This movie is unabashedly French, to be honest. Bright, colourful, saturated and elegant but also grimy, dusty, loud and even gross. In short, a surreal dream; a hazy summer's day. I think it makes sense if you consider French society in real life. Typical of a European country, the ancient lives alongside and rubs shoulders with the modern, and true to that history, art has flourished and been experimented with so much that there's nowhere to go but higher than 'up'. I think we not only see the influence of melded periods of time but also that bonkers nature of achieving artistic greatness even when so much ingenuity has already been utilised. And I think that coming from a country whose critics established a New Wave of cinema, yeah, this is very much French in its bones, and you can tell. Adding to that is the international cast of recognisable faces, which if anything, helps make the movie's elements clash all the more and be so beautiful in their own madness. It's all wonderful.

So I went into smile 2 never seeing the first one because it didn’t look appealing to me. I wanted to see the second one because it looked interesting and I like everything that I’ve seen Naomi Scott in

This was a very good movie and it did its job. I think the stories very good because I was engaged the entire time because I didn’t know where it was going. Along with that, Naomi Scott doesn’t amazing. And this movie did its job in the horror aspect as well. I’m not normally a jump scare person and this movie got me multiple times. It’s also creepy and disturbing.

This is also movie though was a little too much in the disturbing factor and it’s a movie. I will never watch again. Other than that, it’s a very good movie.

Rating-4/5

I've never been a Star Wars guy. I watched the original trilogy on VHS a couple of times in the 1990s, and that's been the extent of my exposure to the franchise. Never saw any of the other movies or shows, never read any of the novels or comics, never played any of the video games. I am doing a trip to Disney World next year, however, and I believe that's what spurred me to finally familiarize myself a little further with the Star Wars universe. After twenty-five years of avoiding it, I decided to give The Phantom Menace a try.

Well, it wasn't great. I can see why even hardcore Star Wars fans were disappointed in it. None of the characters are particularly interesting, and few are well acted. The two Jedi Knights are largely devoid of personality. The little kid who plays Anakin is...a little kid, what can I say? There's only so much you can expect from a ten-year-old reacting to what I presume was a lot of green screen. Samuel L. Jackson is completely miscast as a calm guy who sits in a chair and never raises his voice. And I was surprised when the Queen took off her makeup and revealed herself to be Natalie Portman. I would have expected a much better performance from her. And then Jar-Jar. Oh my gosh, Jar-Jar.

I'm sure the pod race was radical in 1999, but it's not that impressive coming at it for the first time today. The locations aren't interesting, and I still don't have the firmest grasp on the story. What's the deal with the trade route war? How did taxes lead to an invasion, and why is Palpatine behind it? A New Hope has a thing literally called a Death Star that's going around blowing up planets, that's easy to understand. Why are we having a star war over trade routes?

I'm still planning on finishing out the prequel trilogy, but I'm not hoping for much.

So I’ve read a couple of Stephen King books, and I wanted to get into more so when I found out that they were making a remake of Salems Lot, I decided to read the book 1st to know when I was getting into. I just finished that book last night in anticipation for this movie.

This movie is awful. The only positive thing is Lewis Pullman as Ben. I thought he did a great job with the time he was given.

That’s where all the positives end. After reading the book, this movie was so different and not in a good way. They gloss over so much information and build up. I understand it’s a two hour movie there’s still chance to build up certain characters and things like that. Along with that, the acting from the most part is bad and Pullman is not in the movie enough

I had not seen the original, but I was looking forward to this remake, and it was very bad and very disappointing

Rating-0.5/5

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2024/10/talk-to-me-2022-movie-review.html

In this age of Blumhouse assembly line productions, very little surprises me when it comes to films that deal with hauntings and possessions. And yet, along comes a little movie like "Talk to Me", the feature film directorial debut of Australian twin YouTubers Danny and Michael Philippou aka RackaRacka, that sets out to recalibrate the horror genre for the age of social media and taps into primal fears that resonate with a 21st century audience.

The film follows a group of teenagers who discover the best party game ever. Using an embalmed severed hand that has the power to conjure spirits, they take turns allowing the dead to possess their bodies for no more than 90 seconds. The supernatural thrill becomes an addiction, and eventually rules are broken and all hell breaks loose.

There's a certain purity to the filmmaking style of "Talk to Me" that reminded me a lot of Sam Raimi's "Evil Dead", David Robert Mitchell's "It Follows" and Ari Aster's "Hereditary". The chilling atmosphere of supernatural terror is enhanced by the use of practical effects and imaginative camerawork, but the Philippous never sacrifice character development for the next big scare, successfully walking the thin line between thrills and character development.

Themes of grief and isolation are explored through the film's protagonist, 17-year-old Mia (Sophie Wilde) who grapples with the trauma of her mother's death and a distant relationship with her father. Her entanglement with the spirit world has terrifying consequences, as the malevolent entities feed off her fears and hopelessness, and her grasp on reality starts to slip. This was Wilde's first lead starring role and it's one hell of a performance, effortlessly convincing and emotionally stirring. Her role and character are easily the best things about this movie.

The filmmakers cleverly avoid most of the genre pitfalls. They trust the audience to keep up and avoid burdening the film with forced exposition. Since the story isn't overly complicated with pointless subplots, the pacing remains tight and lean throughout. There are no hackneyed twists, no gratuitous jump scares or over-the-top exorcism scenes. Gore is used sparingly, making it all the more effective when the violence ramps up.

It's been said that the Philippous turned down the chance to direct a DCEU movie so they can work on "Talk To Me". I'm sure glad they did, because this movie is a rare treat, a finely crafted and original supernatural chiller that rewards both fans of the genre and the uninitiated, and deserves a place among the horror greats. It's a must-see !

