Reviewing media such as games and movies, from a wide variety of genres based on my wildly fluctuating moods and interest. CURRENT FOCUS: Android mobile games. More Roblox reviews coming soon.
Director: Justin G. Dyck Writer: Patrick McBrearty Starring: Emily Alatalo, Andrew Bushell, Franco Lo Presti, and Genelle Williams
It’s the holiday season, which
means it’s about time to decorate the tree, listen to festive music, drink hot
chocolate, and of course, cuddle up in front of the television to watch some
horrible Christmas movies! Which one would get the honors of kicking off the
2020 season for us? It was a rather lengthy process, but we decided to skip the
more popular recent releases to find one that sounded so absolutely awful that
it had a greater chance of dampening our Christmas spirit, rather than heightening
it.
And that one we settled on was Christmas Catch, about a
rather inept female police detective nicknamed Mack (short for McKenzie), who is literally ordered
by the FBI to date a man suspected of stealing a valuable jewel (when was this
story written, the 1920’s?) Considering she’s desperate for Mr. Right (we’re
talking “desperate” to a level almost unmatched by any other Christmas movie
character in history), she revels at the chance—but then starts to question her
motives when she genuinely falls for him. Much of the common holiday romance
hijinx ensue in a story that should be mostly familiar to anyone who’s ever
seen one.
But Christmas Catch does have a couple tricks up its
yuletide sleeve, including a twist that I admit caught me totally off guard,
and that briefly takes the material into Lifetime mystery territory. It’s also
notable for allowing two main characters of the opposite sex to just be
friends: in this case it’s Mack and her partner Reid, an attractive, straight
male whom she is forced to live with while they stake out the suspected diamond
bandit. Not once are there ever romantic overtures from either, which is both unexpected and refreshing.
The performances are pretty good overall: Emily Alatalo has
acting chops to match her looks, and dominates the picture as Mack, the
bumbling detective-turned-dater. While much of her performance is standard fare,
she does have a couple of emotional breakdowns toward the end that are
startlingly realistic; so much so that
they almost feel out of place in an otherwise silly, lighthearted romp. Yanic
Truesdale, who many may remember as Michel Gerard, the hotel owner from a
little show called “Gilmore Girls”, also deserves some praise, delivering a
noteworthy performance within a limited amount of screentime.
It’s not all snowshowers and rainbows, though: Captain
Bennett, who is Mack’s boss, also happens to be her mother. She is one of those
insufferable mother characters so pervasive in these movies; so nosey in her
daughter’s life that it becomes creepy. The movie also milks jokes about Mack’s
hapless dating life well beyond the point of normalcy; it doesn’t ever come off
as cruel (mainly because she’s a good sport about the ribbing), but it’s a
pretty redundant topic for the first half-hour that thankfully dies down once
the story gets rolling. And Genelle Williams (as FBI Special Agent Robertson)
is completely miscast, failing to deliver the grit and confidence that her
character requires.
However, Christmas Catch actually defies those odds to
become an above-average example of the genre: it’s charming enough to overcome
most of its faults, tweaks the predictability formula enough to include some
genuine surprises, and actually features some genuinely funny moments. It takes
longer to get going than it should, but once it does, it’s a solid example of
the "holiday cheese" subgenre.
RATING: 6/10
TRAILER
SIDE NOTE OF PERTINENT INTEREST TO ME: The director of this, who's filmography reads like he's the son of the president of Hallmark, has completely broken mold, crafting a horror movie titled Anything for Jackson, about a Satanist couple who try to bring back their dead son...with horrifying consequences. Just tossing that out there, in case there are fellow lovers (or avid haters) of cheesy romance movies that also happen to love the horror genre.
Director: Ryan Spindell Writer: Spindell Starring: Clancy Brown, Caitlin Custer, Christine Kilmer, and Jacob Elordi
Anthologies are one of those things that tend to get a bad
rap, but are no worse than any other horror subgenre. Maybe that’s an
old-fashioned thought, because there have been quite a few lately that have
released to strong acclaim, but overall, they still seem like the red-headed
stepchild of the horror world.
