From what I understand, as someone who didn't care for the original, the thing that rates the Terrifier sequels higher for fans is that they actually have a plot to go along with the violence.
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
A ★★★ review of Moloch (2022)
“It was not his fault. He was only listening.” This film follows a woman named Bietrik (Sally Harmsen), who has moved into her family home in a peat bog with her daughter Hannah (Noor van der Velden), her mother (Markoesa Hamer), and her father (Ad van Kempen). Elsewhere in the bog, a man named...
letterboxd.com
A ★★★★ review of Vicious Fun (2020)
“Gentlemen, we are going to have a lot of fun tonight.” This film follows a horror reviewer for the magazine Vicious Fanatic named Joel (Evan Marsh) who spends his time dissing horror directors for their lack of creativity and trying to get "un-friend zoned" by his roommate Sarah (Alexa Rose...
letterboxd.com
Suspiria (2018)
Remake of the Italian horror classic of the same name by Dario Argento from 1977, directed by Argento's countryman Luca Guadagnino, now better known for relationship dramas like Call Me By Your Name and Challengers.
The original 1977 version of Suspiria was a simplistic but heavily stylized gothic tale of an American ballerina joining a German dance school which turns out to be the base of operation for a sinister coven of witches. It was very straight forward but it had extremely striking visuals and an extremely striking soundtrack, in short it looked and felt unique, between the expressionist set designs, colourful lighting and funky prog rock soundtrack courtesy of Italian group Goblin.
Guadagnino reimagines Suspiria, originally just under 90 minutes, as a 2h 30m brick that, with all due respect, I think is best described as "boring and pretentious". There's a certain ambition there but it really wasn't paying off for me.
So, Guadagnino's Suspiria is set in a divided and austere 70's West Berlin overshadowed by the paranoia around the terrorist attacks of the RAF, a radical leftist guerilla group. Once again, we follow an American dancer played by Dakota Johnson as she joins a dance academy (although instead of ballet it's some hip, and dreadful, experimental style of dance utilized for ecstatic rituals) which belongs to a secret society of witches. Which this version never even treats as a mystery, it's very forward about the secret coven and has a subplot about its internal power struggles.
It's one of those things that, I will say, could theoretically have been good. when it was described to me I expected something like Andrzej Żuławski's bizarre horror classic Possession but Suspiria is instead a drawn out exercise in mildly uncomfortable drudgery and not in a purposeful way. I don't necessarily dislike the stark, brutalist and monochrome visual style but that, along with its meandering plot, drawn out scenes and droning Thom Yorke score makes for a movie that's just not pleasant or engaging to watch.
Suspiria tries to graft so many attempts at social commentary and drama onto the originals rather thin premise, none of which properly stick, no matter how much the movie insists on them. There's so many weird, half realized plot lines about division and radicalization and national guilt in there that I was waiting for to coalesce in a meaningful way but never felt they did. The movie more just slowly trickles along to a setpiece climax that, like all the movies other setpieces, has been done better and grittier in other movies and, like every potentially memorable scene in the movie, is undermined by a score that sounds like the musical equivalent of erectile dysfunction. Real talk? I don't care for Radiohead very much. The originals soundtrack is a tough act to follow, but Jesus...
Is there anything I liked about it? Yeah, Tilda Swinton's performance. She plays three characters in this, one of them an elderly German man and my god, I never could have told. Part of it is costume and make-up, sure, but the actual performance is just as convincing. Especially in the movie's very opening where she's opposite Chloe Moretz violently mangling the German language (To be fair, I think the character she was playing was supposed to be a non native speaker. At least I hope so) you'd never guess that that character is played by an englishwoman. If there's anything positive I took away from the movie it's this performance.
Because, frankly, there wasn't much else. I think Suspiria (2018) represents art house horror at its least enjoyable. Dour, overly long, throwing around themes but struggling to fit them into the actual narrative. Just an all around dry and plodding affair weighed down by almost every other scene going on for twice as long as it reasonably should. Long story short, I didn't like it.
Remake of the Italian horror classic of the same name by Dario Argento from 1977, directed by Argento's countryman Luca Guadagnino, now better known for relationship dramas like Call Me By Your Name and Challengers.