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2024/10/dont-move-movie-review.html

At a brisk 92 minutes, "Don't Move" stays within the “Goldilocks zone” for thrillers—just long enough to grip the audience without overstaying its welcome. However, cracks begin to show, especially when the film’s more outlandish moments are scrutinized. As a straightforward, no-frills thriller, "Don't Move" delivers a quick adrenaline rush, but it doesn’t reach much deeper than that.

The story centers on Iris (Kelsey Asbille), a grieving mother struggling with the loss of her son, Mateo, after a tragic hiking accident. She returns to the site of his death, a remote forest, contemplating suicide. There, she encounters Richard (Finn Wittrock), a seemingly compassionate stranger who talks her out of her despair. Yet, when they cross paths again at the start of the trail, Iris discovers Richard’s darker side: a ruthless killer who injects her with a paralytic drug, setting her on a desperate fight for survival before she loses the ability to move.

With its intriguing premise, the film could have aptly been called "Can’t Move". Unlike many generic thrillers, "Don't Move" does manage to capture attention, though some of the antagonist’s antics unintentionally veer into self-sabotage. While horror movies often feature hapless victims making poor choices, here, it’s the killer himself who seems to seal his own fate with a string of reckless and clueless decisions. On the acting front, Finn Wittrock stands out as the charming yet menacing Richard, bringing depth to an otherwise straightforward villain. Kelsey Asbille, however, struggles to make her role as a paralyzed protagonist compelling, likely due to limited opportunities for dynamic expression and the basic, no-frills approach the film takes. The film introduces a few elements hinting at Iris’s character evolution, though these moments feel underdeveloped, leaving her emotional journey somewhat flat.

Ultimately, "Don't Move" doesn’t fully capitalize on its promising premise. While it’s entertaining enough to keep audiences engaged, it doesn’t deliver anything particularly memorable or innovative. Casual thriller fans may appreciate its brisk pace and suspense, but those seeking a more layered horror experience might leave wanting.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-watchers-2024-movie-review.html

It seems 2024 was the year of the M. Night Shyamalan family. His daughter Saleka made her musical and acting debut in the filmmaker's new film "Trap", and earlier this year, her sister Ishana Night Shyamalan, made her writing and directing debut with "The Watchers", a horror film that her father produced. Unfortunately, despite a modest $30 million budget, "The Watchers" ended up being a box-office misfire, raking in just $33 million worldwide.

Dakota Fanning stars as a 28-year-old American artist who finds herself lost in a remote forest in western Ireland. She stumbles upon a bunker-like shelter and three strangers who have been stranded there for several months. She also discovers that every night, mysterious beings called the Watchers gather outside the concrete structure to watch them through a massive two-way mirror set up on the sanctuary's wall, as if they are part of a sick reality show. Whoever is caught outside the shelter at night will be killed, and escape from the woods seems to be all but impossible.

Based on A. M. Shine's novel of the same name, the film's premise sounds like it can sustain a decent amount of psychological tension and sinister atmosphere. However, around the half-way point, the fantasy-tinged mystery fizzles out, giving away too much about the creatures while trying to set up a third act Shyamalan-style twist, which is unfortunately very predictable.

There are scenes towards the end in which characters spell out the film's themes. There are good ideas in here that could have reinforced the psychological horror, but the metaphors and symbolism are hammered into the narrative without finesse or subtlety. Apparently, the filmmaker didn't trust the audience to get the point, without hitting them over the head with it. The creatures are also somewhat disappointing, both in design and lore, and shown way too often using assembly-line CGI.

Overall, the movie thinks its smarter than it really is. It's got a decent cast, and good production values, but it tries too hard to emulate M. Night Shyamalan's fimmaking style and makes too many unforced errors in the process that ultimately derail the movie. The result is a dull and predictable horror film without much mystery or suspense.

I was really looking forward to 1992‘s Bram Stoker‘s Dracula and after watching it, it’s just an average movie for me. There are some things that I’d like, but there are some major floss as well.

The first thing I liked is kind of weird, but I liked the way the title looks on both the cover and presented the movie because it’s a unique font. Also, I liked the opening scene because it gave you something different. Finally, I thought Winona Ryder was the best performance in the movie, followed by Gary Oldman.

There are definitely some performances in here that are not good. I think Keanu Reeves and auntie Hopkins give bad performances the biggest issue I have with this movie though is that nothing really stands out.

Rating-2.5/5

https://jwwreviews.blogspot.com/2024/10/sing-thriller.html

5.5/10

In this new short on Netflix, from the Sing franchise and featuring the popular Michael Jackson song Thriller, Buster Moon (voiced by Matthew McConaughey) and company head to a party, only for the guests of said party to be infected by a strange goo and transformed into zombies. 

This has a pretty good opening, but the rest is unimpressive. Stuff happens, but plot is minimal, and the short doesn't feel fun or visually interesting enough to keep one's attention.

This does manage to maintain several of the big name stars (and their impressive singing voices) from the original films, but no Reese Witherspoon, sadly.

Not recommended. I mean if your kids liked the movies, there's a good chance they'll like this. However, this won't have much of an affect on adults.

Just watched the new movie from DreamWorks " The wild robot" and I must say I think I have a new favorite movie! Honestly one of the best movies I have ever seen and this means alot from a person that has watched hundreds of movies! The animating, the story everything is brilliant. Honestly so happy to see that after the little downfall of Disney, DreamWorks is still making great movies!I really think whoever made this cooked really hard! Anyway enough opinion from me, what do you think?🤔

A rewatch actually, full review is here, but this is one of my favortie movies.

