energies. Good character, enjoyable scene.

It's a good concept, and it even has some cool scenes. But there are simply many other films that pulled it off better than this one did. The Conjuring movies among them. Hell the original Amityville Horror was released before this film, even. It just didn't age well, and I have no interest in coming back to it. 3.5.

Pet Sematary (2019)

"Don't...Bury...Me In That Place..."

[8/10 · 15 October 2023]

I'm not gonna savage this film like a lot of reviews are doing. I thought it was overall pretty good. I enjoyed the original (and even that one gets criticized), and sure, this one definitely isn't as good. But unwatchable? Certainly not.

Where I think this film falters is the lack of character development, shallow scenes, and overall rushed feeling of the screenplay. The original (yes, you gotta compare it to the original. Sorry, but it's true) did these things particularly well. Jud is a more interesting character in the 1989 film. And don't get me wrong, John Lithgow himself wasn't the problem, it's just how the character was written. Jud and Louis also have far less interaction together, and that was a driving force in building the story. When you watch it, you just feel like that's all missing.

That being said, does the film shine elsewhere? Yes it does. It's still a good film, is still a pretty solid adaptation of the story, and has some good, well done scenes. It made a few changes, but I think it made it stand on its own pretty well. When the movie gets intense, it's pretty fun to watch.

It doesn't tell the story as well, It doesn't flesh out the characters as well, but it has some good scenes and cinematography. It's still a spooky, scary movie. Give it a shot.

Sleepaway Camp (1983)

"Yo Angela, How Come Yer So F'd Up?"

[6/10 · 14 October 2023]

The Sleepaway Camp franchise was a cult classic in the slasher genre. They were B-films that always held their own against the bigger budget films. And you just have to appreciate how charming they were.

SC was rather derivative of films like Friday the 13th. The very element of a slasher flick taking place at a summer camp speaks for itself. But the style and twist are entirely different. The lower budget is obvious, and the acting certainly isn't great by any means. You just know it's pretty cornball. But it's still a fun film. It's still pretty well-rounded, with a solid story all around. The inventive killings really work in this movie, especially considering that the cinematography isn't what sells it. The action is. The pretenses are off the table in SC, you know what you came here for.

As slashers really burgeoned in the 1980s, that obviously led to a lot of hit or miss films and styles. But even some of the movies that you knew weren't very good, were just very...charming. And that's how I feel about Sleepaway Camp. It was just ridiculous enough to work. Until the third film, but I digress. I actually kind of enjoyed the premise and the silliness of SC, even as derivative as it was to the Friday franchise. In fact, what I think this film does better is character development. In Friday, the characters are quickly disposed of, no real chance to relate to them or distinguish anything interesting about them. You get a better sense of development in Sleepaway, as it has central characters, and I just think more developed supporting characters.

This is a fun cult classic film. It's never gonna stand next to franchises like Halloween, Scream, or Nightmare.... But I can appreciate how hard it tried to be what it is, and it's a good viewing once in a great while.

Friday the 13th (1980)

"What Monster Could Have Done This?"

[6/10 · 14 October 2023]

The F13 franchise was never a favorite of mine. I thought the first few films were overall good, but never stood up next to franchises like Halloween or Nightmare On Elm Street. That being said, I can certainly respect that this movie ignited one of the biggest horror franchises in history. It developed its own style, and wasn't trying to be a clone of the films that inspired it.

That's apparent by the brutality alone. This movie has blood and violence, hits you in the face with it. And well, what else did you come here for? The acting? Not great. The production? Pretty average, the budget was in the 400k range. The story? It's just fine. It's coherent, and does a solid job of laying the groundwork for the franchise. But it doesn't have the depth that films like Nightmare or Halloween did. It's more violent than both of them, but they both still have richer screenplays, more developed and interesting characters, generally more interesting movies to watch. Friday's plot is pretty thin and straightforward. The characters hardly stand out from one another, as the killer disposes them before they get much development. It sells itself on silly killings and reckless indulgence. Tropes that have become old hat in slasher films, but were still pretty original at the time.

