I can appreciate the homage to horror flicks of the 90’s (I know what you did last summer, scream etc) and 70’s/80’s with part II (particularly Friday the 13th part 2, the town that dreaded sundown, sleepaway camp) and whatnot
Buuuuut the film’s feel as if they’re meant for kids whilst simultaneously being totally inappropriate for the demographic they’re aimed towards. I’m glad they’re gory (hence why they aren’t appropriate for the demographic they’re targeted towards), but they feel like edgy teen movies dealing with edgy teen problems…
Some of the character decisions pivotal to the plot in the first film threw me way off.
(Spoilers)
When the one girl decides to OD in order to survive and the other character is like “take this at this time as it does this, then that at that time then this at these exact specific times otherwise it won’t work correctly”… It totally threw me off, I’m like “tHaT’s nOt hOw ThAt WoRkS”. You can’t just take a bunch of pills and die within a few minutes of taking them unless it’s like… Cyanide, in which case a defibrillator + injectable epinephrine isn’t going to bring you back.
If they DID bring her back using this and she overdosed from say… A massive dose of Vicodin or something (if I recall that’s what the one girl was selling), she’d die again the second the epinephrine wore off, so within 20 minutes she’d be dead again.
Shit like this makes me think “who wrote this”
Never got around to watching the third one, I’d rather just watch Friday the 13th part II again…
Took my daughters to see Boss Baby: The Family Business in theaters yesterday. Not a bad film. Funny at times with some hidden adult humor sprinkled in. The movie is focused on the dad, which is a nice change of pace in family films.
Rewatched all 3 John Wick films over the last couple days.
Firstly, I love these films. So much. I’ve watched the first one countless times and love it every time.
John Wick gets a solid 9/10 from me. Some of the dialogue is bizarre and awkward, but that’s part of its charm. I love the lack of forced exposition; there’s a world of assassins and rules that govern them, but at no point is it really explained, it’s just there, which makes it feel so much more real. The fight scenes are all beautiful.
John Wick Chapter 2 gets a lower score. 8/10. John develops a bit too much plot armour in this one, and starts run-n-gunning it more than before, with a few too many moments of “how the fuck did they not shoot him already?” Still love the fights though, and again the lack of exposition is beautiful.
John Wick Chapter 3: Parabellum further drops to a 7/10. Plot armour is in full swing here, especially in the Morocco setting. There were SO many moments where both he and Sofia (Halle Berry’s character) should’ve been shot or stabbed, and it became far more obvious where the stuntmen paused or set them up for takedowns, with a couple of glaringly obvious parts where they’re literally just standing there. However, the two dogs ripping guys crotches apart was so much fun. The NY Continental fight was also hella fun.
I also noticed, after @dt79 pointed it out, just how many subtly hilarious parts there were throughout all three films, and the fact that they definitely don’t take themselves all that seriously.
The scene at the end where the boyfriend kisses Vince Vaughan, since she’s still in his body, so despite it technically being “her”, the guy is making out with a yellow-toothed middle aged man in the back of a car? That was horrifying, haha. But, as I said - it was the point of the scene.
Steven Soderberg has almost as many hits as he has misses but it’s always fascinating just watching how he tells a story. This would be one of his hits. I don’t know how to describe it. It’s like I look at movies by moderately competent directors like the guy who made A Quiet Place and sometimes I’m thinking “this scene is great” while most of the time I’m worried that another scene isn’t going to work or question his thought process when using certain angles etc.
I’m kinda like a back seat driver lol.
With Soderberg, I just sit back and let him take the wheel. The destination may suck. But you know you’re in good hands during the journey. And even if the journey is boring, looking out the window at the scenery is still cool since the driver is at least going to give you a smooth ride.
I can’t really give away much other than it’s sort of a heist film set in the 50s with several twists and turns. The cinematography is beautiful and the performances are great, even from the guy who played the new Hellboy. Plot is a little cliched because it’s a heist movie and I don’t think you can find one nowadays that isn’t but overall it’s still an entertaining watch.
Just enjoy the ride. And be thankful that real directors like Soderberg are still willing to take risks while making movies.