It has a lot of emotional depth when you look past the mystery element of the film and concentrate on the grief and trauma and the family members reactions to what has happened.

Quite a deep film really.

https://jwwreviews.blogspot.com/2024/10/one-piece-fan-letter.html

10/10

One Piece Fan Letter is a special created in honor of the 25th anniversary of One Piece, one of the longest running anime of all time and, is lossely based on the novel Osaki Tomohito (Straw Hat Stories). It takes place at the Seabody Archipelago a while back in the storyline where the characters begin the second half of their journey. Rather than focus on the leads, Fan Letter follows average Joes and their reactions and feelings about the Straw Hat Pirates, including a girl who idolizes Nami, the crew's navigator, and wants to give her a letter, a group of Navy officers, and the owner of a bookstore.

What has contributed to the success of One Piece is its sheer world building with a healthy emphasis on characterization and a message of seeking hope in a hard world. It is how detailed the island-based of One Piece has gotten that a special focused on the little people of this world who aren't part of the main action feels so real and defined. The special does a remarkable job of introducing its moderately sized cast in its twenty-five minute run time. Fan Letter truly embodies the heart of One Piece as we truly get the characters dreams and motivations, and the way the script manages to tie in how the Straw Hat Pirates have influenced them without directly meeting them is so well done. 

Naturally, this appeals more to those who are fans or are at least able to keep up with the basic plot of One Piece. It'll feel natural to them, but this might not be the best fit for newbies. However, one could kinda get the main characters' actions here even if one is unfamiliar with the world.

The animation in here is really fluid. I particularly enjoyed the look of the compact town of Seabody and the general, can-only-happen-in-an-animated-fantasy-world, look of the island.

Highly recommended. This is brimming with sentiment and love for the show and has a tight script. Really, just an enjoyable, pure time.

What are your thoughts? I reviewed it here, but it's such a fun and cheesy movie done right in my view.

Good chemistry as well especially between Winnie and Bernie. Wasn't expecting much but delivered a solid combination of fun and horror.

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2024/10/sting-2024-movie-review.html

The Australian film "Sting" is a loving tribute to classic creature features and 1980s horror flicks. Written and directed by Kiah Roache-Turner ("Wyrmwood: Road of the Dead"), the film is a one-location thrill ride set in a New York Apartment Building where Charlotte (Alyla Browne), a precocious 12-year-old girl finds an itsy bitsy spider of alien origins and keeps it as her pet. Unfortunately, the tiny arachnid grows into a gigantic murderous beast that begins to feast on the building's residents.

The plot is simple and straightforward, with only a father-daughter relationship serving as the film's emotional core, or emotional complication, depending on how interesting you'll find the interactions between the rebellious kid and her step father (played by Ryan Corr from "Wolf Creek 2" and "House of the Dragon"). Despite the simplicity of its family drama, the characters' heartfelt evolution works better than expected. It's all very superficial, of course, but it adds just a touch of humanity to the nostalgic B-movie shlock-fest.

I was especially impressed by Browne's performance in this movie, a mix of charm, spunk and emotional vulnerability. Child characters are usually the weakest part of movies like this, but Browne feels fully in control of her acting abilities and steals the show, eventually becoming a grade-school Ripley when the movie starts heavily referencing "Aliens". She also starred in "Furiosa" as the younger version of the titular character, which was another fantastic role. In my review for that movie I remarked that the young actress has a bright future ahead of her, and her performance in "Sting" reinforces my opinion that she's an actress to keep an eye out for.

The movie is thoroughly old-school in all aspects of its production, from its story, claustrophobic setting (that reminded me a lot of "Critters 3"), and sprinkles of dark humor, to the practical effects and fun kills. Fans of the genre will notice all the familiar horror/sci-fi tropes, including my favorite: the convenient presence of human-sized vents required for the plot to function. While the effects are pretty good, the creature design is a bit disappointing. Despite being a creature from another world, it just looks like an ordinary spider from our planet, except it can grow bigger and move faster and deadlier than any known eight-legged species from Earth.

"Sting" isn't a movie that will leave a lasting impression, but it is an entertaining and satisfying throwback horror film, that does what it sets out to do well-enough and quickly enough. In short, a fun way to spend 90 minutes during the spooky season.

Well that should piss off a couple hundred million Catholics.

Excuse me while I buy some popcorn on my way out of the theatre.

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2024/10/its-whats-inside-movie-review.html

"It’s What's Inside" is a pleasant surprise - a film with little expectations from our point of view that ended up delivering a fun, inventive ride. Director Greg Jardin and his team managed to breathe new life into the body-swap concept with a narrative that feels fully fleshed out, new and engaging. Just when you think the film has shown all its cards, it keeps surprising you with new twists.

The plot follows Shelby (Brittany O'Grady) and Cyrus (James Morosini) as they attend the pre-wedding party of their friends Reuben (Devon Terrell) and Nikki (Alycia Debnam-Carey). They are soon joined by an old acquaintance, Forbes (David W. Thompson), who arrives with a mysterious briefcase. Inside is a device that allows them to swap bodies, leading the group to play a guessing game of who’s inhabiting whom.

