Change Your Image
TSago70
Reviews
Beezel (2024)
I enjoyed the first 2/3... not so much the last 1/3
I agree with a lot of the positive and negative reviews on here. I think this film has both elements.
I have a soft spot for low-budget indie horror. Beezel definitely gives that feel. The story spans nearly 50 years (beginning in 1966), but the entire film gives a 70's vibe... even in 2013.
I love a retro horror film. But doing the retro thing seems to be the go-to with a lot of horror films lately... especially set in 70's or 80's. It works when it's part of the plot. But a lot of horror filmmakers seem to use this throwback style of filmmaking even when it's not really relevant to the plot.
The story is told in 4 different chapters, each with different characters. The first 3 build up like a slow burn, each giving us a closer glimpse of the horror that dwells in the cellar of a house... but doesn't give us much more than that. The less is more thing worked for me. It made those glimpses scarier.
By the time Beezel gets to its last (and longest) chapter, it kinda fizzles out into a plot that feels stale... and the characters aren't very likable, which didn't really make me care about what happened to them.
Part of me would've liked to have learned more of the backstory/origin of the evil thing in the cellar. But another part me appreciated the ambiguity. Maybe we'll learn more if there's a sequel.
Speak No Evil (2024)
A remake that works!
There are die-hard fans of thrillers (and horror) who, understandably, will have issues with this film...
First: Why remake it? Just see the original.
Second: Why make changes?
But it's okay for die-hard thriller/horror fans to have different tastes... because this fan base is diverse. For example, some prefer a slow burn with not a lot of graphic violence, some prefer more action and cool kills, and some like both. I fall into the both category.
I really appreciated watching the original in 2022, and I'm glad I watched it without knowing any of the plot in advance. I recommended it to many people. But, unlike most thrillers and horror films, I didn't feel like seeing it more than once. I guess I didn't want to feel that again. But I appreciate that I felt what I felt. I attribute that to good filmmaking.
I had a feeling this American version was going to go another way. And I admit, I'm glad they did... because it separated itself from the original. It doesn't take away anything from the Dutch version. In fact, I think it's kinda cool that there are two versions of an interesting premise... and both are worth seeing.
James McAvoy's performance alone is reason enough to see it. He's so entertaining to watch. In fact, I think he gives the character even more levels than the original actor. But I wasn't expecting to be as impressed with Mackenzie Davis's performance as I was. You believe everything she's feeling... and I'm glad I got a chance to see what this character was capable of.
I remember reading reviews of the original film with audiences (understandably) expressing their frustration with the choices two of the main characters made. In a way, this version allows these characters to give (some) audiences a more satisfying ending. Again, not better, just different.
Most remakes aren't as good as the original. I'm not saying that this one is as good. But I think both are worth seeing.
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024)
OK, BUT NOT ENOUGH JUICE
This movie had a lot to live up to. Beetlejuice (1988) is a classic, campy comedy that felt so fresh and original when it came out... and has endeared audiences ever since. Tim Burton was still a relatively new director at the time, but was already making a name for himself after the success of another comedy classic, Pee-wee's Big Adventure, just 2 years prior. Mix this with a perfect cast (Michael Keaton, Winona Ryder, Geena Davis, Catherine O'Hara) and Danny Elfman's score... the result was an instant classic.
Keaton played the title role like no other actor could, and made Beetlejuice one of the funnest characters in movie history. So yeah, releasing a legacy sequel over 3 decades later comes with a lot of high expectations. Unfortunately, even with Burton and all the major players returning, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice doesn't quite satisfy the hype.
One of the main problems I had with the movie (aside from not enough Keaton/Beetlejuice) was too many new characters who didn't really add much to the story. If anything, they took away from it. The exception was Jenny Ortega. She's perfectly cast as Astrid, Lydia Deetz's daughter, and she's really the only new character who's interesting to follow. Monica Bellucci is gothically beautiful to watch, but her character doesn't add any of significance to movie as a whole. Even the always entertaining William Dafoe as a deceased actor/detective doesn't quite hit. In fact, his character comes across as kinda stale and annoying.
Still, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice isn't a bad movie. It's actually quite fun at times. Visually it stays true to the original, including the use of practical effects. Having Keaton, Ryder and O'Hara in their classic characters together again is worth the price of admission alone. The talent was definitely there, but the material wasn't quite worthy enough for them.
If you can watch this movie on it's own merit, instead of comparing it to the 1988 original, you'll probably have a lot more fun. But that's not an easy thing to do.
Trap (2024)
Trapped with M. Night Camp.
I want to give this movie a fair review. I love movies too much to advise anyone to not see a one based on my opinion. Is it great? No. Is it horrible? No. Is it pretty good? Kinda... if you leave your logic at the door.
The movie happens in one day/night. I originally thought the whole movie would take place at the concert. I wish it had. Because once the concert ends, so does the quality of the film. It just goes down a spiral of unbelievability... and not in a good way.