I'd still argue that it's pretty overrated for how much it's revered. The thin plot and mediocre acting just never made this one part of my rotation. It's good slasher fun, I can certainly say it's not drab. And you have to respect its place in horror history. But it's just okay in my book.

1408 (2007)

"It's An Evil F'n Room"

[9/10 · 11 October 2023]

A well-made psychological horror film, 1408 has been a favorite in my horror rotation for years.

Everything in this film is very visual indeed. 1408 goes right in to the visual scares, the mirages, making everything seem like a night terror: Colorful and real, but definitely not within the realm of our possibilities.

That's the great thing about films like this one. You can effectively do what you want to pursue your plot development. Virtually everything feels manipulated and inplausible. And even as Mike sees some truly unexplainable phenomena, he still doubts his own sanity. It's certainly not subtle, but it's a well-made, well-acted ghost story.

In the grand tradition of Stephen King works, much of the film involves the main character confronting a past that he's running away from. It's cleverly mixed in with the lore surrounding the all-important haunted room that he stays in. The backstory is very well-explained, with in fact one of the best scenes in the film being Mr. Olin and Mr. Enslin's meeting pertaining to such. 1408 is less about being outright scary, but more about being emotional, deep, and vivid.

I really enjoyed this movie. One of my favorite Stephen King adaptations.

Haunted (1995)

"You've Been Terrific Fun, David"

[9/10 · 8 October 2023]

This was one of the IFC darlings back in the 1990s (Kate Beckinsale, so that makes sense). Haunted sucked me right in. The style and cinematography encapsulates paranormal horror.

While it differs from the book, this is a pretty great story. David is a skeptic who's invited to an estate to help a woman who claims she is being haunted. He lost his twin sister at a young age, and was motivated to disprove ghosts and mediums as nothing more than a way to comfort people in times of loss. Although the most controversial plot element won't be for everyone. But it built up quite well, and had some very cool visual effects and scares along the way. It's helped by the fact that the 1920s just seem to be the perfect decade for old school paranormal hauntings. Maybe that's helped by how all of the supposed "true" ghost stories we heard growing up were about places that had their heyday in the early-mid 20th century. But I digress.

To be clear, this isn't a bone-chilling, scary kind of story. It's not meant to be, though. Think of it in terms of a film like The Others. What sells it is how good the story is, how deep the hauntings are, and how well-rounded the film is. Haunted did all of that very well. Had a great twist that has still aged well, despite becoming a trope.

It's a shame it's so hard to find nowadays. This is one of my favorite ghost films.

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Worth A Watch, But A Mixed Bag

[7/10 · 30 September 2023]

PA looked like one of those must-sees for horror fans based on hype and return on investment alone. This one was huge when it came out. And while it's a solid film, I felt that it was kinda overhyped.

I remember some of the common complaints about films like The Blair Witch Project (which was undoubtedly synonymous with the genre before PA came along). "Nothing's happening for 70 minutes, then it ends". But that honestly didn't apply to that film at all if you actually watched it. But PA kind of feels like that could apply. I won't say that it's boring, but it's slower-paced and more suspenseful. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. And being the first in the franchise and establishing the style, it can absolutely get away with it. But there just felt like there was more that they could have done with it. Found footage is no longer a novel concept like it was when Blair Witch came out. And even at that, Blair Witch just had more rounding out the story.

But where does it rank it for replay value? PA was good for what it was, and if you like that slower, creeping suspense, you might enjoy it. But I feel that it held back on its potential. What kept it going that first time is the mystery. You just gotta see what the next scare is going to be, the next confusing plot point that will shake the main characters. After you've seen it, I just don't know that it holds up as something that I would come back to a lot. I liked the pacing and story of the next two PA films better, and just feel that they stand on their own in that regard.