From the outset, the film’s striking visuals will certainly catch your eye, but it’s the clever execution of the body-swap concept that holds your attention throughout its runtime. As the characters trade bodies, their true natures come to light, forcing them to confront old secrets and simmering tensions that they hid from each other. Each scene brings a sense of unpredictability, keeping you guessing what will happen next. The film’s cast does an excellent job capturing the chaos and confusion of the body-swap mayhem, adding an extra layer of fun to the whole experience. However, the film’s large ensemble cast means that some characters don’t get the attention they deserve, leaving certain characters feeling underwhelming and underdeveloped. Additionally, the ending left us slightly perplexed, as it didn’t tie up the story as neatly as we would have liked. Still, "It’s What's Inside" is a fresh and thrilling take on the body-swap genre, packed with surprises and moments that will keep audiences entertained.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-first-omen-2024-movie-review.html

I never thought much of "The Omen" as a horror franchise. The sequels were pretty bad compared to the original, but I suppose they've grown a cult following through the years. However, not enough, it seems, because the 2024 prequel "The First Omen" fizzled at the box office. Despite being the first decent movie in a series that got progressively worse with each installment, it nevertheless failed to find an audience.

Nell Tiger Free, best known for her role in the M. Night Shyamalan-produced series "Servant", leads the film as a young American novitiate, who is sent to an orphanage in Rome where she is to begin her life as a nun. Here she uncovers a dark conspiracy that aims to birth the Antichrist into our world, a revelation that will make her doubt her commitment to the Catholic Church.

The story overall is silly, but serviceable. It's also very predictable, and even the big reveals are easy to guess beforehand. The whole conspiracy is overwrought and not particularly convincing. Fans of the franchise will probably take issue with the subtle adjustments to the lore, as the filmmakers retcon a few things here and there. On top of that, the ending is a complete misfire, foregoing a satisfying conclusion to undoubtedly set up a sequel.

However, Nell Tiger Free's performance is a showstopper, as they say, keeping the film afloat even during its dreariest and silliest moments. She is the film's greatest asset, proving that the actress deserves the Scream Queen title. Ralph Ineson is a good casting choice for Father Brennan, the priest who tried to warn Gregory Peck's character about the unholy origins of his son in the original. The supporting cast which includes Sonia Braga and Bill Nighy is overall decent, but sadly the characters are forgettable. Charles Dance makes a brief appearance in the prologue, but it's a shame they didn't give him more screen time.

Taking a page from the original, director Arkasha Stevenson (in her feature film debut) favors slow burn (some might say too slow) and ominous tension. Since the film is set in Italy, Stevenson appropriately pays tribute to giallo films, a nice touch that fits well with the film's 1970s setting. She also borrows quite a bit from "Rosemary's Baby", perhaps even a little too much. The movie delivers a decent helping of gore, and some extremely disturbing sequences, including a nigthmarish birthing scene. The only scene I thought didn't quite fit was one that mimics the nanny suicide from the 1976 film, and it really took me out of the movie.

"The First Omen" is not quite as good as Richard Donner's "The Omen", but a solid second-best. It's a decent horror film in its own right. It looks great, it nails the dread and sinister atmosphere, and it benefits from a great lead performance. While I can't say it's a prequel we needed, I can't deny it's an ambitious addition to the franchise, even if it falls short of the lofty heights it aimed for.

So I just got back from seeing Saturday night and I really liked the movie. I wasn’t sure how I would feel about it so it’s surprise me in a good way. I thought the performances, especially from Gabriel Labelle and Corey Michael Smith were great. That’s not taking away anything from any of the other performances. Also, it was an engaging story that I was invested in as it went along.

I think Gabriel Labelle should be considered for a nomination for best actor because he carried the movie

Rating-4.5/5

So I finally got around to seeing 1999’s sleepy Hollow with Johnny Depp and Christina Ricci. I don’t know what to expect going in, but I had heard some good buzz about it. I really liked this movie.

I really enjoyed the many performances, especially from Johnny Depp. I think he gives another great performance along with that, I enjoyed the story and was invested the entire time even with the multiple twists.

Overall, I think this is an amazing movie and I’m glad I finally got around to watching it

Rating-4.5/5

Not everyone needs a movie.

I’ve been trying to weigh my thoughts on The Apprentice ever since I had the chance to see it over a week ago. On one hand, it’s a technically well-made film with impressive acting performances and a vibe that I can get behind. On the other is, at its core, a film whose subject matter is deeply problematic, especially in today’s social and political climate. It has left me torn on what to think. And my opening statement is the one thing that I keep coming back to.

The Apprentice tells the story of a young Donald Trump (Sebastian Stan), who is given a position as an executive in his father’s company and works to make a name for himself in bustling Manhattan. Trump is brought under the wing of famed fixer Roy Cohn (Jeremy Strong) who teaches trump his ways in ruthless winning. As the film progresses, Trump’s naive innocence in his youth is replaced by a cold, ruthless demeanor that makes him many enemies.

The issue I have with the film though is that it just doesn’t have any business being made in 2024. Political opinions aside, Donald Trump is an incredibly divisive person that has caused a lot of division amongst the public. His actions and reputation precede him and there’s no avoiding it when discussing him. And in 2024, we do not need a movie that highlights him even further in the spotlight. Instead, a movie like this feels ripe for 2016, before Trump’s presidency and when his public image was never higher.

Yet, I can’t help but acknowledge how good of a movie The Apprentice is. Both Sebestian Stan and Jeremy Strong give incredible performances in their respective roles. The film looks incredible to boot. There’s so much nostalgia packed into the movie’s style. I love that about the film. It’s as if it was plucked straight out of the late 70s early 80s and put on my screen in 2024.

And to say this is a career defining turn for Jeremy Strong may be an understatement. While Stan is very good, it’s Strong who delivers the film’s quintessential performance. He completely encapsulates Roy Cohn down to the mannerisms, transforming himself from an actor to the shady fixer that made Trump who he is today. It was captivating on screen. I feel like it may have actually served the film better to be a narrative focused on Cohn with Strong in the lead role instead. That’s how strong of a performance it was.