The original 1977 version of Suspiria was a simplistic but heavily stylized gothic tale of an American ballerina joining a German dance school which turns out to be the base of operation for a sinister coven of witches. It was very straight forward but it had extremely striking visuals and an extremely striking soundtrack, in short it looked and felt unique, between the expressionist set designs, colourful lighting and funky prog rock soundtrack courtesy of Italian group Goblin.
Guadagnino reimagines Suspiria, originally just under 90 minutes, as a 2h 30m brick that, with all due respect, I think is best described as "boring and pretentious". There's a certain ambition there but it really wasn't paying off for me.
So, Guadagnino's Suspiria is set in a divided and austere 70's West Berlin overshadowed by the paranoia around the terrorist attacks of the RAF, a radical leftist guerilla group. Once again, we follow an American dancer played by Dakota Johnson as she joins a dance academy (although instead of ballet it's some hip, and dreadful, experimental style of dance utilized for ecstatic rituals) which belongs to a secret society of witches. Which this version never even treats as a mystery, it's very forward about the secret coven and has a subplot about its internal power struggles.
It's one of those things that, I will say, could theoretically have been good. when it was described to me I expected something like Andrzej Żuławski's bizarre horror classic Possession but Suspiria is instead a drawn out exercise in mildly uncomfortable drudgery and not in a purposeful way. I don't necessarily dislike the stark, brutalist and monochrome visual style but that, along with its meandering plot, drawn out scenes and droning Thom Yorke score makes for a movie that's just not pleasant or engaging to watch.
Suspiria tries to graft so many attempts at social commentary and drama onto the originals rather thin premise, none of which properly stick, no matter how much the movie insists on them. There's so many weird, half realized plot lines about division and radicalization and national guilt in there that I was waiting for to coalesce in a meaningful way but never felt they did. The movie more just slowly trickles along to a setpiece climax that, like all the movies other setpieces, has been done better and grittier in other movies and, like every potentially memorable scene in the movie, is undermined by a score that sounds like the musical equivalent of erectile dysfunction. Real talk? I don't care for Radiohead very much. The originals soundtrack is a tough act to follow, but Jesus...
Is there anything I liked about it? Yeah, Tilda Swinton's performance. She plays three characters in this, one of them an elderly German man and my god, I never could have told. Part of it is costume and make-up, sure, but the actual performance is just as convincing. Especially in the movie's very opening where she's opposite Chloe Moretz violently mangling the German language (To be fair, I think the character she was playing was supposed to be a non native speaker. At least I hope so) you'd never guess that that character is played by an englishwoman. If there's anything positive I took away from the movie it's this performance.
Because, frankly, there wasn't much else. I think Suspiria (2018) represents art house horror at its least enjoyable. Dour, overly long, throwing around themes but struggling to fit them into the actual narrative. Just an all around dry and plodding affair weighed down by almost every other scene going on for twice as long as it reasonably should. Long story short, I didn't like it.
Last edited:
Don't Move (2024)
You know, theres something nice about a film with no aspirations. A film thats not a sequel, prequel, homage. Not trying to showcase anything or do anything different or say anything. Don't Move harkens back to Hitchcock era "thrillers". Theres not enough of those. Films whos focus is just doing it right.
The premise is painfully simple - Lady gets drugged by a serial killer and has 20 minutes (give or take) to escape before she becomes catatonic. Ill spoil it right now and tell you the film is not twenty minutes in hot cuts. Theres a lot of twists and turns. The logic works well. I liked all the characters. I really enjoyed how the film just focuses on making the audience empathetic. You the viewer tightening you fists reactively to verify you can feel them has she struggles to control hers.
Don't Move is a breezy hour thirty minute thrill ride thats an easy recommendation. 7.5/10. Its not something Ill rush out to watch again but it was a very enjoyable time sink.
*actually skip the trailer it shows too much.
You know, theres something nice about a film with no aspirations. A film thats not a sequel, prequel, homage. Not trying to showcase anything or do anything different or say anything. Don't Move harkens back to Hitchcock era "thrillers". Theres not enough of those. Films whos focus is just doing it right.