As seems to be the case with the “modern” anthology, all of
the four story threads are interlinked by one underlying segment about an
undertaker whose normal day is interrupted by a young female looking for a job.
Or is she? Or is he? Unsurprisingly, nothing is what it seems…but then again,
this is a horror movie, so between that fact and the brief synopsis, we pretty
much know that going in.
In the “warm up” segment, a sea monster lives in someone’s
medicine cabinet. While this one is ultimately very pointless (it’s less than
ten minutes in length and has no narrative set up whatsoever), it does end up
being the best story of the bunch. Make of that what you will.
The second one concerns a handsome fraternity brother who
gets his kicks by sleeping with women. One day he meets a mysterious one who
seems to be his match, but it’s obvious that things aren’t right with her.
Before you know it, they meet at a party where they hit it off; before you know
it they’re getting down and dirty in an upstairs bedroom. She gives him a condom
to put on, but in true douchebag fashion, he fakes it—only to discover that was
the worst mistake of his life.
So, what happens to our poor lad? Does he get some kind of
deadly STD? Turn into some kind of monster, so that his physical appearance matches
his inner persona? No, no, you’re still way off; the reality is much, much
stupider than anything you could probably come up with, which certainly does
set a fitting tone for the remaining stories. I’m sure this story is getting
praised for reversing gender stereotypes, and having a womanizing man put in
his place, but a bad story is still a bad story, no matter who the perpetrator
is.
In the third one, a man who loves his wife is devastated by
the mounting debt and frustrations of caring for her after she suffers head
trauma in an accident. Looking for an easy way out, he is given some pills by
her caring physician, capable of putting her out of her misery. But things
don’t quite go as planned for the man, who is trapped with her body in a
malfunctioning elevator…
The fourth and final story is different in that it is told
not by the mortician, but by the woman visitor; if you didn’t suspect something
was up with her by now, the fact she’s telling a story of her own
is…well…telling. In it, she recounts the story of a child’s corpse (which, for
the squeamish out there, is never shown) and the role she played in it: she was
the babysitter the night the child was murdered. Her over-the-top battle with
the serial killer is the focus of this one, which ends with a twist that’s as
tired as it is rather impractical and uninteresting.
The last one has to deal with our mortician, as we learn his
true identity. What? He’s not what he seems to be? What? Neither is she? Wow,
could not see either of those things coming from the opening setup. Oh, wait…that
was it? That’s the reason we sat through the whole thing? Christ.
The stories are high in production quality but rather low in
entertainment value: the focus on laughs rather than chills gives it all a more
“lighthearted” feel that mostly just feels like a copout to the material.
There’s some rather dark subject matter at play here, such as child murders and
assisted suicides, but it’s all handled so sheepishly so that none of it has
any impact whatsoever. Seriously, if you have a story in which a child is
killed, and my wife is not the slightest bit affected, you have done something
completely wrong.
It's not that tackling these issues or obliterating taboos
is wrong; in fact, I quite support it (within reason). However, why make them
the focus when you’re too soft-hearted to go for the gut? These stories could
be just as impactful (which is to say, not at all) without the directors trying
to pretend that they’re edgier and more hardcore than they have any interest in
actually being; it’s like the schoolyard bully, who can talk a good game, but
then gets his ass kicked whenever someone steps up to face him.
I must say though, even as the stories failed to hold my
interest, the visuals stepped up; it’s not really flashy in its visual
approach, but it just…looks like a
legitimate movie. That might sound like a knock to the genre, but let’s be real
here, many horror movies are produced as kind of an afterthought; an easy
attempt to cash in on the teenaged audiences looking to cuddle up with their
boyfriends or girlfriends and have a good scare in the process. For being a
movie that went straight to video (or rather, straight to Shudder), this one
has all the quality of a big-budget studio movie. It looks like it belongs in a
theater; maybe that was the plan before the world took a turn to shit, but
regardless, this is a movie that looks like no expense was spared.
The acting is also a strong suit: I didn’t really find
myself caring for any of the characters, but that has nothing to do with the
actors themselves, who no doubt do as they were told to do. Again, it’s nice to
see that the horror genre seems to be gaining momentum with audiences. It used
to be that actors would take the roles for easy cash, knowing they could just
phone it in, and no one would really care.