Personally though, I can’t help but shake the feeling that this isn’t the kind of movie we need right now. Our society has never been more divided, and while The Apprentice holds nothing back in portraying Trump as a cold-hearted, ruthless businessman who, at his peak, was no good to nobody, it also does little to bring the man down from the spotlight either. There’s just little need otherwise for a film about the life of a man who’s already been so heavily scrutinized under the public microscope and whose rhetoric has already cause so much hatred and division in the country.

Final Thoughts

I know the term “separate the art from the artist” is often used in cases like this. While Trump didn’t have anything to do with the production of The Apprentice personally, it’s a film that puts him in the spotlight regardless. Though I can appreciate all the excellent work that went into making this film, it just feels wrong to release it so close to election time in the United States. It’s certainly a film that can be appreciated for what it is, but not one that ever needed to be made.

...

Read more of our reviews here: www.firstpicturehouse.com

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2024/10/venom-last-dance-movie-review.html

The "Venom" franchise has always been polarizing, but there’s no denying the quirky and energetic nature of the first two films has brought in its own fanbase such as us. Both "Venom" and "Venom: Let There Be Carnage" delivered fast-paced, adrenaline-fueled experiences that were enjoyable in the moment. Unfortunately, "Venom: The Last Dance", the conclusion to the trilogy, offers the same formula but with significantly less substance. If you’re looking for a brainless, action-heavy romp, the film still delivers, but as a final chapter, it leaves much to be desired.

The story picks up with Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) and Venom on the run from both the authorities and an alien entity that can track them whenever the symbiote fully bonds with Eddie. Forced to suppress their powers, the duo is left with a devastating choice that could ultimately end their relationship for good.

From the outset, we knew what to expect from "Venom: The Last Dance", and in terms of action and humor, the film certainly delivers. The set pieces are thrilling, and the breakneck pacing ensures that there’s rarely a dull moment. However, this relentless focus on action comes at the cost of a basic sense of narrative. The film severely lacks a strong antagonist to give the story weight, and beyond Eddie and Venom, there’s little emotional investment in other characters. New faces, both human and symbiote, are introduced and discarded without any meaningful development, making their presence and fates feel inconsequential. Where the film does succeed is in its portrayal of Eddie and Venom’s unique dynamic. Tom Hardy’s commitment to his dual role remains a highlight, and the banter between Eddie and Venom brings much-needed comedic breaks to the otherwise silly plot. The "bromance" at the heart of the film continues to be its most engaging aspect, but even this familiar relationship can’t fully compensate for the movie’s overall lack of depth.

In the end, "Venom: The Last Dance" feels like a missed opportunity to close out the franchise on a high note. While it’s packed with explosive action and comedic moments, the absence of a more compelling story, characters, and villain leaves it feeling hollow. Fans of the franchise’s chaotic energy may still enjoy the ride, but even with tempered expectations, the film falls short of delivering a satisfying conclusion.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

So ever since I saw it on a thumbnail for guilty movie pleasures years ago, I had wanted to see chopping mall from 1986. Even reading the plot of 18 trapped in a shopping mall with three out of control robots sounded interesting.

Now to starting off, you have to go into this knowing it is super ridiculous and super super cheesy. Think of it like killer klowns from Outer space or Sharknado.

I enjoyed this movie. Let’s start with the positives. I thought it was a unique and ridiculous concept and it’s supposed to be bad but in a good way. I also liked the music because it fit with the movie.

As far as negatives, one of the big ones I have is the acting. Now I know when these movies the acting is supposed to be bad but if you could enjoy it, that’s fine. There were a couple characters in this that in my opinion, did way too much. Along with that, it was kind of predictable in the end of who was going to survive. Finally, I wish it was more creative. You got some of that, but not enough.

Overall, this is an above average movie for me, which is a little disappointing. While it is ridiculous and cheesy, it doesn’t have the appeal that movies like Sharknado and killer clowns from Outer space have.

Rating-3/5

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-omen-1976-movie-review.html

Riding on the popularity of satanic-themed horror films like "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Exorcist", Richard Donner's "The Omen" took advantage of a perfect storm of factors that turned it into a sleeper hit, and despite mixed reviews on release, has since become one of the horror greats.

The film follows American diplomat (Gregory Peck) who begins to suspect that his adopted son may be Antichrist and the cause for a series of mysterious deaths. While "The Omen" did not start the evil child trend (look up the 1956 psychological thriller "The Bad Seed"), it certainly did define modern cinema's approach to this kind of premise. The plot is somewhat silly and laden with heavy-handed dialogue. It gets sillier the more it goes down the rabbit hole of Satanic conspiracies, however, it's also wildly effective because of Donner's grounded approach to the story.

I suppose the franchise is famous for its kills, but they are not as violent as you might expect. They are mostly designed as freak accidents, in a way similar to the deaths in "Final Destination", but much less Rube Goldbergian. Donner reportedly preferred the deaths to be more ambigous in nature, but screenwriter David Seltzer and producer Harvey Bernhard pushed for them to be overtly supernatural. In the end, it feels like a compromise between the two visions, but I will say that the ambiguity really adds to the film's ominous atmosphere.

Donner was also wise to keep the gore down in favor of old-fashioned suspense building. It's gruesome in just the right amount, but never overdoes it and for the most part keeps things subtle and non-exploitative. The gritty cinematography along with Jerry Goldsmith's Oscar-winning hair-raising score complete the film's doom and gloom mood.

If you really think about it, this movie could have been a complete disaster in the hands of a lesser director, but Donner had just the right vision for this particular story, not to mention a great cast that gave it much-needed gravitas. The director's restrained approach elevated what could have otherwise been a run-of-the-mill B-movie to classic horror status.

