Change Your Image
HTopHer
Reviews
Here for Blood (2022)
Not Funny + Not Scary = Fail
I see a lot of glowing reviews for this movie and either we saw a different movie, or I'm on drugs, or all of them are, but I do not agree at all. I think maybe they are all involved in making this movie themselves, or loving family and friends. How else can you justify giving this turkey anything near a 10/10. Seriously these people think this movie is perfect?
I feel like the director must have made this right after watching Dead Alive and walked away from that movie thinking that all you have to do is make a lot of fake blood and spill it everywhere and it automatically makes a movie funny, scary and interesting.
The problem is, Dead Alive was actually a funny script and well shot. It gave us stuff to keep us interested. Here for Blood is a poor excuse for a movie that has no laughs at all in it. We did not even smile once. All we did was keep checking the "time remaining" to see how much longer it would go on. It also was not scary, and the large amounts of obviously fake blood don't add any kind of enjoyment at all, it's just there because they thought it would be automatically interesting somehow.
If anyone told me that someone could somehow make a movie about a home invasion with a wrestler vs. A cult and have it not be one bit funny or good on any level, I would have thought they were crazy. How could this be possible? Yet here it is, a total dud of a movie that practically bored us to sleep.
Some of the actors were decent. But that's about the only good thing I can say about this one. We even hated the music, which I'm sure they either made themselves or got for free.
Horror and/or comedy fans trust me when I say do not waste your time on this one!
Fan Expo vs. Comicon (2021)
Disappointing
So after tons of tedious clips of people saying "it's great to be here!" the answer to this documentary's central question is "both are good?" That is such a cheap copout. I get that both are good in different ways and maybe they appeal to different people for their own reasons, but the director does not go into any depth at all.
Frankly this entire movie (90% or even more of the screen time) is just clips from over the many years of Fan Expo, of celebrity guests saying how great/fun/exciting it is to be at Fan Expo.
Aside from one lengthy and boring monologue about the relative strengths and weaknesses of Fan Expo and Comicon, that amounts to nothing other than a pointless word salad by a man who I suspect to be the director himself, nobody at all in this movie actually takes a serious stab at the question "which is better?" The few people who he interviews about being at both Fan Expo and Comicon, all in the same boring location btw, also just say how great both are without ever sayiing which one is better. Not that he ever tries to make them, or even just asks!
The movie points out that Fan Expo is bigger and actually owns Toronto Comicon, but doesn't dig into that at all. If you're comparing the two things and one of them literally owns the other, wouldn't that be an interesting and important thing to take a deeper look at?
Maybe, I don't know, talk to the owners and organizers of both conventions? Or at least just the staff?
The movie doesn't even make it clear that it is specifically about Fan Expo Canada in Toronto and the Toronto Comicon... you do realize that there are Fan Expos across North America and Comic-Cons around the globe every year, don't you? Did you bother doing any research at all before you made this documentary?
Focusing on Toronto's conventions is fine, but make it clear in the title. Or if you're looking at Fan Expo Vs. Comic-Cons in general, that's fine too, but you need to do a lot more investigation, and have a lot more interviews with actual meat on them instead of just using clips of people saying how great the convention they're at is.
Another problem I have is that the focus is almost entirely on Fan Expo with very little attention paid to Toronto Comicon at all. It seems like an afterthought. Most of the Comicon clips seem like they were all taken from the same walk through with the director simply saying hello to people and explaining what he is/we are looking at as we walk by.
Also it feels longer than 30 minutes. By that I mean the actual run time might be longer, I'm not doing a joke about how boring it is. In fact, aside from that long monologue that doesn't actually say anything meaningful, the clips are well edited and quick. Short enough that it kept me interested even though they were almost entirely irrelevant to the "Fan Expo Vs. Comicon" point. It's just fun seeing Fan Expo celebrities talk about how much they love seeing us fans one after another.
The documentary fails at taking an in depth look at the question it asks and really cops out by saying "they're both good in their own way", so I feel that it kind of wasted my time on that level. But the clips are well edited, fast and fun enough that it never gets boring, and there's lots of celebrities to see. It keeps positive, shows a lot of fans having fun, and delivers about all I could expect from an independent Youtube documentary made up mostly of clips.
Silo (2023)
Great, Smart Sci-Fi Series
Silo is a very good sci-fi show that has that rarity that is so sadly missing from most other sci-fi series and movies - it is actually very smart!
The writing is excellent, it's well directed and the stars are all great in the acting department. Some of the supporting and lower characters could have been better but all in all this was a job well done by the casting department.
I do understand why some of the other reviews seem to point out that the show starts great but then goes off on too many "side adventures" unrelated to the main story, that don't get resolved, but I am actually completely fine with that. I'm sure the show will be back and that they plan to continue and resolve the various storylines.
I for one am very eager to see how they tie everything in together when it comes back!
Chernobyl (2019)
Brilliant On All Fronts!
I don't really have a single bad thing to say about this mini-series, even trying to find something to nitpick about to try to bring it down from a 10 to a 9 on IMDb's scorecard, I'm coming up blank. It really is that good, frankly nearly perfect as a series overall.
The acting is top notch. Jared Harris absolutely steals the show but other actors are superb in their performances as well... I'm looking at you, Stelland Skarsgard and Emily Watson! The other leads and even the supporting characters are great, so whoever cast this did a top notch job. I hope they, and especially Harris, took home great big piles of awards for this one.
The direction and cinematography are also fantastic. It has a very bleak and haunting look and tells the story very well visually. It never drags, never feels rushed, always feels just right. Hats off to the writers as well. Again I have nothign bad to say about this one! No spoilers here, just watch it and see for yourself. Just be prepared to get a little sad!
The Third Man (1949)
Superb!
This is one of those movies that is very difficult to find any fault with whatsoever. The writing (from Graham Greene to Orson Welles) is pitch perfect, and the cast (also including Welles, but costarring his frequent collaborator Joseph Cotton among others) is just incredible as well.
Also famous for its fabulous cinematography and a score that sets the tone and the mood, The Third Man is one of the greatest classics of the 1940s-1950s filmmaking era.
I can see a lot of other ratings here and the film is obviously highly regarded by film critics, still to this very day. So it surprises me that more casual film fans aren't aware of this masterpiece.
This is definitely a "must watch" for any fan of classic films.
Happy viewing!
Il grande duello (1972)
A Solid Western
Of the many westerns Lee Van Cleef starred in over his career, The Grand Duel is not at or near the top but it is better than the average and is quite a good and interesting watch.
The action is solid, the script is of good quality, and the acting is suprisingly good even aside from Van Cleef himself. I'm also a fan of the music in this. It's very similar to a lot of other westerns of the time obviously but there's something just a little "extra" about it that I can't quite put my finger on. There's also quite a bit of very interesting and unique camera work in this, which another review has already pointed out.
If you're a fan of Van Cleef's other westerns you'll enjoy this one too. Quite good if not great!