Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports

Kaos' way behind movie reviews

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3660 on: May 10, 2025, 07:19:15 PM »
Summer of '69
- Streaming on Hulu -

I don't know why I watched this.  It popped up on my Hulu feed and I just let it finish. Maybe I kept it going for no other reason than to see whether Chloe Fineman (an SNL cast member who doesn't completely suck) has any potential other than sketch comedy. For whatever reason, I let it go.

The story is kind of ridiculous. A chubby, frizzy-haired teenaged girl fantasizes about getting with a good-looking kid at school. In real life?  Less than a zero percent chance.  But this is the movies - movies that seem hellbent on pairing people who'd never have a modicum of interest in each other, all in the name of diversity.

Frizz head hears from her high school mascot that the object of her desire is a big fan of "doing the 69."  In an effort to gain knowledge before she (I guess?) throws herself prostrate at his feet, Frizz head engages the services of a local stripper (Fineman) to learn about all about sexual confidence and doing the 69 deed.

Early on, I thought there were some similarities to Risky Business - a concept the script acknowledged by leaning heavily into the comparison later on.  It sneaks in nods to several other of the 80s films that made up the genre.

There are a lot of common "coming of age" topics that are addressed in the film, but it takes things too far. It's too crude, too vulgar, too much.  On top of that?  It just isn't funny. It's not funny enough to be a comedy, it's not deep enough to move you. It just doesn't work. Part of that is the lead girl. Frizz-head just isn't really likeable. She fails to project any of the attributes we really need her to have, and there's nothing - absolutely nothing - in her character that would make the guy she pursues remotely interested in her.

Fineman isn't bad, actually. She just needs to find a better vehicle to showcase her talents. Her way-too-long scene where she's stripping and holding onto her heels is pretty sexily hot, frankly, but it's out-of-place in what's supposed to be a movie aimed at teens. It just takes things a step too far.

I think Fineman has potential. She shows flashes of talent. Frizz-head has none. Zero. The movie is predictable.  It didn't make me want to vomit, but I can't really recommend watching it. 
« Last Edit: May 10, 2025, 07:22:01 PM by Kaos »
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3661 on: June 07, 2025, 09:24:03 AM »
I'm still here, shouting into the void if only to hear my own echo...

Trap
Netflix

I don't know what I expected. M. Night Shaboobaladingdong, so there's probably a late twist. But there isn't. There were opportunities to twist it up, ones that he should/could have taken to elevate the narrative. But he didn't.

Basic storyline:  Cops use a concert by a world-wide superstar as bait to trap a serial killer. Get everybody in there, lock it down, and torture them with the "music" as they vet every single male attendee.  This set up is bungled because the concert is supposed to be a surprise one-off established specifically to entrap the killer, BUT... they knew he was going to be there because he dropped a piece of the ticket at a kill.  Well?  Which is it?  If you created the concert to trap the guy, you wouldn't have known he was going to be there and if you knew he was going to be there, the concert wasn't created as a trap.  Film is now officially in the stupid and lazy category.

As I'm watching the film, I kept wondering WHY do they continue to show so many clips of this "concert" by a no-talent, caterwauling, fake music 'superstar' who CANNOT sing, who has zero stage presence, who cannot dance, whose stage-patter is cringingly bad, and whose songs are drippy treacle at best. Maybe that's the twist?  Maybe that talent-bereft waif is the killer?  No. Sadly no.

Turns out the drippy songstress is Shalamadongdinger's freaking daughter.  There is no real movie here. It's just an excuse for him to showcase his gratingly awful child's effort to boost her 'musical' career. Everything else is just lazy framework cobbled around her shockingly awful 'concert.' 

She's Sofia Coppola in Godfather III bad. She might actually be worse. If I never see or hear of her again, that will be too soon.

M.Night is still living off a 40-year old, one-film reputation and his work has grown increasingly dull and moronic. This might be rock bottom for him.  The name no longer carries any cachet for me.

This movie is nothing but clap-trap and should be avoided.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3662 on: June 07, 2025, 09:40:22 AM »
Fear Street: Prom Queen

The Fear Street trilogy wasn't great, but wasn't bad. This tacked-on addition to the series is atrocious. It's unbelievably bad.

Yet another movie about teens written and directed by people who apparently never experienced a single moment as an actual teen, and who obsessed in their basements about what the cool kids said, thought, and focused on. 

Other than some pretty great music interspersed at various points, there is absolutley nothing and I mean NOTHING about this film that's worth watching. The lead actress looks sort of like what Meryl Streep might have looked like at 14. There's an obligatory quasi-gay character who is annoying beyond any ability to tolerate. Every person in the film is a cariacture of a caricature of a teenaged caricature. The script is abysmal. Everything about this tepid film is ridiculously stupid.