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2024/10/longlegs-2024-movie-review.jpg.html

One of 2024's runaway hits, "Longlegs" is a fascinating horror film that showcases fantastic cinematic prowess. It's also one of the bleakest movies I have ever seen, constantly assaulting the senses with creepy visuals and an exhausting sense of dread. Wrapping up Satanic panic themes in a procedural structure, the film follows FBI rookie agent Lee Harker (Maika Monroe) who must solve several cases involving murdered families. The only thing the killings have in common is that before their deaths, each family received a letter with Satanic coded messages from a mysterious man calling himself Longlegs (Nicolas Cage).

Writer/director Osgood Perkins ("The Blackcoat's Daughter"), son of iconic actor Anthony Perkins, meticulously crafts a sharlpy tense and skin-crawling atmosphere. An uneasy sense of impending doom pervades every scene, of evil lying in waiting, ready to overturn our sense of safety in this world. Monroe's impressively immersive performance vibes perfectly with the movie's tone, constantly on edge as Lee deals with traumatic experiences buried deep within her subconsious. Also deserving of recognition are Alicia Witt in a genuinely chilling supporting performance as Ruth Harker, Lee's mother, and Kiernan Shipka, who steals her only scene in the film and will be very hard to recognize if you're not already aware she's in the movie.

Cage's performance has been the movie's selling point, and it's not hard to see why. He's completely transformed and very much unsettling as the glam-rock obsessed Satanist serial killer. Cage has stated that his high-pitched voice and body language were inspired by his own mother, a twisted little detail that somehow makes his character even more unnerving. His portrayal is pretty much what you'd exepect from the actor, complete with wild rock-vocal outbursts, but also subtle touches that make this performance quite unique compared to other characters he's played. I'm not entirely convinced Longlegs will ever get mentioned in the same breath as other iconic villains, but Cage's turn is definitely haunting despite his limited screen time.

The glam rock connection is not incidental, but very much deliberate. T. Rex's 1971 hit "Get It On" opens the film with a title card featuring a passage of lyrics from the song, and is played in its entirety over the end credits. Two other of the band's songs also make an apperance. Glam rock feels like an odd choice for a satanic panic horror film, but I think that's exactly the point. The way I see it is that it plays into the film's surreal aesthetic and the recurring theme of darkness and corruption hidden behind the unexpected and the things we deem as familiar or ordinary.

The procedural part of the story is perhaps the least engrossing, derivative of films like "Seven" or "The Silence of the Lambs", but what it lacks in narrative strength it more than makes up for in atmopshere. A third act revelation leads to a lengthy voice-over narrated flashback that feels like one big exposition dump to tie up all the loose ends before the story can move forward to its conclusion. It plays into a theme of unlocked memories, but it still felt a bit unwieldy as a narrative device.

The whole movie can be described more as an experience rather than a traditionally structured narrative feature. It won't be an experience for everyone because of the slow burn and the unusual artistic choices. But for those who appreciate elevated horror, you'll find a movie that hits all the right terrifying notes as it worms its way deeper into the darker corners of the human psyche.

Smile 2 is a continuation of 2022’s Smile. This time around we follow pop star Skye Riley as she becomes plagued with the trauma entity right as she is about to go on tour. Smile 2 takes the framework established and expands the scope while still telling a deeply personal tale about mental health. Naomi Scott is our new protagonist and delivers one of the year’s best performances.

Smile 2 is one of the scarier movies I’ve seen this year. It is very reliant on jump scares, but they were complimented with a properly tense atmosphere and effective scenes that build up tension. The best scares for me weren’t the jumpscares, but the moments that lingered for what seemed like forever, leaving me in a waiting period of dread. Dread is what is horrifying on a deeper level, the feeling that you can’t escape, no matter what. That no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, you can not win. Director Parker Finn was on his game with this message in Smile 2 and it made this movie haunting.

Naomi Scott transcends her role and makes this a career-defining performance. Her portrayal of guilt, anxiety, depression, paranoia, and abuse is completely nuanced and delivers it all with such poise and emotion. She makes Skye more than just a character, but a real person who is flawed but is trying to control everything out of her control. All this makes her the perfect target for our demon/entity, who feeds on trauma as it did with Rose in the last movie. But like with Rose, Skye’s journey of discovery and her fight with her demon is so engaging and keeps us on the edge of our seats the entire time.

The story follows pop star Skye Riley coming back to the spotlight one year after she was involved in a car crash that killed her boyfriend while they were both under the influence. She witnesses a friend/her drug dealer kill himself which transfers the demon onto her and now she has to find a way to kill it or she will be its next victim. Writing this review a day after seeing the movie, I realize that the story is essentially just the same as the first movie. There are no real attempts to flesh out the demon or add more to its lore. What happened to Rose happens to Skye, just on a much larger scale. The only real change is when Rose is told she can pass the demon off by killing someone else in front of a witness,  Skye is told there is a way to potentially end her line without having to pass it on to anyone else. It might end the same way, but we do get to go down two different paths. I believe they’re going to keep making more movies so I hope there’s more of an attempt to flesh out the world.

The ending of Smile 2 is somewhat expected, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a bonkers ride anyway. I think it perfectly fit the story Finn wanted to tell, and perfectly wrapped up Skye’s story. I wasn’t the biggest fan of how much is meant to hallucinations or dreams, but the ending is insane either way. The demon’s design is once again horrifying and its entrance into the movie is instantly unforgettable. It sets up a truly horrifying reality that I hope is explored in Smile 3.

...