Although I do want to say that the most enjoyable part of this film is Katie Featherstone's acting and characterization. This movie did well with its characters, and Katie is a great character, superbly acted. Had a lesser job been done, this just wouldn't have been any good.

If you haven't seen it, I'd generally recommend it. I'd probably give it a 6.5 if IMDB allowed .5 increments. It's good, but a little overhyped for what we got.

Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)

You Have To Enjoy The Concept For These Films To Work

[7/10 · 30 September 2023]

PA2 was an entertaining film, and it built off of the first one pretty well. Of course, it's all about the twist ending in these films, and this one bookends with the first one. Delivers a good motive for the ending of the original. It established the primary lore of the PA universe, and I think it did it well.

But you must be okay with watching another film that's the same basic concept as the first one. There isn't much here that's unique, and that's a common complaint about the subsequent sequels. You're watching a more rounded, scarier, and more developed take on the first film. You've gotta be okay with that to be entertained by this. Even long-running slasher franchises might use the same overall concept, but they can develop a unique screenplay (or rather, the should be) for the sequels. There's only so much that you can do with a found footage film of this style.

I've seen the first three PA films, and the third still stands as my favorite among them. But PA2 might be worth watching if you like this concept. Especially if you want to watch more development of the primary lore around Katie and Kristi.

Bad Teacher (2011)

Really Hoped For More From A Solid Concept

[4/10 · 30 September 2023]

There's some good jokes in Bad Teacher. It's well-acted, and has solid comedic timing and delivery. And overall, it's a pretty good concept. But the number one thing that sunk this film for me was the main character. Diaz's Elizabeth is entirely unlikable.

Now this is of course just my opinion on the matter. But Elizabeth is just a pretty rotten character, with little in the way of redeeming qualities. Which is fine to start the film. But the idea is that you round the characters out as the movie goes on, and you make the intended protagonists likeable, relatable characters. And I just didn't see that here. Sure, at the very end it's implied that she's "changed", but it just felt tacked on for the ending. Nothing during the movie made me like the character at all.

As an *It's Always Sunny...* fan, I don't quite understand why a detestable character just ruins the film for me. Maybe it's because on IASIP, those rotten characters most often get their comeuppance. But they don't in Bad Teacher. In fact, the rival teacher Amy was absolutely right about everything she said about Elizabeth. Yet she was made out to be the villain, and the one who always gets punked. I have no desire to root for that.

It's like watching a film take on The Simpsons episode "Homer's Enemy", but without the charm, sharp commentary, and self-awareness that made that episode work. Had the film just been a lot funnier, maybe I could have forgiven the screenplay. Bad Teacher has its moments, but it's just not that funny.

Good concept, but mediocre execution.

Molly's Game (2017)

Great Biographical Drama

[9/10 · 29 September 2023]

Recommended to me by a poker player friend of mine (Who unlike me, actually PLAYS poker, not just a free app), I can see why this one became an instant classic. Like Rounders, it captures the tension and thrill-chasing of the game. But that's only an element of it. Largely what rounds this film out is Molly Bloom's life story during the time.

Molly's Game covers Molly Blooms' exit from Olympic competition, to her building a backroom poker game that attracts several high-profile and wealthy clients. She grapples with her own problems with her relationship with her father, trouble with problematic clients and unsavory characters (who threaten, harass, and undermine her), and personal problems that take a toll on her well-being. Some of the characters are composites, fiction, others are based directly off of the actual people that they represented.

Molly is a very likeable character, which makes you all the more want to cheer on her perseverance. The film is quite well acted. Jessica Chastain's Molly received acclaim, as did Idris Elba's performance.

Check this film out. It's a well-made biographical drama. And definitely a must-see for poker players and fans.

Sleepers (1996)

Heavy, Emotional Drama That Draws You Right In

[9/10 · 29 September 2023]

Sleepers has some problems, but it's a great story. It's a very dark film indeed, dealing with subject matter such as child sexual abuse, so just be warned.