The premise is painfully simple - Lady gets drugged by a serial killer and has 20 minutes (give or take) to escape before she becomes catatonic. Ill spoil it right now and tell you the film is not twenty minutes in hot cuts. Theres a lot of twists and turns. The logic works well. I liked all the characters. I really enjoyed how the film just focuses on making the audience empathetic. You the viewer tightening you fists reactively to verify you can feel them has she struggles to control hers.
Don't Move is a breezy hour thirty minute thrill ride thats an easy recommendation. 7.5/10. Its not something Ill rush out to watch again but it was a very enjoyable time sink.
*actually skip the trailer it shows too much.
Trap
Shyamalan said this was inspired by 'Operation Flagship', but my headcanon is that he took his daughter to a pop concert and was so bored out of his mind he started writing the movie in his head: what if a serial killer was chaperoning his daughter at an event devised as a [TITLE DROP] to catch him?
Disappointingly that's just the first half of the movie. There's a surprise second half where you think the movie ends, kind of like discovering a fake wall, but there's nothing interesting behind it.
Josh Hartnett plays the lead. He's entertaining and more or less survives the Shyamalanization of his acting chops, which requires actors saying things their characters would never say, at times when they would never speak, to people they would never address. He plays someone who seems to be simultaneously very resourceful and very stupid. Seems to me that nothing would be more effective than simply waiting for the concert to end and then leaving like everybody else; this guy takes so many unnecessary risks and draws so much attention to himself it's a wonder he'd be 12 victims into his serial killing.
The popstar is played by M. Night's daughter (no, the other one) and she performs a whopping fourteen songs throughout the movie that she wrote herself. There's a very naked veneer of "I'm gonna make you a star" to the character that reminded me of Jaden Smith in After Earth, although to be fair Saleka plays a generic, mononymous, wannabe starlet pretty convincingly.
Shyamalan said this was inspired by 'Operation Flagship', but my headcanon is that he took his daughter to a pop concert and was so bored out of his mind he started writing the movie in his head: what if a serial killer was chaperoning his daughter at an event devised as a [TITLE DROP] to catch him?
Disappointingly that's just the first half of the movie. There's a surprise second half where you think the movie ends, kind of like discovering a fake wall, but there's nothing interesting behind it.
Josh Hartnett plays the lead. He's entertaining and more or less survives the Shyamalanization of his acting chops, which requires actors saying things their characters would never say, at times when they would never speak, to people they would never address. He plays someone who seems to be simultaneously very resourceful and very stupid. Seems to me that nothing would be more effective than simply waiting for the concert to end and then leaving like everybody else; this guy takes so many unnecessary risks and draws so much attention to himself it's a wonder he'd be 12 victims into his serial killing.
The popstar is played by M. Night's daughter (no, the other one) and she performs a whopping fourteen songs throughout the movie that she wrote herself. There's a very naked veneer of "I'm gonna make you a star" to the character that reminded me of Jaden Smith in After Earth, although to be fair Saleka plays a generic, mononymous, wannabe starlet pretty convincingly.
No Internet, but I got a mobile hotspot set up. Can't stream anything, but if I own a movie, I can at least hop on to review it.
letterboxd.com
A ★★★★★ review of The Phantom of the Opera (1925)
“Look not upon my mask. Think, instead, of the devotion which has brought you the gift of song.” For the sake of transparency, I watched the 1929 theatrical release of this movie. It apparently cut out quite a few scenes, but also added in a Technicolor ballroom scene. This film, after...
letterboxd.com
Stephen King's It (1990), 4/10
This is the miniseries version of the story that has Tim Curry in it, and until 2017 the only adaptation of it. It has now joined David Lynch's Dune and Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings in the category of "adaptations that a newer one made obsolete". It's not a total waste: Tim Curry is a riot as always, the kid actors are actually pretty great and sell the feeling of being friends, and there's a sort of goofy, carnival horror feel to it at times. I also vastly prefer Tim Curry's look as Pennywise to Bill Skarsgård, because Curry looks much friendlier, hence when the horror starts there's a much more effective contrast. Skarsgård looks like a straight up horror clown right from the word go, which lessens that impact.