Now, though, actors seem to be taking horror movie roles
because they want to; that might also have to do with horror’s recent trend of
giving female characters more to do than just bare their tits, or scream as
loud and high-pitched as they possibly can. Good for them. It’s a change that’s
long overdue, and one that should lead to even more positive attention shed on
a genre that’s certainly deserving of it.
Now if only the brunt of that attention could be focused on
movies that aren’t this one, that would be even better.
Director: Damien LeVeck Writer(s): LeVeck and Aaron Horwitz, from a story by Horwitz Starring: Ryan Guzman, Kyle Gallner, Alix Angelis, and Chris Lew Kum Hoi
Maybe it’s a little unfair, but nothing is more
disappointing than a movie sucking that you had high hopes for. Of course,
critique is supposedly all about being as unbiased as possible, but it’s
impossible to go into every single viewing with the same mindset: some movies
we know a lot about heading into it, while others we know nothing but the title.
Modern trailers are becoming an increasingly big factor—what once seemed to
exist to give the viewers a taste of what they could expect, modern trailers
seem to either give away too much, or to mislead people into believing they’re
getting something they’re not.
It was with excitement we sat down to a viewing of The Cleansing Hour, a Shudder original
film. Shudder originals, like anything else, can be hit or miss, but based on
the few I’ve seen, I’d say they have a higher success rate than other
companies: at the very least, they seem to have their finger on the pulse of
their fanbase. Unfortunately, The
Cleansing Hour is one of those “misses”—one where I spent almost the entire
final hour wishing for it to be over (sure, I could have just stopped it, but
where’s the honor in that?) It’s not nearly as clever as it thinks it is, nor is
it even remotely funny; it’s just a blending of several horror standards into
one equally clichéd monstrosity. It’s kind of like the film equivalent of
watching your best friend awkwardly try to hit on some girl you know you could
get: you just watch helplessly from afar, cringing at each stupid decision,
unable (or unwilling) to help him out because he’s in so deep, nothing could
dig him back out. You know full well nothing good will come of it, yet you’re
unable to look away.
Ryan Guzman is Max, a preacher who performs exorcisms on a
popular online video platform to thousands of adoring fans. His sidekick is Drew,
a lifelong friend who, along with his fiancé Lane, run the behind-the-scenes while
Max glows in the spotlight. It doesn’t take long to see why he’s so popular, as
he looks closer to a supermodel than a man of the cloth; it’s not surprising to
learn that he’s a hit with the ladies. It also doesn’t take much to see why Lanie
is quitting the show, and urging her soon-to-be-husband to do the same; he
seems to be too caught up in himself, and his own affairs, to consider anyone
else. Oh, and he’s also a fraud, something that is reiterated to us time and
time again, whether he’s setting up another elaborately staged exorcism, or
sleeping with one of the women following him around (so much for a vow of
celibacy, eh?)
Anyway, as you can also tell from the brief synopsis, things
go from bad to gradually worse: the actor in tonight’s exorcism is a no-call
no-show (actually attacked in an alley by a monster, I guess?), leaving the duo
scrambling to find a replacement. And that replacement is a reluctant Lanie,
who has no interest in performing in front of the camera on her last day. Alas,
true love prevails, as her fiancé coaxes her into doing it.
But things quickly go off the rails as Lane is actually
possessed by a demon, who holds the duo captive, and forces them to admit their
deepest secrets if they want to make it out alive. It all leads up to a
ridiculous CGI confrontation with an evil entity hellbent on destroying the
duo, all in the name of Satan!
If that sounds ridiculous, that’s because it is. If that
sounds good, well then I’m sorry for misrepresenting it.
I guess we have to give director Damien LeVeck credit for
ambition: the story spans several countries and tries to make social statements
about everything from televangelists to social media stars; the issue is, the
targets are already so well-known and overdone, that it all feels tired right
out of the gates. Pair that up with the standard exorcism staples (telekinesis,
vomiting, foul mouth, infinite knowledge…at least there’s no head spinning),
and you have a movie that tries to deliver way more than it comfortably can. Even
the “admit all your sins” approach the demon takes feels like a stale retread
of countless other films; it botches itself even further by offering no real
revelations worth a damn, instead making it all feel like the pointless waste
of time that it is. Wow, so he’s a fraud? We already know that from reading the
basic plot outline included in the marketing materials, or by watching the trailer.