Presented as a true story where "the names and dates were changed", I don't believe it is. But rather is a fictional story based on the abuse that was especially prevalent in many "snake pit" institutions in the US prior to the late-1960s.

The driving factor behind Sleepers is revenge. Which is why The Count of Monte Cristo plays a part in the film. Sleepers reminds me that things that we may not agree with in real life can absolutely play out admirably in a film. Such as the things one might do for "justice".

The first act presents a look in to the lifestyle of teenage boys in 1960s Hell's Kitchen, New York. Dealing with abusive family, unsavory characters, but also having fun with their friends, and their work in the church. The second is a brutal depiction of abuse in a juvenile home. The third act is a solid, albeit flawed legal drama. The film has a bittersweet flavor all throughout. There's moments of happiness and elation, but also the sense of defeat and sadness. As it explores the self-destruction of young men who were tormented by the abuse, and succumbed to a troubled lifestyle.

Like another classic legal drama (A Few Good Men), Sleepers certainly didn't give the best portrayal of criminal trials. But I think it's an acceptable suspension of disbelief. What's perhaps even less believable is how one of the characters enacted his ultimate plan to bring justice to the boys for the wrongs that were done to them. Not that it wouldn't be possible, but Sleepers kind of drops it in your lap. It would take an incredibly level of devotion to work out the way it did. But it did, and it was fun to watch.

While a longer film, it was entertaining all throughout. It kept my attention the very first time, and it's been a favorite all my life.

Hackers (1995)

Fun Cyperpunk Film

[9/10 · 28 September 2023]

If the Fast And The Furious franchise can be enjoyed for what it is, then so can Hackers. It's definitely not a realistic portrayal of hacking, it had to be made flashy and interesting for Hollywood. But that's what made it so fun. And given the time in which it came out, you gotta suspend disbelief as to what hacking and the internet were all about.

Hackers is effectively a cyperpunk styled crime drama about a group of hackers who find themselves skirting legal trouble, while exposing corruption at a major corporation. The main character Dade himself previously having been convicted of computer crimes when he was 11 year old, and was barred from accessing a computer until his 18th birthday. It didn't take him long to get back in to the game, and form a connection with the hacking clique at his new high school.

Each of the pivotal characters in the film are unique and fun. They run from a range of flamboyant and charismatic; good hearted and naïve; loveable and goofy; tongue-in-cheek; and the somewhat uptight, straight-played characters. Admittedly, Matt Lillard plays a character trope that he played in several films back in this era. But it was a good character that rounded out the cast well.

The unique characters and interesting plot carry this film well. And Hackers also has a great soundtrack, for any of you interested in techno and electronica. It captures an essence of subculture that many of us were a part of, even if not actually involving technology or computers.

You gotta have fun with this film, or you won't enjoy it. It's not an accurate portrayal of computer hacking by any means. But it's a fun, engaging movie. Give it a shot.

Rounders (1998)

"If You Can't Spot The Sucker At A Poker Table In the First 30 Minutes, You're The Sucker"

[10/10 · 28 September 2023]

I first watched this when I was about 14 years old with my sister, not long after it came out. Didn't pay much mind to it. I decided to check it out on Netflix years later, and I'm glad I did. Actually engrossing myself in the story and scenes, I realized what a great film this is.

Rounders is well acted, and has a great story. And not just for showing how involved the characters are in the game itself. In fact, knowing poker players personally, I can tell you that this movies portrays that accurately. Some people practically live at these tables, even if they never make any real money. But it's that gambling addiction that keeps them going. But this movie also shows how the antagonists in your life aren't necessarily who you think they are. A lesson that the main character learns all too well.

This film really keeps you interested all the way through. From the start, where we watch Mike put it all on the line, and learn a HARD lesson. To him grappling with whether he wants to stay out of the game, or help out his friend.