But man, just about everything else I only went "yeah, they did that better in the 2017 version". It's incredibly boring, the production values or the adult acting are not that great, it's weirdly paced, and it being a more faithful adaptation in certain terms only ends up exposing the flaws in King's storytelling more IMO. The kitchen sink approach the book takes to its horror just doesn't work in a visual medium, or at the very least not with these production values. First it's a killer clown, then it's a bunch of different classic horror monsters, then it's some sort of mysterious, eldritch presence that affects the whole town, and finally it's all of those and a giant dumb looking spider. It feels like the story is being made up as it goes along, which I suppose works better in book form thanks to King's masterful prose (haven't read it myself, just going off general consensus), but in the miniseries it just feels disjointed and messy.
It ends up feeling more like a massive, overly self-serious episode of a show like Are you afraid of the dark than something I'd be able to take seriously. The first act smashing between the past and present, and the balloons showing up at random to signal Pennywise's arrival resemble more Monty Python -esque running gags than something genuinely compelling. The way the Pennywise sequences just show up reminded me a lot of the 2005 shooter F.E.A.R, where the horror sequences are signposted so blatantly and are so separate from the core experience that the movie feels like it's flipping between different channels.
I did see part 1 of the new version when it came out, and roughly 20 minutes of chapter 2, and the sheer filmmaking prowess the new version has over the old is like night and day. Of course the difference between budgets and graphic content are lightyears apart, but it only serves to highlight how this story needs to be R-rated. But it's not just production values: the use of lighting, music and the cinematography are so, so much more engaging in the new version it feels straight up unfair to even compare them. The newer version is also far more tonally consistent. The 1990 version has Tim Curry and he is a blast to watch, but his hamming it up feels completely out of kilter with how serious the rest of the movie tries to be. Bill Skarsgård hams it up big time as well, but his approach makes Pennywise feel more like a gleeful sadist, whereas Curry's performance is like an over the top troll who's just being annoying on purpose.
So yeah, not a good one. It's got some unintentional humor and Tim Curry, but the rest is just a slog.
This is the miniseries version of the story that has Tim Curry in it, and until 2017 the only adaptation of it. It has now joined David Lynch's Dune and Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings in the category of "adaptations that a newer one made obsolete". It's not a total waste: Tim Curry is a riot as always, the kid actors are actually pretty great and sell the feeling of being friends, and there's a sort of goofy, carnival horror feel to it at times. I also vastly prefer Tim Curry's look as Pennywise to Bill Skarsgård, because Curry looks much friendlier, hence when the horror starts there's a much more effective contrast. Skarsgård looks like a straight up horror clown right from the word go, which lessens that impact.
But man, just about everything else I only went "yeah, they did that better in the 2017 version". It's incredibly boring, the production values or the adult acting are not that great, it's weirdly paced, and it being a more faithful adaptation in certain terms only ends up exposing the flaws in King's storytelling more IMO. The kitchen sink approach the book takes to its horror just doesn't work in a visual medium, or at the very least not with these production values. First it's a killer clown, then it's a bunch of different classic horror monsters, then it's some sort of mysterious, eldritch presence that affects the whole town, and finally it's all of those and a giant dumb looking spider. It feels like the story is being made up as it goes along, which I suppose works better in book form thanks to King's masterful prose (haven't read it myself, just going off general consensus), but in the miniseries it just feels disjointed and messy.
It ends up feeling more like a massive, overly self-serious episode of a show like Are you afraid of the dark than something I'd be able to take seriously. The first act smashing between the past and present, and the balloons showing up at random to signal Pennywise's arrival resemble more Monty Python -esque running gags than something genuinely compelling. The way the Pennywise sequences just show up reminded me a lot of the 2005 shooter F.E.A.R, where the horror sequences are signposted so blatantly and are so separate from the core experience that the movie feels like it's flipping between different channels.