Read our full thoughts and see our score here: https://firstpicturehouse.com/smile-2-review-bigger-better-scarier-than-the-first/

Terrifier 3 is the third entry in the franchise, picking up 5 years after the events of the second film. Set at Christmas, Sienna is still trying to grasp the horrors she and her brother Jonathan faced. All the whole Art the Clown and Vicky are gearing up to continue their rampage of non-stop slaughter. While substance never is Terrifier’s calling card, I found that this entry was able to continue to build out their world and flesh out Sienna as a character while still providing the unholy amounts of violence we expect from Art.

There’s no getting around it, the amount of gore and violence in Terrifier 3 will have you feeling emotionally drained by the end of the movie. The opening sequence sets the tone that no one is safe from Art’s destruction, no matter their age. While the movie shows restraint in some ways I’m keeping certain kills off-screen, we are still shown the spoils afterward. The movie can be very heavy and while I’d imagine you would not be seeing a Terrifier movie if that was an issue, let alone the third, it’s worth mentioning. I knew that Damien Leone was going to push all the boundaries but there was no getting used to it. 

To that point, the makeup and effects team to an incredible job making each kill as disgusting as possible. I can not imagine what their blood budget is but they must be spending every last penny. Art’s design is probably the best as he dons a Santa Suit for most of the movie. Meanwhile, Vicky is given a much larger role and her design is given a lot more time to shine. When I said that there were a lot of boundaries being pushed, there’s some in particular with Vicky that I don’t think anyone was ready for.

With our protagonists, Sienna has been in and out of psychiatric care following the attack while Jonathan has started college and is trying his best to move on. It is almost a carbon copy of Scream 6 in that sense. However, Jonathan gets sidelined for this movie. In his place, we meet their cousin Gabby who is the new cute kid that Sienna has to protect from Art. While I think Jonathan should have had more to do in the story, I think including Gabby helped add more depth to Sienna’s character. After everything that happened to her, Sienna has lost her friends and her family. Gabby allows her to feel loved again and it adds a layer of softness back to her humanity, especially as Jonathan becomes more distant at school.

Now, while I appreciated the attempts of a more fleshed-out story, I felt it mostly was underdeveloped. Terrifier 3 opens a lot of story doors but never fully goes into any room. Sienna’s PTSD and seeing her dead friend is an interesting concept really only done once. Jonathan wanting to move on and the divide that has created in their relationship is another interesting angle that the movie never fully explores. It doesn’t help the narrative that these movies are just vessels for the most deranged things you can think of, which is a shame. The movie does add more background as to why Sienna is so important to the Art the Clown lore and why he hates her as much as he does. I do think story-wise it is a step down from the second movie but I do appreciate the gaps this movie fills. Damien Leone has recently come out and said that he envisions only one or two more films to wrap up Art’s story so I’m fascinated to see where we go.

The movie does something that annoyed me, however. The movie will just not show important scenes. There is a very important character in the story that is killed off-screen with no lead-up whatsoever. Of all the places to show restraint, why is this the place it’s done? The character dying isn’t the problem, it’s the fact that it’s meant to lead to an emotional moment, and for us, the audience, it completely comes out of left field. Neither Art nor Vicky have any interaction with this character in the movie, which is why it just feels like they needed to get them to die and then just didn’t film anything for it. There’s another crucial scene of Sienna retrieving the sword used to fight off Art that is just done off-screen as well. It plays a crucial role in her story as well as the third act, and she just has it in between scenes. I wonder if these scenes had to be cut down by higher powers, but it just leaves glaring holes in the movies.

The story splits its time almost evenly it felt with Art and Sienna which I appreciated because it continues to allow David Howard Thornton to shine as Art. His gestures and expressions are perfect, as he conveys everything he needs to without ever saying a word. He adds a lot of humor to the role, especially with how giddy he gets when he sees Santa for the first time. The comedy is extremely dark but it goes a long way to make these movies more enjoyable than just 2 hours of torture porn.

I think the character work is a step up in Terrifier 3. Sienna’s fight for 90% of this movie is internal as she is battling with herself just to be sane.  Her trauma is greater than anything most people could feel in a lifetime and I really felt that in Lauren LaVera’s performance. Leone put a great deal of confidence in her to carry a lot of this movie beyond the gore and action and she was more than up to the task. In that last 10% of the movie though, she kicks a lot of ass. LaVera is talented with her stunt choreography and it shows.

...

Read our final thoughts and see our score here: https://firstpicturehouse.com/terrifier-3-2024-review-art-the-clown-pushes-all-boundaries-imaginable/

https://jwwreviews.blogspot.com/2024/10/mr-crocket.html

6/10 

In this Hulu full-length adaptation of the short Bite Size Halloween episode of the same name, the newly widowed Summer (played by Grey's Anatomy/Hunters' Jerrika Hinton), finds an old VHS copy of a kids' show starring Mr. Crocket (Godfather of Harlem's Elvis Nolasco). However, there's something not quite right about the show and its host and the grasp they have on Summer's son Major (Ayden Gavin). 

The best part of this is the titular Mr. Crocket. Nolasco delivers quite a performance and brings us an unsettling character. It's hard to put into words what makes Crocket scary. I guess it is sort of the fact that he feels like someone who has a figurative mask on over what he really is, but the mask has partially slipped off, and he's not putting it back on; often never playing the character as full psychotic or full his show persona. Crocket feels like that person you met in real life that had some red flag issues if they had the power to do whatever they wanted.

Crockett's playhouse and his "pals" are distinct-looking and pretty freaky. The pals in particular are straight up nightmare-fuel.

However, the script never feels like it reaches its full potential, making decisions that don't quite work. (Also, doesn't help that due to the, I assume, low budget, that there are not a lot of extras around making the world feel desolate.) 