This movie also does a great portrayal of the gritty world of backroom poker games. Set against the backdrop of NYC nightlife, which is the perfect tone for everything that plays out in the film.

Even if you're not interested in poker, I think you'll love the story and acting. Great movie.

Paranormal Activity 3 (2011)

Scary Film With A Good Story

[8/10 · 25 September 2023]

The first Paranormal Activity was just fine. Perhaps a bit overhyped, but not a bad film. But it feels like it held back on its potential. I didn't get that here. I liked PA3. I think it was great as standalone film, let alone that it built off of the franchise, and added the depth that we wanted after the first two movies.

There's just more going on here, and it's more entertaining. Not only does it have a good plot, but it's scarier, and better constructed. The first PA tends to feel like 60 minutes of the same things happening, and 15 minutes setting up for the climax (which was good, mind you). But PA3 had a richer story and execution. More jump scares, more suspense. More characters demonstrating sheer terror and confusion by what they're experiencing. And that's the mark of a good sequel. You go bigger and better, but don't remove the heart of the franchise.

I see why this is one of the most favored entries in the franchise. I'd definitely say that it's IMDB rating is too low. It's chilling, entertaining, and pretty well-rounded. Check it out.

Oculus (2013)

Well Done, Scary, and Engrossing Film

[8/10 · 17 September 2023]

This film delivered just about everything I look for in a great paranormal horror movie. It had a great concept, a solid plot, and many good scares and psychological twists along the way. I also like its particular take on a classic trope. This being that Tim, recently released from a sanatorium, is the one who doubts his sister Kaylie's claims of paranormal presence coming from the mirror. Tim's treatment has him grounded in logic, but his sister Is the one who goes all in on the malevolence of it. Watching them both descend into madness as they struggle with the effects that the mirror is having on them is superbly done. Everything from the visual mirages, the phone calls, the ghosts, And the sense of how trapped they are within the hauntings was all very entertaining. Just really what I expect in a good ghost film.

I enjoyed the backstory. Pertaining to both the family, and the people over the centuries who were affected by the all-important plot device. While I was particularly bummed by the ending, That's just because it was a downer. It was certainly well done, and very fitting for the film.

But should you watch it? Absolutely. It really is a great paranormal horror flick. But just be warned, it's definitely a sad one.

Mortal Kombat (2021)

Delivers Great Action With A Flawed Screenplay And Dialog

[7/10 · 8 September 2023]

Mortal Kombat starts off with an amazing intro, that brings to film one of the most infamous plotlines of the video game series. It sets up the rest of the movie admirably. But the film rather stumbles on a stunted screenplay and dialog that just takes itself too seriously.

For the most part, I think the characterization was done well. Particularly Sub Zero, Kano, Sonya, and Jax (as these are the characters that get the most screen time). Regardless, they're the most interesting ones, particularly Kano. Reception to Cole is rather mixed, as he's not seen as a strong enough protagonist to center the film around. Although, that was kind of the point. He certainly didn't stay the same Cole Young as he was at the beginning. I also enjoyed Kabal, but felt Mileena was underutilized, given her immense popularity in the games.

The action sequences are outstanding. This is every bit of an R-rated film as the 1990s MK movies should have been. They're intense, fast-paced, and a hell of a lot of fun to watch. To that, the filmmakers deserve major props for very much properly utilizing the special moves of the characters. That was something we didn't see a whole lot of in Mortal Kombat (1995).

Where the movie falters are the dialog and the overall screenplay. The characters verge too much on the need to spit out a soliloquy. Sure, it's understandable that Raiden, Liu Kang, and Kung Lao understand the impact of the tournament, and take it seriously. But they still come off as being less relatable when they act as these omnipotent philosophers. It's just not natural dialog, and they and Sonya just seem to take themselves too seriously.