Josh Hartnett does a decent job portraying the serial killer (The Butcher). You're focused on his character almost the entire time, which is fine. His performance is the best part of the movie. He's both frightening and amusing at the same time. But because it's an M. Night movie, you wait for the big twist. Which never really comes. And that's ok. It shouldn't be a requirement for for M. Night to do the big twist thing in all of his films. But there still needs to be a solid story to be a good thriller. This one misses the mark.
I didn't know until after the movie that M. Night's daughter (Saleka) plays the Taylor Swift-like pop star, Lady Raven. But it makes sense, because she gets almost as much screen time as Hartnett. She's very pretty and a good singer (also songwriter for all the music performed), but not a strong enough actress to invest in once she steps off the stage. Her character chooses one illogical (and unrealistic) decision after another. After a while, you kinda stop rooting for her.
The audience I saw it with was fun. Once we all realized how campy the movie was, we just went along with it.
Not one of M. Night's best. But also not the worst... I think.
Oddity (2024)
Familiar Horror, But Unique
I love seeing a horror film without knowing too much about it beforehand. I saw the trailer a couple of times, which didn't give away too much plot. But still made we want it see it.
The setting is simple... a cabin in a rural part of Ireland, which allows the filmmakers to create an eerie atmosphere for the audience, and they did a great job making me feel like I was there.
The small cast allows the characters have depth, especially Carolyn Bracken, who gives the film much of its creepy flavor.
As the plot unfolds, it starts to feel somewhat familiar... in a good way. But even though it doesn't break the mold with other films of this genre, the filmmakers and cast make it feel fresh.
If you like atmospheric slow burns, you'll appreciate this film. You'll still get a few well done jump scares... and maybe even a few laughs (in a good way).
Longlegs (2024)
The hype might hurt it.
I saw the film for the second time last night at the official premier. I definitely enjoyed and appreciated the film more the second time. It's a slow burn. The atmosphere Perkins creates (with his team) is top-notch. In fact, the overall vibe of the film is the best thing going for it.
I can't recall a horror film receiving so much anticipation and hype as this one (especially for a non-franchise horror film), which I fear might hurt the satisfaction for some audiences... especially the die-hard horror fans out there.
Nicolas Cage completely commits to the role and creates a very disturbing and memorable character. But Cage's fame removes some of the fear you need from this character. You always know your watching Cage, even with the heavy make-up and prosthetics.
Maika Monroe does a fine job as the main protagonist. But she doesn't give her character many levels. I wanted to care more about her and her story.
I miss seeing a horror film without knowing much about it beforehand, which seems harder these days. Had I not heard about this film so far in advance, I think I would've been more satisfied by it.
But this is definitely one of the better horror films I've seen in the last few years... and I look forward to seeing more from Perkins.
MaXXXine (2024)
Maxine Minx Deserved Better
I might've been a little too hyped to see this third installment of the X trilogy because I left the theater somewhat disappointed.
Mia Goth rocks the role of Maxine. But the character deserved a better finale. The stakes didn't feel high enough. I'm a fan of Kevin Bacon, but his character wasn't threatening at all. He was more comical (in an annoying way) and given way too much screen time.
The kills were ok. The detectives were one dimensional characters... and the finale was anti-climactic. I would've liked to have seen something more with a Tarantino vibe.
The best part of the movie (aside from Mia) was the use of 80s music and nostalgia. But I can't really attribute that to the filmmakers.
Not a bad movie by any means. All of the elements were there. But the final product just wasn't as dynamic as it could've been.
Halloween Ends (2022)
IN DEFENSE OF HALLOWEEN ENDS...
I totally get the disappointment die-hard Michael Myers fans feel toward this "last" installment. I've been one of those die-hard fans since I was 8 years old, watching the original classic in the movie theater... many many times.
To me, none of the sequels, reboots or remakes have come close to the original. But I've really enjoyed some of them (The Return of Michael Myers, H20) and really disliked some (The Revenge of Michael Myers, Resurrection, and don't get me started on Rob Zombie's). I also never loved the whole "brother/sister" storyline that was introduced in Halloween II. So when I heard they were ignoring every sequel (including the beloved Halloween II and brother/sister storyline), I thought it was a very bold move... and had high expectations for this new trilogy.
Aside from the return of Jamie Lee Curtis and a few other original characters, a big budget, some good kills and nostalgic flashbacks, I (like many others) found these new installments lacking. So I guess I had low expectations when I went to the premiere of Halloween Ends.
When Michael didn't show up in the opening, I knew I was in for something different this time... and I wasn't wrong. Then I was distracted by thinking when and where is Michael going to show up? When he finally did, I understood what the filmmakers were going for... then I decided to just go along for the ride. Once I took this mindset, I got invested in the characters (yes, Corey too... who gives one of the strongest performances in all of the Halloween movies).
One of the challenges of satisfying audiences with a Halloween movie these days is that we've had Michael Myers overkill. We've seen him kill and tilt his head hundreds of times. Well, the filmmakers gave us something different... and possibly the strongest character since Laurie Strode and Dr. Loomis. If the beloved Paul Rudd had returned to play Tommy and was the main focus of the movie (over Michael Myers), I think audiences would've embraced it more.