I did see part 1 of the new version when it came out, and roughly 20 minutes of chapter 2, and the sheer filmmaking prowess the new version has over the old is like night and day. Of course the difference between budgets and graphic content are lightyears apart, but it only serves to highlight how this story needs to be R-rated. But it's not just production values: the use of lighting, music and the cinematography are so, so much more engaging in the new version it feels straight up unfair to even compare them. The newer version is also far more tonally consistent. The 1990 version has Tim Curry and he is a blast to watch, but his hamming it up feels completely out of kilter with how serious the rest of the movie tries to be. Bill Skarsgård hams it up big time as well, but his approach makes Pennywise feel more like a gleeful sadist, whereas Curry's performance is like an over the top troll who's just being annoying on purpose.
So yeah, not a good one. It's got some unintentional humor and Tim Curry, but the rest is just a slog.
Another re-review, but one I thought was quite fitting for the season.
letterboxd.com
A ★★★½ review of The Black Cauldron (1985)
"I'm not afraid of the Horned King." "Then you are a very foolish lad. Untried courage is no match for his evil. Just remember that." Out of all the Disney animated productions, this film may well have the most troubled. Pre-production on the film, based on the Chronicles of Prydain series...
letterboxd.com
Killer Heat
What a boring movie. It's based on a short story by Jo Nesbo, one of those airport novel hacks who writes detective stuff (he wrote The Snowman). "Killer Heat" sounds like a Redbox original starring Van Damme. It's actually an extremely morose, low blood sugar affair about a disgraced PI investigating an accidental death - or was it - at a mildly picturesque Greek island.
Joseph Gordon Levitt stars as the PI, with a narration to rival Harrison Ford's infamous Blade Runner voiceover in terms of its banality and disinterest ("If you hit me, I'm gonna hit you back"). He's been hired by a woman to look into the death of her brother in law, her husband's identical twin. The woman and the husband, plus one local cop, are basically the only other characters in the movie. All three of them keep having the same scene over and over with JGL, warning him for different reasons about the risk of continuing his investigation.
The story is completely lacking in urgency or tension or anything remotely of interest. We keep cutting to flashbacks where the PI is jealous of his wife, which is just one more thing to not give a shit about.
What a boring movie. It's based on a short story by Jo Nesbo, one of those airport novel hacks who writes detective stuff (he wrote The Snowman). "Killer Heat" sounds like a Redbox original starring Van Damme. It's actually an extremely morose, low blood sugar affair about a disgraced PI investigating an accidental death - or was it - at a mildly picturesque Greek island.
Joseph Gordon Levitt stars as the PI, with a narration to rival Harrison Ford's infamous Blade Runner voiceover in terms of its banality and disinterest ("If you hit me, I'm gonna hit you back"). He's been hired by a woman to look into the death of her brother in law, her husband's identical twin. The woman and the husband, plus one local cop, are basically the only other characters in the movie. All three of them keep having the same scene over and over with JGL, warning him for different reasons about the risk of continuing his investigation.
The story is completely lacking in urgency or tension or anything remotely of interest. We keep cutting to flashbacks where the PI is jealous of his wife, which is just one more thing to not give a shit about.
Transformers One
Aside from the movie benefitting from not featuring any humans and being animated, I think this movie has so much going for it. My favorite aspect, which probably was the main driving force of this movie, is the relationship between Orion Pax and D-16. We all know they eventually become sworn enemies, which is what makes the movie all the more tragic. They are more than friends, they are brothers, and you see them slowly begin to drift apart.
And I like this iteration of their relationship the most. IIRC, for the longest time it was the whole "Megatron and his Decepticons got tired of the current leadership so he betrayed and started a war" schtick. Megatron and Optimus knew each other before, but never had deep connection like this.
I don't remember where this brotherhood origin started (I think with the Transformers Prime series?), but them having personal relationship makes their fall out all the more tragic. There is a scene where D-16 clearly still has some part of him that cares for Orion, but his rage takes over.
For a movie that was geared towards younger audience, it was a surprisingly deep film. Yes, it starts all whimsical and dialogs can be cheesy, but man it was so worth watching things slowly crumbling down. Didn't care for the Elita-1 or Bumblebee tho. Honestly they are fine to be part of the party, but I also think the movie would've worked if it was just Orion and D-16.