The biggest issue here being the relationship between Summer and her son. Yeah, the mother and her child having difficulty dealing with the loss of a loved one storyline is well known and tried, but this oddly fails the formula. One could give the movie props for not being cookie cutter, but the storyline does not work. Major is portrayed as just too unlikable. Yeah, he just lost his dad, but the movie never shows like he was what before hand or any positive qualities whatsoever. Major feels more like a damaged child in real life that requires a fair amount of therapy. One could credit the movie for treating the topic more seriously, but this feels more like a topic that should've been in an A24 atmospheric horror movie, not one with an over-the-top murderous kids' show host.

Partially recommended. Lots of people will be into Crocket and his world, but others will just be bummed by the story.

https://jwwreviews.blogspot.com/2024/10/peter-peter-pumpkin-cheater.html

6.5/10

In this Hulu exclusive special, Peter Griffin (voiced by show creator Seth McFarlane) and friends try to help Joe Swanson (Seinfeld's Patrick Warburton) win a in a pumpkin competition against his rival Patrick McCloskey (Glenn Powell). Meanwhile, Stewie Griffin (also Seth McFarlane) decides to bring his teddy bear Rupert to life with unforeseen consequences.

Yeah, this was clearly a regular Halloween episode that the executives decided to dub a special. There is nothing notable about it, and there was no attempt to give it anything of a kick to it involving the holiday (unlike that hour-long Christmas special they did a while back that intentionally had that extra oomph.) 

The stories themselves are just kinda there. However, this is fairly funny with decent jokes in it. 

Yeah, anyone could've voiced Powell's character, but he is good at doing a cocky guy. Also, I liked McCloskey's over-the-top douchey pumpkin-themed attire. Some people may be annoyed that Rupert isn't voiced by the usual guy who occasionally does Rupert in Stewie's imagination. I won't spoil who does it, but it made me think "Huh? That was a surprise choice."

Kinda recommended. It's nothing outstanding, but it has its moments and makes for an alright episode of Family Guy.

So I was excited to watch Scooby-Doo on zombie Island from 1998. People have been praising this movie so much especially Scooby-Doo fans because they have said that this was one of the best Scooby Doo movies. to me this was right in the middle/average and that’s disappointing

On the positive side, I liked the concept. I also liked that it was something more supernatural instead of your monster of the week. That was an interesting and unique challenge. I also liked the main song it’s terror time again which you hear during the movie, but also during the end credits.

No, I liked the concept, I don’t think it was fully executed. It is only a 77 minute movie and with that short runtime, you don’t get into the main scare until about 35 minutes left into the movie. The other issue has to do with the group presented. The gang has always been seen as a certain way, and I feel like they lessened that and it was not as interesting of a group as other iterations

Rating-2.5/5

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2024/10/outside-2024-movie-review.html

Carlo Ledesma's "Outside" impresses on a technical level, offering strong production design, top-notch zombie makeup and gore, and captivating sound design and camera work. The film has all the right ingredients to create a unique and immersive experience. However, "Outside" struggles with audience expectations, which may dampen its overall impact. While marketed as a zombie thriller, the film's core is a family drama, and the slow-burn pacing makes the shift in focus all the more noticeable.

The story follows a family of four who retreat to the father’s (Sid Lucero) childhood farmhouse after a zombie outbreak has ravaged the Philippines. The remote location initially seems like a safe haven, but with only sugar cane crops to sustain them, survival becomes increasingly difficult. Francis, the father, is determined to stay, believing it’s their best option to stay than risk going further north into a known refugee camp. As tensions rise between him, his wife Iris (Beauty Gonzalez), and their two sons Josh (Marco Masa) and Lucas (Aiden Tyler Patdu), old wounds resurface, and their past traumas threaten to consume them - just as the undead do outside.

“Outside” offers an unconventional take on the zombie genre, much like "The Last of Us" or "The Walking Dead", where the undead serve as a backdrop to the deeper, human crisis. For viewers expecting a pure horror-thriller, the film’s focus on family dynamics and emotional conflict may come as a surprise. This shift, while ambitious and praise-worthy, may leave some viewers disappointed, especially given how well-executed the horror elements are. The film introduces a unique twist on the zombies' behavior, and while it shows promise, this aspect remains under-explored, which feels like a missed opportunity.

Visually, "Outside" excels. The makeup and gore effects rival international productions, and the tension in certain scenes, particularly a standout chase sequence, showcases director Carlo Ledesma’s potential in action-driven films. However, the film doesn’t lean into these strengths as much as it could have, opting instead to prioritize its dramatic core. On the acting front, Sid Lucero delivers a standout performance as Francis, the fragile yet domineering father. His portrayal adds emotional weight to the film, particularly during moments of heightened tension, like the Christmas dinner scene, which effectively amplifies the unease and discomfort. Lucero’s ability to shift between vulnerability and aggression makes his character both unsettling and compelling.

Despite its strengths, “Outside” suffers from pacing issues. At around two and a half hours, the film feels unnecessarily long. Trimming at least 30 minutes would have made the psychological aspects more effective, keeping the tension taut without dragging. The film may divide audiences - those expecting non-stop thrills may find the family drama too heavy-handed, but those willing to adjust their expectations will appreciate the film’s layered exploration of trauma and survival. In conclusion, "Outside" is a well-crafted film with strong performances and technical excellence. However, its slow pacing and focus on family dynamics over pure horror may polarize viewers. Those looking for an emotional drama with a unique take on the undead will find much to admire, but fans of fast-paced zombie thrillers may come away wanting more.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5