I'd rather go to an actual prom in my underwear than suffer through this again.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3663 on: June 07, 2025, 09:46:15 AM »
Kraven the Hunter
Netflix I think

You think Morbius was bad? Wait until you get a whiff of this pantload.

Aaron-Taylor Johnson delivers a performance made of solid wood. Russell Crowe's faux-Russian accent is hilariously bad. And... you know what?  Let's shorten this review a little bit.

Here's a movie-goer responding to the film in real time.



I concur.
friendly
0
funny
1
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
Members reacted funny:
bgreene,
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3664 on: June 07, 2025, 09:52:51 AM »
Lilo and Stitch: Live Action
In Theaters

I went in fully armed and expecting to hate, loathe, and despise this movie. I didn't want to see it, but the animated version is my kid's favorite Disney film and she asked nicely.  So we went.

Not only did I not hate it, I kinda liked it.  Yes, some changes were made but those didn't diminish the story. No, Disney didn't try to jam any woke, stupid messaging in there. The CGI was occasionally sketchy but was for the most part effective enough that you forgot Stitch wasn't an actual animatronic creature.

The kid playing Lilo was really good. The girl playing Lani was pretty fantastic (and very attractive in an odd way).

It was far better than I expected. Take the wife and kids.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3665 on: June 07, 2025, 10:14:24 PM »
The Accountant 2
Amazon Prime

I liked the first Accountant movie.  After slogging through 32 minutes and 48 seconds of the sequel, I can no longer remember why. 

I turned if off. If I'd gone to the theater to see it, I'd be REALLY upset with myself. 

Maybe it got better.  Don't think I'll ever know. It just didn't work for me at all. I'm done.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3666 on: June 10, 2025, 07:07:59 PM »
Fountain of Youth
AppleTV

How could this go wrong? John Krasinski, Natalie Portman, Domhnall Gleeson, Eiza (she's cute) Gonzalez, Stanley Tucci, MM (from The Boys), Guy Ritchie at the helm, exotic locations, adventure, treasure!  All the elements are there.

Except, they are just elements. There is no chemistry whatsoever.

Remember when Jim Halpert played Goldenface in Threat Level Midnight?  The performance here by Big Bird was about on par with that. This was a film that literally screamed for someone else to take that part, because it was a horrible fit for Jim. Literally anyone would likely have been better. Anyone. Dwight would have done this role more justice than Jim. So, too would Stanley, Oscar, Kevin, Daryl, Creed, Plop, Ryan, David Wallace, Mr. Brown, Charles Miner, Bob Vance (Vance Refrigeration), Hank the Security Guard, Toby Flenderson, Roy, Michael, and the turban IT guy. This was just a terrible role for Halpert.

Natalie Portman proved she learned everything Hayden Christensen had to teach with her ineffective, flat, toneless, lazy performance. So much droning exposition and inability to act. It was KISS Meets Phantom "here are your lines, read it back one time from a cue card. CUT, PRINT!" level of awfulness. And if you havent seen KMP - go watch it. It's more awfully enjoyable than this adventure turd.

Basic storyline is they're searching for something that completes a puzzle so they essentially steal wardrobe, entire scenes, backdrops, and settings from Indiana Jones and The Mummy movies and then layer bad dialogue and fence-post quality acting on top.

I saw it somewhere listed as "second screen entertainment" which means the kind of thing you turn on while you're looking at your phone and working on your computer - and forget that it's on. It's not even good enough for that.

Krasinski is better than this. He just never found any footing as this character and flubbed it so badly he probably needs to distance himself from it.  It needed more of a Chris Pratt or a Chris Pine... one of the Chrisses. Even Chris Farley. But it got Goldenface.

Could have been a moderately entertaining movie but awful casting and half-hearted direction ruined it.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2025, 07:12:20 PM by Kaos »
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3667 on: July 20, 2025, 08:19:35 PM »
The Conversation

At some point around the same time he was finishing Godfather 2, FFCoppola wrote and directed this film. Despite an Oscar nomination for best picture (lost to G2) it is kinda lost to the annals of time.  Few probably even know it existed.  I didn’t. 

Thats unfortunate.  It’s a good watch for a number of reasons. 

First, it’s got a strong 70s look and feel. It’s the kind of introspective, intellectual move they just don’t make any more.  It doesn’t beat you over the head with exposition. You figure it out as you go along.  Characters aren’t good or bad. They’re a mixture of both, with agendas and flaws.