The plot is coherent and overall good, but seems a bit shallow due to the screenplay. While the fast-pacing of the film is a major plus in a lot of other regards, the plot suffers for the same reason. The characters are just rapid-firing the key plot points to each other. Comparing it to the 1995 film, one thing I think that one did better is fleshing out the story. Even if you have bones to pick with it, it had a greater sense of story behind it than this one did. The plot feels built around the action sequences, instead of the opposite. In fact, there's no real "tournament" here, which is what the entire concept of Mortal Kombat is built around.

That being said, the movie is still a lot of fun. It's a far cry better than Mortal Kombat: Annihilation was. It's not just mindless action. I think it's a must-see for fans of the franchise. I'd rate it about a 7, and maybe that's being generous. The action absolutely saves a troubled script and dialog.

The Fan (1996)

Entertaining Film, but Flawed Screenplay

[5/10 · 29 December 2022]

I really wanted to like this film. But it was just so riddled with plot holes. And I mean, inexcusable plot holes for anyone who knows anything about baseball.

I don't even watch baseball regularly. But even I know that players are assigned their numbers during Spring Training. They don't find out the day before opening day. I also know that baseball games are never played in torrential downpours, nor in the pitch dark of night.

I also have a hard time believing that a team that signs a well-known mega star couldn't have anticipated conflicts with two players having the same number. How was this not resolved prior to opening day? How was it not resolved in Spring Training?

Also, there were multiple opportunities for Cooper to stop Gil when he was forcing him and Bobby's son to play that baseball game with him. Hell, they had a literal weapon of opportunity (baseball bat), how hard would it have been to have had the upper hand?

I can even look past Gil killing the umpire before the game, and stealing his mask and uniform to impersonate him. As hokey as that seemed, I can look past that for the sake of the screenplay.

But there's just too many plot holes, didn't they have a technical advisor? A few of these issues could have even been addressed with some hand-waving, but it just wasn't there.

There's some good to say here, though. The acting and directing was great. Of course Snipes and DeNiro put up great performances. And the screenplay, while flawed, was still entertaining and thrilling. It was just pretty poorly written.

It's not to say that it's not an entertaining film. But it's so riddled with plot holes that it's hard to take seriously, or see as a favorite. You may still want to check it out, as it wasn't a total waste of time. Great acting and directing, entertaining story, albeit flawed in its delivery.

The Warriors (1979)

Action-Packed Movie With An Unforgettable Style

[10/10 · 10 November 2022]

Standing in stark contrast to the more depressing and dark tone of the book, The Warriors is a classic anti-hero narrative. It's a fairly action-packed flick, and the fight scenes are very well done and entertaining. But what really does it for this film? The STYLE.

That's where The Warriors really stands out. You can make a gang film about any kind of street or prison gang. But the gangs in The Warriors are so unique and colorful. That's where you get these interesting gangs like The Baseball Furies, The Boppers, The Riffs, The Rogues, The Turnbull ACs. They're full of flair, and they make this a fun film. Let's be honest, it's the characters that you remember the most. They don't just wear different colors, they have their own outfits and uniforms, and methods of attack.

Another thing to love about it is that it perfectly captures the era. That late-1970s Big Rotten Apple era of New York. It has such a gritty look to it. Helped in part by most of the film taking place at night. But it's an unintentional period piece, and that's why it's so lovable.

But as campy as the film can be at times, it's not to say that it isn't a bit hard-nosed as well. Perhaps the character with the richest depth is Mercy. Look at how she feels she has to prove that she's not just another "deb". She doesn't want the life that short-sighted, sexist men around her think is suited for her. But these gangs, including The Warriors, they operate off of their own machismo. And it's understandable (albeit misguided), they exist in a brutal world.

There's one particular scene that demonstrates a face-to-face meeting with the haves and have-nots. So much is said, with very little actual dialog. Really is one of the most memorable scenes in the film.

Despite my perfect rating, I wouldn't say it's a perfect film, per se. But it's a damn good one. I think it's just so richly entertaining and has such a great style, that it could still be a great film, even had it a weaker screenplay. This movie is a lot of fun, definitely check it out.