There’s also some muck dredged up about a past relationship that is supposed to
be a bombshell revelation—but that merely comes across as a slight fizzle.
The one area where Cleansing
Hour excels are in the performances. Not all of them are good, but the main
cast deliver some solid chops that feel out of place here, given the oftentimes
amateurish material. Alix Angelis as Lane
steals the show—she’s required to strike a balance between aggressor and
victim, and manages to do so without looking stupid. That’s a pretty big feat. Ditto
that for Kyle Gallner as Drew, Lane’s boyfriend, who is forced to watch
helplessly from the sidelines as the unfortunate situation plays out right in
front of his very eyes.
Directors: Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman Writers: Dyson and Nyman, adapted from their own stage play Starring: Andy Nyman, Martin Freeman, Paul Whitehouse, and Alex Lawther
My wife and I were planning
on sitting down to a viewing of Ghost Stories one evening,
when she laid down a huge bombshell on me: she wanted to be terrified; a
movie that would scare the daylights out of her. While she's always
willing to watch whatever I want, she's not always willing to go that
far with it; I was psyched,
and—even though I'd heard this one was relatively scary—spent
over an hour looking for something that would scare her even
more--only to come up with nothing. So after all that wasted time, the night
went on as originally planned...
...which ended up being a good thing.
The
set-up of Ghost Stories
is almost as creepy as the stories themselves: Phillip Goodman is a
professor, and a skeptic, who runs a television show called “Psychic
Cheats”, in which he publicly outs popular “psychics” (think
that John Edward guy from the early 2000s). It's an honest living, I
suppose, until he gets a letter from his idol, a man by the name of
Charles Cameron. Cameron was the “original” naysayer, debunking
claims of the supernatural; his earlier works were the main
inspiration for Goodman to enter the same field.
The
meeting, however, does not go as planned: the crotchety old man
reveals that Goodman's work is “shit”, and that there really are
some stories that can't merely be explained away with science or
logic. He begs Goodman to investigate three stories of the
supernatural that he himself could not disprove; these three stories
make up the basis for the anthology.
I
don't really understand why anthology movies all of a sudden feel
like there needs to be a framing narrative around the whole thing,
because that usually ends up being the worst of the stories. Why
can't we just go back to the good ol' days, where each story in the
anthology was just that, with nothing to link or tie them together?
At any rate, that seems to be the current fad, and at least Ghost
Stories' framing device is
rather unique,while at the same time actually adding tension before
any of the tales are spun; after all, if the premiere naysayer can't
just discuss these stories away, how terrifying must they be?
“Case
1” concerns a former nightwatchman named Tony Matthews, who guards
a large, seemingly abandoned building. He worked at that particular
place for years, until one day, something seems hellbent on capturing
his attention. At first, it's just minor: the lights go out, the
generator mysteriously unplugged by someone. But as the night wears
on, the events seem to get more and more threatening: there are loud
noises heard, interference through his walkie talkie, and something
seems to be calling out to him. What could have been so scary that he
never went back to that job?
The
setting here is perfect, with long shots of him in his watch station
that show just how dark—and huge—the building is. And that's
actually the best part of Ghost Stories:
while the stories themselves aren't anything unique, the way they
build up tension out of “normal” movie cliches is pretty
impressive. We've seen dark buildings a million times before, but the
way the scene is established—along with that framing narrative that
hints we're in for something terrifying—really helps to effectively
set the mood before anything even happens. Our brains are already
programmed to be scared right from the outset; it's almost
psychological horror, in a way.
“Case
2” follows Simon Rifkind (the great Alex Lawther, from the great
Black Mirror episode “Shut Up and Dance”), a teenager who has
never been the same ever since seeing a mysterious goat-like creature
deep in the woods on his way home from a party one night.