Second is the cast. Superb. Gene Hackman is the lead.  But look for Cindy Williams (cute and right before her career was engulfed in Shirley).  Robert Duvall and Fredo Corleone make appearances.  So does Harrison Ford in a strange turn as an evil henchman. Teri Garr shows up in a short but poignant scene.  And then there’s Lou Ann Poovie (shout out to Gomer Pyle) in a nude scene! 

Today’s audience would probably call it slow and boring.  The film very much hinges on Hackman’s internal struggles with his chosen career and the moral dilemma it poses.

Third, the film is about surveillance and the perils of watching and listening to people’s private conversations. That still applies today. Looking at all the surveillance tech on display and considering this took place in the era of Watergate added a level of interest.

I found it intriguing. But I like the gritty, sweaty, color burned 70s style films. Stuff like The Gauntlet. It won’t be for everyone.  But it is a well scripted, well acted, well directed film.

The best thing? In one scene I saw a gold Shell Pest Strip box stuck to a wall. I haven’t thought about those things in 40 years.  Everybody had one back in my day.  The slice of toxic cheese inside it always fascinated me. Of course they were outlawed. I think Ralph Nader made his bones going after them.  They killed the crap out of bugs though. 
« Last Edit: July 20, 2025, 08:57:14 PM by Kaos »
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3668 on: July 20, 2025, 09:18:15 PM »
Drop

Very different kind of “horror” film.

Violet, a single mom out on her first date since an abusive husband terrorized her,  starts getting drop messages from someone who broke into her home and is holding her kid and the babysitter (sister) hostage.

It’s a slow burn as she attempts to figure out who she can trust and who she can’t - as the anonymous tormenter continue to blow up her phone with directions and orders.

The figuring it out part isn’t obvious. Plenty of red herrings and diversions.

Violet is attractive enough in an 80s soap opera sort of way. 

It takes some seriously improbable turns here and there but considering it’s a Blumhouse entry (and they are usually cookie cutter trash) it’s not terrible. 
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3669 on: July 21, 2025, 09:30:28 PM »
Wolfman

Hey. Remember when they gave Leigh Wannell the classic Universal Monster The Invisible Man?  Remember how she turned it into a Me Too, Girl Power, you get that revenge flick that wiped its butt with the source material? Remember how she cast a pasty pale ugly woman as the lead! Fun!!! 

I remember.

That’s why I was a little surprised to see her attached to this project.  Another attempt to resurrect the Universal Monster empire that fell flat on its face at the box office. 

Oh, people don’t want the old monsters they say?  No.  They just don’t want her version. 

Here, Julia Garner steps into the ugly pasty role and she’s got that part down.  The rear? She’s awful.  But she’s the powerful girl we deserve.  Or something.

It’s not all bad.  There’s a good dose of gore and some grisly moments. There’s enough to qualify as horror. And some of the transformation effects are decent. 

In its defense it hews closer to the source than her IM did.  Just not close enough. 

I’m tired of Garner and her ugly short white fro.  She peaked at Ruth and should just go away now. 
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3670 on: July 26, 2025, 12:24:01 AM »
Happy Gilmore 2
Netflix

Remember when somebody thought Coming 2 America was a good idea?  Remember how it wasn’t?

Let’s ride that same failed carousel again. 

This movie is utter garbage.  Self parody. An excuse to jam pointless cameo after pointless cameo into the barest thread of a stupid story, stitched together with “nostalgic” flashbacks.

Sandler is, and has always been a terrible “actor.”   His movies are never, ever funny and this absolutely no exception. Nothing at all funny about this. It’s horrific.

I’ve made it about 30 minutes and the only possible Bowen reason I decided to try  it to begin with was erased. 

It’s a massive collection of the least funny people ever amassed.  And? He Coppola’d his no talent daughter in it which was awful.  She was worse than “Mary” in G3. 

This is a worse idea than Coming 2.  It’s Caddyshack 2, Christmas Vacation 2 level shite.  Everything this a**clown represents is what I hate about society and what ruins the game of golf - which I enjoy.  I spit on all of this.

I won’t finish it. 
« Last Edit: July 27, 2025, 12:02:43 PM by Kaos »
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3671 on: July 27, 2025, 12:01:12 PM »
Heart Eyes
Netflix

Every holiday deserves its own slasher movie. Bloody Valentine had Cupid’s day covered but there is definitely room in the horrorverse for this love-themed entry.

It’s the perfect combination of a Hallmark meet-cute and a grisly 80s slasher.  Great mix of lightness and gore. 