But Rohan Campbell delivers with his performance... and it's fascinating to see his character transition from a pathetic soul to a soulless psycho killer. His relationships to Allyson, Laurie and especially Michael allow each of these characters to be much more interesting than they were in the last 2 installments. Allyson finally became a three dimensional character. He made Michael a believable wounded monster that needed to be rescued and resurrected. And he helped make Jamie Lee Curtis become probably the most believable Laurie Strode since the original. These characters finally had depth and purpose.
When I watched the movie a second time, it allowed be to accept and appreciate the strange route the filmmakers decided to go with this "last" installment. I started seeing it as its own thing... a solid horror/thriller with interesting characters and story arcs... rather than just another Halloween/Michael Myers sequel. Don't get me wrong. Michael Myers will always be the greatest movie horror villain of all time... and this movie will not change that.
Was this movie the best way to end his or Laurie Strode's story? Probably not. But in the Halloween movie universe... I think it's one of the strongest films in the bunch.
Still, every Halloween night I watch the original classic... and none of the sequels, remakes or reboots exist. When Dr. Loomis looks down from the balcony to discover that Michael Myers (The Shape, The Boogeyman) is gone... this is when Halloween Ends.
Halloween Kills (2021)
Halloween Thrills!
I was fortunate enough to attend the U. S. premier earlier tonight (thanks to Beyond Fest and the American Cinematheque) where Laurie Strode herself (Jamie Lee Curtis) made a surprise appearance to introduce the film to a very enthusiastic audience.
I'm old enough to remember seeing the original 1978 classic in the theater when I was only 8 years old (many times), so I try not to compare any of the sequels or reboots to it. It doesn't make sense to do that. But as far as sequels snd reboots go, Halloween Kills is definitely on the better side.
I wasn't a big fan of the 2018 film. I like that it took the bold move to remove the brother/sister storyline. But overall, the movie felt like a missed opportunity.
Halloween Kills almost makes up for it with lots of nostalgia from the original... including very well done flashbacks to Halloween night 1978, and bringing back original characters like Tommy Doyle and Lonnie Elam. But bringing back original actors, Kyle Richards (Lindsey Wallace) and Nancy Stephens (Marion Chambers) was definitely the best choice made for this movie. The exception for me would be the decision to bring back Charles Cyphers as Leigh Brackett. Although it was great seeing Cyphers back... he appeared way too old to still be wearing a police uniform.
Michael Myers seems spookier in this movie than most of the others. He wasn't overused... so when he does appear, it feels more effective. He's "The Boogeyman" again... not just a murder robot who tilts his head after every kill.
The plot feels much more focused than the 2018 film... and the characters are much more likable, which make the kills much more impactful! Also, Laurie Strode is not the main character in this installment, which works! Like Michael Myers, not having her in every scene gives other characters the chance to shine.
But where Halloween Kills suffers is with some character's motivations and sometimes cringeworthy dialogue. There were some lines from characters that got unintended laughs... mostly from Anthony Michael Hall as Tommy Doyle (which has more to do with the script than Hall's performance). His main purpose in the movie seems to be getting all of the residents of Haddonfield riled up with war chants... which felt forced and almost comedic. I almost expected to see some with torches and pitchforks.
Luckily, the positive far outweighs the negative... and I look forward to my next viewing of it.
Lastly, I predict applause from all screenings when a beloved character briefly returns in a very creative way. Happy Halloween!!!
Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019)
High expectations usually disappoint...
Don't get me wrong, I really liked the movie. The cast is great, it looks great, awesome time period with its style and soundtrack. Scenically, it's a love letter to vintage Hollywood.
I'm a fan of Tarantino and and either like or love his movies. I admire him as a director and a storyteller. This movie has his direction... but not so much his storytelling.
I never mind watching longer movies... as long as there's enough story to tell. I just didn't feel there was enough story... at least not compelling enough to fill the nearly 3 hour runtime.
I still recommend the movie. But doubt I'll be revisiting this Tarantino film as much as his others.
Now give us a third Kill Bill!
The Mummy (2017)
If you can enjoy a film w/o worrying about the actor's religion... then see it!
Honestly, the only reason I can think of why this movie is getting so many bad reviews... it's because they hate Tom Cruise. So no matter how good his movies are (look at his list of blockbusters) haters will continue to hate on him... even if they haven't seen the movie. LOL!
If you look at the User Reviews, you'll notice that the haters are even clicking "NO" on any positive reviews... to try to keep them hidden. WOW!
But part of me wants to thank the haters for making me go into this movie with such low expectations... because it made me enjoy the movie even more! So thank you!
I absolutely got my money's worth... and was entertained throughout the entire movie!
I would say the first Brendan Fraser film was slightly more entertaining than this one... but I credit Rachel Weisz for that. Tom Cruise's Mummy is absolutely better than the two Brendan Fraser sequels... by far.
So, if you're capable of enjoying a movie without letting an actor's religious beliefs (or height, or age) influence you... then this Mummy is absolutely worth seeing!