A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child (1989)

Interesting Story, Was Still Better Than Its Predecessor And Sequel

[6/10 · 8 November 2022]

There's some good things to say here. I liked that this was a darker and more chilling NOES film (the way it should be). I think the story had potential, and the fantasy sequences generally had a good tone. It had a pretty interesting premise, I think they did an alright job exploring more of Freddy and his mother's backstories.

What kills it for me is the ridiculously gross and over the top gore, and silly death scenes. A trend that they continued from NOES 4, and that's regrettable. Sure, part of Freddy's appeal is how he can personalize the way he kills his prey. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. But when it's downright silly instead of scary, it is. Freddy's wisecracks honestly seem kind of dull. But in fact, why did they even belong here in the first place? The film had a much better tone to be explicitly scary, and that's what they should have stuck with. It's that same inconsistency that NOES 4 had.

I was rather entertained by the dream sequences of the main character, how they blended that with Freddy's history. And the scenes had a lot of REAL emotion. That's certainly more than I can say for it's sequel, which I use as the barometer for horrible slasher flicks (for a reason). This film certainly did that well. They put heart and terror in to it, it wasn't watered down and bland, like its sequel was. And it was more entertaining and scary, unlike its predecessor.

You could certainly do worse than this. I'd argue that it's a pretty watchable NOES film, but it's by no means great. The original and NOES 3 were the zenith of the franchise, and this movie won't match it. But it at least had a pretty interesting story, and some dark and scary sequences. Areas in which it beat its direct predecessor and sequel. Give it a shot if you're a NOES fan.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)

Just Too Silly For Me To Care

[4/10 · 8 November 2022]

This film was the start of the franchise getting downright silly and over the top. Nightmare 3 was a good balance of scary, campy, and thrilling. But this one is just campy and silly. There's nothing especially memorable about the plot. The special effects were just weird and pretty gross. It was heading straight in to comedy-horror at this point.

NOES 3 had such a memorable plot, a real sense of terror and suspense. But NOES 4 just left me shrugging. Maybe I just can't get over how absolutely silly it was to see someone turned in to cockroaches and squashed. I mean, really?

I'll at least say that in spite of not having great acting, the scenes did have some emotion. That's more than I can say for Freddy's Dead. And it's certainly more watchable than that film. It's a coherent film overall, but so inconsistent. They were trapped between making Freddy a terrifying antagonist, or a campy anti-hero, and it shows.

I've never had any desire to go back to watch this one again. It's not as bad as Freddy's Dead, but that doesn't say much. It's completely forgettable, except for a couple of scenes that are so over the top and stupid.

Halloween: Resurrection (2002)

This Is Definitely The MTV Halloween Movie

[3/10 · 3 November 2022]

It's "Halloween" Meets "The Real World" Meets "The Blair Witch Project". Yes, it's every bit as silly as that sounds. You don't need to look up the year this film was released, it's definitely a product of its time. It really drips with the essence of early 2000s hip kids on a reality TV show. They really tried to shoehorn it all in to this film.

It's just so damn silly. And you have to consider what we've gotten out of a lot of slasher sequels. But it has such a cornball plot and flimsy dialog. Interspersed with shakey, grainy cam footage, which is really just pretty obnoxious. Glaring plot holes to try and amend the previous film's ending. If the reality show, the unwitting viewers and participants weren't enough, we get actual kung fu. Which is one of the silliest and stupidest action scenes in a Halloween movie.

This is the sequel that nobody wanted, and I see why. It was so unnecessary. Everything about it was the image of a Halloween movie trying to be made for MTV. And to be honest, I wasn't a big fan of H2O. This entire canon didn't need to exist. But that was still a much better movie than this.

That being said, it's still not my most hated Halloween film. I'd rather watch this again than Rob Zombie's Halloween II. And it might be worth a viewing every once in a great while. But I definitely don't see it as something that fans of the franchise would ever enjoy.