The will-they/wont they Sam and Diane couple here are ad execs for a jewelry outlet. Her latest campaign bombed because it focused on doomed love due to her own perpetually broken heart. He’s the relentlessly romantic fixer brought in to save the day. She, predictably, hates him.  Just as predictably the Heart Eyes killer mistakes them for a couple and the not-a-couple becomes the target of his murderous rage. 

There are a few things that didn’t flow well, and despite a lot of exposition prior to carnage the rationale behind the Valentines Day focus was never fully explained.

Still it has much more of an actual Valentines-Day theme than Bloody Valentine did. The leads don’t have much charisma but they do have an easy chemistry that makes the film work. 

The kills are creative and done in such a way that humor alleviates what could be overly gory. 

It’s not great cinema.  It will never win awards. It not even to the (fantastic) level of, say, Violent Night. But it understood what it was and it delivered both as a Hallmark-ish movie and a slasher flick.

I liked it despite the fact that it’s yet another movie that feels compelled to force feed multi-racial attraction down our throats.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2025, 12:06:18 PM by Kaos »
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3672 on: July 27, 2025, 10:45:51 PM »
Locked
Hulu

Down on his luck Pennywise breaks into Hannibal Lecter’s car. Hannibal is controlling it remotely, locks him in, and proceeds to torture him.  Kinda gleefully and kinda brutally. 

Hilarity or something ensues.  That’s about all that happens. 

Instantly forgettable. 
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3673 on: July 29, 2025, 12:27:35 AM »
Get Away
Hulu

I almost gave up on this entry from the Simon Pegg, Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, End of the World tree.  I was thiiiis close to turning it off and letting it float away. So glad I didn't. 

The horror/comedy features Nick Frost (and you'll know him from all of the films in the Hot Fuzz pantheon, he's typically Pegg's sidekick) as Richard, the patriarch of a nerdy family off to have a creepy-themed summer vacation. They're headed to a Swedish island known for some horrific events that has an annual (very long) horror play. The island typically shuts down during the festival and no outsiders are allowed, but Richard's family is insistent. They've reserved an AirBNB and they're staying. 

The family contains the typical annoying teens (boy and a girl) and a mom with an Irish accent that was, quite honestly, the only thing that kept me going to the the tipping point - the point where it got fun.  The mom's name is Aisling Bea and she's 100% definitely a MILF.

The first half-ish part of the film plays like Midsommar if Midsommar was a quirky comedy instead of the nauseating pile of wolverine dung it is. There are really weird Swedish islanders who are doing really weird rituals and other assorted grim lunacy behind the backs of the visitors. That part smacks of Midsommar.

And then, just when I was ready to give up?  The entire story turned on a dime and we veered into gleeful, joyous carnage mixed with a heavy dose of droll British humor and a perfectly placed musical choice. I didn't see the turn coming (maybe I should have) and that's a good thing. Definitely made me like the movie a whole lot more than I would have. It's just so well executed.

It's not one of those movies that everybody is going to love. But it's good enough that I'd watch it again.

If you liked the movies of the Pegg genre, give this a chance - particularly if you enjoy horror sprinkled with comedic elements.... and one hot MILF.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3674 on: July 30, 2025, 09:48:43 AM »
The Amateur
Hulu

Remake of a 1981 techno thriller.

Rami Malik as a CIA analyst who goes after the terrorists who killed his wife.  Of course he stumbled on some blackmail-level intelligence at the same time. 

Malik was good in Mr Robot and as Freddie Mercury.  He isn’t good here.  His awkward affectations and odd vocal inflections make it difficult to assess what emotion he’s trying to convey. 

I didn’t hate it.  But he bored me. 

Too many times people who should, by rights, have just killed him instead let him walk. 

There was one (ridiculously improbable) kill but Borey Malik even ruined that with his gawky flat delivery.

Maybe the 81 version is better. 
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3675 on: July 30, 2025, 10:03:13 AM »
The Assessment
Hulu
Couple in a world that suffered a societal collapse due to resource scarcity wants to have a child.  Government requires an in person assessment before they are allowed. 

Want to watch the Scarlet Witch perform a simulated bj on a dark sloppy Indian dude in a weirdly unsettling dystopian setting? Want to watch Alicia Wiklander act really weird and look purposely ugly? Want to watch slobby Indian and Scarlet Witch battle IKEA? Want to watch the slobby Indian get raped by AW? 

This is the film for you. 

Look.  Even if that bj scene lasted 20 minutes (it doesn’t) and you got to see the Witch’s mouth and tongue running up, around, and over…. Nevermind. 