Again,
the setting is familiar, and the story is completely threadbare, but
the lack of a long set-up and the filmmakers' grasp of what makes
things scary really helps keep things interesting. I mean, how many
characters in horror movies have been stranded in the woods by a car
that suddenly dies? But here, the desolate setting—along with
Simon's loneliness—really help to set the mood. It's familiar, but
not quite in the same way we're accustomed to, and that's what makes
it rather chilling. I will say that it ends on a somewhat humorous
note that die-hard horror fans might not appreciate (I'm not entirely
sold on it myself), but the build-up to it is creepy, to say the
least.
Lastly,
there's “Case 3”, who follows a distinguished looking gentleman
named Mike Priddle, who takes his wife to the hospital after she
experiences spotting late in her pregnancy. He returns home to do
some work—and quickly discovers that something seems to be reaching
out to him—from the room they set up to be their nursery.
Once
again, this one makes good use of the location--a sprawling mansion
that's far too big for two people—and that also preys on the fears
of parents, to create a story that had my wife burying her face in
blankets for most of it. It's yet another creepy tale that might end
up being the best in the lot, and that sets up the film's most
shocking scene, which caught us both off guard: it elicited a noticeable yelp from my wife, and dropped my jaw nearly to the floor.
But
things aren't quite as they appear: all of them tie directly into
Professor Goodman himself, something that he learns the hard way...
I'm
not sure that I would really categorize Ghost Stories
as all that “scary”--there are some effective jump scares, and
while the atmosphere is excellent in all three stories, they really
didn't cross the line into truly terrifying territory for me. The
most effective scary stories should take the viewer out of their
comfort zone, catch them off guard, and create an eerie ambiance that
just creates a constant, pervasive feeling of dread. The
Innocents did that to me, Black
Sabbath did that to me, and even
more recent fare like Paranormal Activity
and Blair Witch
project all managed to get my heart rate pumping, and my hands
clammy.
This
isn't quite on the same level as those classics, but that doesn't
mean that it's not effective in its own right: I had a smile on my
face for probably half the movie, simply because the movie was so
well shot; it might not have truly scared a seasoned veteran of the
genre like myself, but it certainly got to my wife (who, to be fair,
is naturally scared of supernatural forces), while every sequence has
at least one or two creepy scenes that just naturally reinforced why
I love the genre so much.
As
seems to be a recurring theme with the genre as of late, the strength
of the stories are carried by the performances, and the two standouts
here are Andy Nyman, as the skeptical professor, and the
aforementioned Alex Lawther, as Simon Rifkind. Lawther is no surprise
here—he is clearly one of the greatest young actors working today.
He not only has that rare ability to cover a wide range of emotions,
but can switch between them on a dime—two things we see on full
display here.
The
bigger shock is Nyman, who adapted this for the screen (along with
Jeremy Dyson) from their own stage play, and who also directed the
film together. While it might seem straightforward that someone with
a theatrical background could easily segue into the world of film,
that's not at all the case; they are two distinct disciplines. Just
because you're a good TV or film actor doesn't at all mean it will
automatically translate to theater, and vice versa. While the stage
is probably less forgiving—there are no chances for alternate
takes—acting on a film set also comes with its own set of
obstacles; for Nyman to so strongly translate his character to the
screen is an astonishing accomplishment in its own right.
It's
not perfect, but it's hard to imagine Ghost Stories
being executed any better than it is here, and that's saying
something. Dyson and Nyman have crafted a strong horror film that maintains an impressive level of consistency across all of the tales; even if you aren't scared, will still have you glued to the screen,
wondering where all this is headed. The final twist—an
overused plot device that can often singlehandedly ruin an entire
movie—is rather brilliantly done, with callbacks and clues in each
story that virtually require a repeat viewing in order to put all the
pieces together.
If
you want a solid horror film to get you in the Halloween spirit, or
just the perfect film for a cold, dark winter evening, then there's
no need to look any farther than this one.