The scene wasn’t gross because it was two dudes kissing - besides making me feel mildly uncomfortable, that’s of zero offense to me. It was a middle aged, yellow-toothed serial killer making out with a teenage boy. Depending on what state you’re in, that’s literal rape, and it’s gross no matter how you slice it.
A teenage girl switched bodies from a magic spell with a middle aged man, but you’re going to choose to not like a scene in that movie because the lack of physical attraction is what’s unrealistic? How does THAT jump out as unrealistic to you in the context of a supernatural horror comedy?
I’m talking about the notion that the teenage boy would have never made out with the middle aged serial killer. The message was kind of “it’s still her, just in a different body”, and I was like “nope, nopenopenopenope.”
I mean, I know, I just think it’s funny to pick that aspect out of a scene where somebody’s body has been switched by magic and say “well that’s just unrealistic.”
A few posts up I complained about a scene in fear street part 1 being unrealistic… but the movie is about a witch that possesses people from time to time in the fictional town of “Shadyside”.
Sure, the entire plot of freaky is unrealistic; it’s supernatural comedy horror. But there’s fantasy and then theres weird woke Hollywood nonsense. That one scene in freaky crossed the boundary towards the latter for no good reason.
It was for a reason, it just wasn’t for the reason you said. I know the concept is that it’s still her in there, but they didn’t put that in the movie to show the beauty inside of people, they did it to make people uncomfortable and grossed out. It was a gag meant to poke fun at the ‘beauty is inside’ mantra, IMO. Not virtue signaling.
They already did that shit in Ghost but it was a lot more subtle than what you guys are describing. That was like 30 years ago. I think I was 11 and even I realized what was going on. The censors here were too dumb to understand what was happening.
Which male/female in the world wants to make out with Whoopi Goldberg LMAO?
Not to say a commentary about systemic misogyny doesn’t have the potential to be good, nor is a move about such topic matter woke… Bombshell was very good… but the way it’s done here was trash, and had nothing to do with the plot of Black Christmas (1974 and 2006 remake).
It was almost as if they made a bad pg-13 quasi slasher film, slapped on the “Black Christmas” label, added some commentary about rape culture within college (but badly conveyed the message as there was a supernatural element towards it… therefore were the men culpable for their actions or just possessed and thus legitimately not in control?) for marketing purposes and released it.
This accurately outlines my criticisms of the movie. All male characters were either killers or rapists; no characters were likeable, character development was abysmal. Total lack of graphic violence etc
I did. That was only because I thought Oliva Hussey was hot. Can’t remember much of it. Skipped the remake. Not really a fan of slashers. I generally avoid them unless I think they’re going to be hilariously bad. Rob Zombie’s Halloween remake didn’t disappoint.
Black Christmas wasn’t really a traditional slasher. The mainstream “slasher” was pioneered through halloween (1978)
Though before halloween films that meet “slasher” criteria but didn’t adhere to the mainstream set of rules within horror films. First there was psycho (60), then peeping tom (60)… then giallo films like blood and black lace (64), a bay of blood (71), the bird with the crystal plumage (69), deep red (75) etc, then Torso (73), TCM (74), Black Christmas (74), then the town that dreaded sundown (76)… THEN came halloween (78), Friday the 13th (80) (que endless stream of generic 80’s slashers)
There were also porno/grindhouse horror films like forced entry (1973) and wet wilderness (1976) that one could consider a “slasher” but… I don’t, I consider it exploitative shock cinema shot on a shoestring budget that was designed to disturb (or arouse sick people). The first film is about a Vietnam war veteran with PTSD who cracks and goes on a killing spree (how erotic!), the second is about… actually I’m not gonna get into that one.
Tell me if I’ve gotten any dates wrong, I’m going off the top of my head
The slasher film died out by the time the 90’s came around. After a six year hiatus scream came out (1996) and the genre came back to blockbuster cinema. Scream took a unique spin on the horror/slasher genre with it’s meta commentary/self aware humour. This allowed the genre to enjoy a quasi revival up until around 2010 with remakes, crossovers (Freddy v Jason) and a few unique cult hits like venom (2006), thankskilling (killer turkey B movie 2008), hostel (2005), the hills run red (2009) etc.