It’s not worth it. 
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3676 on: August 01, 2025, 07:33:56 AM »
We Summon the Darkness

Not the movie I expected.  I thought Daddario and her pals were witches who did bad things to people because they were, well, witches. The darkness as it were. 

Nope. This was a demonization of Christian extremists. Daddario and crew were deeply religious nuts murdering people to give Satanists a bad rap. 

That was problematic to me. Didn’t care for it.

Followed that up with….

Red State

Another movie about Christian extremists taking things too far. 

It does pivot in the final act to casting the government as a bad guy too but again I was troubled by the portrayal of Christianity as some deranged and violent sect of weirdos.

Many people you’ll know and recognize in this.  Melissa Leo, Michael Parks, John Goodman, Kevin Pollack, Stephen Root, Anna Gunn, Matt “Badger” Jones. 

Didn’t like either of these.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3677 on: August 01, 2025, 09:09:36 PM »
Deep Cover

Orlando Bloom, Opie’s daughter, and a mild mannered Indian are struggling improv comedians/actors recruited by a detective (Sean Bean)  to help him do some minor undercover work - essentially purchasing black market cigarettes. Due to their own inability to stop improvising as the scene unfolds they get pulled into a deeper undercover project that infiltrates the London mob.

It’s never laugh out loud funny, but it moves at an entertaining clip.  The performances are at the edge of over the top, but they fit this fluffy action romp. 

Opies girl is pretty good. Bloom is way better than I expected.  The Indian nerd has some funny moments. 

It’s cute.  That’s the best description I can come up with. 

It deserves better treatment than disappearing into streaming oblivion.  It’s a decent movie that I enjoyed watching.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3678 on: August 03, 2025, 09:39:07 AM »
Final Destination: Bloodlines
Max

I’m a fan of the FD series overall.  Final Destination 1 was clever and different (hello Ali Larter).  2 expanded the concept and took it a step further in a good way (hello AJ Cook). It lost the beam a little in the sub-par 3 and 4 (one filmed right here in Mobile) but returned to form in 5, a stellar full-circle that resurrected the series and sent it out on a high note.   


Until….


It’s been 14 years since 5 provided the perfect bookend to 1 and closed the loop.  When I heard another FD was in the works I rolled my eyes at what I assumed was just a cash grab retread.  Didn’t go see it in theaters.  Only caught it last night due to some insomnia.  I was wrong.  It’s true to the spirit of the franchise and is as good an entry as any, save the OG.

Creatively gory kills? Yep. Preposterous - but maybe it could happen - chain of events? Absolutely.  Red herrings and fake outs that pay off in unexpected ways? You bet.  Humor? Tension? Gleeful carnage? You betcha. 

The best part to me was the loving and bittersweet send off the film gave Tony Todd (Candyman).  He’s was a peripheral player in all five previous installments.  Here he was deathly ill (obviously, he weighed about 90 lbs) and the movie not only gave him a backstory, but it allowed him to ad-lib an in-character message to his fans (and I’m one).  If that scene doesn’t kick you in the feels? You’re a monster. 

So yes. If you like the premise of the Final Destination movies, this is definitely worth your time. 
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

Kaos

  • *
  • 29756
  • Guess Who's Back, Back Again
    • No, YOU Move!
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
« Reply #3679 on: August 03, 2025, 09:52:44 AM »
In a Violent Nature

I remember being kind of excited about watching this film.  It's supposedly the first slasher movie told from the point of view of the killer.

Then it crashed and burned at the box office and disappeared from sight. When it popped up on one of the streaming services last week, I figured I'd give it a shot.

I understand why it flopped. 

The movie follows (very literally) a Jason Voorhees-esqe masked slasher with mommy issues as he trudges through the woods and takes out a few random randy teens.  When I say follows, I mean it follows - as in 90% of the camera shots are from behind the killer's shoulder as he morosely tromps, and tromps, and tromps, and tromps, and tromps, and tromps through the woods, one crunching footstep after another. 

I looked at my watch after 15 minutes of this guy stomping and wheezing, occasionally stopping to take a lurking look at something, wondering when the actual film was going to start.   By "killer's perspective" I was hoping to see a movie like the one I have written in my head, but won't share here in case I ever do figure out how to sell the concept. I didn't want to watch literal hours of this guy just walking along, hearing his tread break pine straw on the forest floor.

That's what this is. 

Yes, there are two creative kills - one is bizarrely gruesome - but even if they were the most creative and gruesome of all time, they wouldn't make up for the constant plodding along that makes up the majority of this film. 

I hear it's divisive. You either love it or hate it.  Put me in the hate category.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.