With this movie, I do hope more ANIMATED Transformers movies gets made, especially telling rich stories like this
Aside from the movie benefitting from not featuring any humans and being animated, I think this movie has so much going for it. My favorite aspect, which probably was the main driving force of this movie, is the relationship between Orion Pax and D-16. We all know they eventually become sworn enemies, which is what makes the movie all the more tragic. They are more than friends, they are brothers, and you see them slowly begin to drift apart.
And I like this iteration of their relationship the most. IIRC, for the longest time it was the whole "Megatron and his Decepticons got tired of the current leadership so he betrayed and started a war" schtick. Megatron and Optimus knew each other before, but never had deep connection like this.
I don't remember where this brotherhood origin started (I think with the Transformers Prime series?), but them having personal relationship makes their fall out all the more tragic. There is a scene where D-16 clearly still has some part of him that cares for Orion, but his rage takes over.
For a movie that was geared towards younger audience, it was a surprisingly deep film. Yes, it starts all whimsical and dialogs can be cheesy, but man it was so worth watching things slowly crumbling down. Didn't care for the Elita-1 or Bumblebee tho. Honestly they are fine to be part of the party, but I also think the movie would've worked if it was just Orion and D-16.
With this movie, I do hope more ANIMATED Transformers movies gets made, especially telling rich stories like this
A ★★½ review of Evilspeak (1981)
“I command you, Prince of Evil, heed my call. Give life to the instruments of my retribution.” This film follows Stanley Coopersmith (Clint Howard). He is a cadet at a cross between a religious academy and a military school, which seems to go against the whole "separation of church and state"...
letterboxd.com
Gladiator, the first Russel Crowe one. We watched it to prepare for the sequel, which has been seeing some positive reviews.
Honestly? We were disappointed. The acting was good and the sets looked great, but the action scenes were just shakey cam galore. It's also an incredibly long movie, and it didn't feel like it needed to be.
We were shocked to learn that it won 5 Oscars. Competition must not have been fierce that year.
Honestly? We were disappointed. The acting was good and the sets looked great, but the action scenes were just shakey cam galore. It's also an incredibly long movie, and it didn't feel like it needed to be.
We were shocked to learn that it won 5 Oscars. Competition must not have been fierce that year.
So, what you are saying is, you were not entertained.
I thought it was pretty good. I'm not really the type to notice soundtracks though, unless they're really in your face.
@Xprimentyl, I saw Venom: Last Dance with my older brother........
WE LOVE IT!
I really have nothing else to say. I am still getting my thoughts together, but this might be the best film of the entire solo Venom franchise. The movie takes on a much more darker/somber tone in the latter half. The action scenes in these movies just keep better, and this is the most brutal Venom movie in the franchise. This is a hard PG-13 of the old days. A lot of deaths here are brutal and not exactly clean. So those complaining about these films not being "brutal/violent enough" got their wish. I'll be getting the Steelbook case for this when it hits Blu-ray. I saw The Last Dance at the MJR's Epic Screening. The equivalent of IMAX. Totally worth it.
WE LOVE IT!
There's gonna be a Venom 4!
I really have nothing else to say. I am still getting my thoughts together, but this might be the best film of the entire solo Venom franchise. The movie takes on a much more darker/somber tone in the latter half. The action scenes in these movies just keep better, and this is the most brutal Venom movie in the franchise. This is a hard PG-13 of the old days. A lot of deaths here are brutal and not exactly clean. So those complaining about these films not being "brutal/violent enough" got their wish. I'll be getting the Steelbook case for this when it hits Blu-ray. I saw The Last Dance at the MJR's Epic Screening. The equivalent of IMAX. Totally worth it.
Last edited:
I have now watched my first Portuguese movie.
letterboxd.com
A ★★★½ review of Skull: The Mask (2020)
“It is a mask, not the Devil.” This film features a mask that looks like a skull. There is a bit of a twist to this mask, however, in that whoever wears it gets possessed by a pre-Columbian god named Anhanga, and let's just say that he is much less of a prankster than Loki, being more about...
letterboxd.com