Directors: Scott Beck and Bryan Woods Writers: Beck and Woods Starring: Katie Stevens, Will Brittain, Lauryn Alisa McClain, and Andrew Lewis Caldwell
Stop me if you've heard this one before: Six people looking for an adventure stumble upon a mysterious haunted house, where they quickly learn that the sinister forces inside are interested in much more than merely scaring the hapless collection of good-looking visitors...
It's an idea that's been
done millions of times before, and that will no doubt be done a
million times more. But the main frustration with Haunt is that,
while it does build up an unnerving atmosphere and has some
effectively “icky” kills, it doesn't really aim to be anything
more than that. Which is a shame, because underneath its
predictability is a truly classic film waiting to be born.
Katie Stevens is Harper, a
young woman who is trying to get out of an abusive relationship with
her controlling boyfriend. In order to help take her mind off things,
she reluctantly agrees to hang out with some friends—and in the
process, of course, meets Nathan, an attractive, athletic man who
quickly takes a liking to the freshly single lady.
The group head off to find a
haunted house, and instead stumble on one when Harper suddenly feels
like she is being stalked by her boyfriend. As they sit off to the
side of a dark road in their old van, a “Haunted House” sign
suddenly lights up, and the group has very little qualms about
entering an otherwise unpromoted haunt. From there, the red flags
continue to pile up: the bizarre man at the gate who requires no
money; the seemingly vicious torture of another soul unlucky enough
to wander in; the bloodcurdling screams heard off in the distance;
but these are just explained away as completely normal events for a
random haunted house off the side of a mostly abandoned road that no
one knows about.
I think we all know where
this is headed: the creepy masked “characters” in the haunted
house are more than they seem, and the characters get picked off one
by one in gruesome ways. Can anyone put a stop to the bloodbath? Or
will all of them meet their end inside the abandoned building?
The synopsis itself reveals
the underlying problem: it's all too familiar. For a film that
seems hellbent on throwing up some shocking violence and maintaining
a tense feeling of unease—two things it does rather well—there's
just too much straightforward, linear storytelling to truly elevate
it into the higher echelons of the subgenre. It's pretty obvious from
the get-go who's going to survive and who's going to die, and the
filmmakers show no real intention of subverting that tired formula.
Most of the side characters are still stupid caricatures who do
stupid things to put themselves further in harm's way, making the
jobs of these murderers way easier than it should be. Even during the
meandering finale—which goes on about ten minutes too long—when
the audience is no doubt expecting one final, decimating twist to
justify the elongated length, we basically just end up with the
ending we already had ten minutes prior, with nothing shocking or
necessary details added.
And can we stop with the
trend of horror movies half-heartedly trying to pull on heartstrings?
In this case, we not only have Harper dealing with an abusive
boyfriend, but also a backstory involving an abusive father that's
never resolved. There's no doubt that horror movies can effectively
deal with heartrending issues (see The Orphanage for a perfect
example, and to a lesser extent, The Babadook), but it takes
complete commitment from the creators for that to work. Here,
Harper's troubles feel thrown in more as an afterthought, as a cheap
way to give her character more dimensionality, while the lack of
resolution is ultimately a slap in the face to the viewer.
That's not to say at all
that it's a bad film—in fact, I would definitely say it's still
above average for what it is. The acting really carries it, with no
one turning in a poor performance, while Katie Stevens absolutely
steals the show as Harper. It's certainly not her fault the
floundering backstories fail to resonate with the viewer, because she
does her part to sell them: she cries, cowers, screams, or acts
confident, all to the whims of the script, and with a clear
commitment to the material that's sometimes missing behind the
scenes. She better watch it though: her 2019 output includes two
horror films (this, along with Polaroid), which just might pigeonhole
her into the genre; she's more deserving of greater chances than
that.
The effects work is also
excellent: although limited to quick shots, the film's use of
practical effects gives the death scenes much stronger impact than
any amount of computer generated imagery could provide. The kills
really help to carry the tense mood along, even as the characters
seem to get dumber and dumber, setting themselves up for easy—though
often predictable, as is par for the course—demises.
In other words, Haunt works
when it's doing what the title implies, but falls off the rails in
the fleeting moments when it feels like it has more that it wants to
say. This is a good movie full of “what ifs” that will leave you
pondering just how much better it could have been.
