Reviews

This film isn't worth watching. At its core, it's a British torture porn flick (and a mild one at that, as far as torture porn goes) that's not-subtly-at-all about homophobia and, on a more surface level, bullying and greed.

The character at the center of this all is bullied by a group of awful people, who also have one decent person in their friendship circle (because the movie had to have at least one, otherwise she'd never give any of these people the time of day under normal circumstances). When he's humiliated more than once in an evening, including both physical and sexual assault, and blackmailed for money as a result of it... he eventually attempts suicide, but survives with severe damage leaving him mute and mostly immobile.

His older brother, the army vet who can't stand even the mention of anything remotely "queer," decides the awful people deserve a game of Psycho Truth or Dare in response to their actions toward his brother. So, the long and the short of it is:

• Battery acid shows up a few times. And there are some off-camera gun shots. But if you're watching this for the gore, skip it.

• Everybody except for two of the awful people end up dead, including the worst of the bunch. So, if you're watching it for revenge, skip it.

• Lastly, damn near every line uttered is ridiculous. So, if you're looking for a decent character study, skip the hell out of this one.

I don't know which one y'all saw, but in the film _I_ watched... a black man gets brutally murdered by the poster boy for white male rage because of adultery. And we get excruciating close-up details of exactly how brutal. (I watch horror movies daily, not much phases me, but even I found myself fast-forwarding through that pure torture-porn.)

Then he floats on through some death tunnels and memories of becoming his dead sister when he was a kid and whatnot (Oh, you're confused? By _this_ plot? You don't say.) until he pops into a friend of his.

Now a naked asthmatic white man, he manages to run through the house, alert everyone of the psycho killer's imminent arrival, get tackled to the ground, get rediagnosed with dissociative identity disorder, escape the house, find the gun, shoot the sky, get tackled again, and have a heart-to-heart talk with the psycho, resulting in his very calm second death (the psycho knew who was really in that there body, but he even felt a little guilty about killing this time, *I wonder why*)... _all_ before trying to actually convince his side-piece-girlfriend that her husband is a (clear and obvious) psycho killer.

More floating. Death tunnels. More memories of the big reveal they think we haven't already guessed. Blah blah...

Now he is his girlfriend. In _her_ shoes, he gets the gun, finds out skirts are a thing, loses the gun, tries to get his identical twin sister to safety (yes, you read that right), fights with the killer (who by now knows it's the black man he killed two people ago... which, now that he's a woman, just makes the psycho killer _annoyed_ rather than guilty, but I digress...), gets shot, hits the killer with the car (genuinely the only moment of this film I liked), takes his twin sister to the location of his (first) death and gets real monologue-y about it, finds his own dead body, pick-axes the killer's shoulder, and then... drowns.

Floating, tunnels, he's been his dead little sister the whole time (we get it, jeez)! Then...

He's (she's) inside the psycho killer now, who is somehow still alive in the sunken truck. He has a little underwater struggle, gets the now-drowned twin free, and successfully gives her CPR (_as_ her twin finds them and is convinced by a ridiculous little head nod that he's not the psycho killer, lol).

Then, finally realizing he's reunited a pair of siblings, decides it's time to just will that death tunnel to go ahead and appear again so she can pop on out of the psycho killer and go all the way into that light. The psycho killer's body then just... collapses. Dead.

I guess the writers got tired of coming up with ways for their characters to actually die? They must have used all that energy on psycho-killing the black guy in the beginning. And then even managed to throw in a gun shot and a drowning after that. So, yeah, I suppose it was too much to ask for the character who did all of that killing to get more punishment in the end than a nifty little redemption ark and a peaceful sleep.

Solid 2 out of 10.

If your reaction to a woman co-writing, co-directing, and starring in a nuanced horror tale of a rape and its aftermath is shock and awe because it briefly contains a visible erection, then, honestly, grow up. A nude rapist fighting for his life while he's being attacked by his victim should definitely make you angry, but not _because he's naked_. You should really think about why these things make you feel the way they do. _That's_ part of the message behind this film and it manages to make that point quite clearly if you take the time to critically think about it. It's absolutely not gratuitous for the sake of gratuity. Nor is it violent for the sake of violence. There has been so much more despicably worse gore in horror movies than is present in this film, the only other difference here is that it doesn't cut away and isn't meant to jump scares out of you. You're meant to sit in an uncomfortable spot because, perhaps for once ever, it's not a woman being tortured because she had the misfortune of being a woman (the FIVE films in the Day of the Woman (1978) series come to mind).

Gender equality (to me, at least) doesn't mean everyone should be treated equally. In an ideal world, sure, that's how things would go. But where the hell have y'all been? You really think that's how things are going to work on _this here_ planet? If you think "gender equality" _doesn't_ mean that some men are going to be sexually objectified and generally somewhat mistreated in one way or another for at least the next couple of hundred years, then buckle up, bud, because your ride _will_ be a bumpy one. More women behind the scenes, in control of the stories being told, does not mean that all films are suddenly going to be beds of roses. It means that whole scores of people are going to be painted in a light they may not be used to reflecting, but definitely deserve to. And that's just the way it's going to be. Period.

I, for one, am absolutely here for it.

With all of that said, my only slight problem with this film is in the time jumps. It's not always made crystal clear when things occurred, however that still doesn't detract much from the overall story.

And, lastly, if you think all violence is unjustified, no matter the circumstance... frankly, what the hell are you doing watching a horror movie at all?

I get that it's a reboot, but come on. When there are six films preceding it, people come to expect a certain something. The "Wrong Turn" films are at their best when it's a cat and mouse game in the woods. Unfortunately, that's only the first third of this way-too-long film. The second act sharply jumps off the rails and takes us to kangaroo court. And the third act shows us that it only takes a month and a half for a millennial who runs a sustainable energy non-profit to be brainwashed into being a living-off-the-land backwoods hillbilly who doesn't belong in the real world. The rest is Mrs. Indiana Jones trying to escape the temple of doom with her father, all the while avoiding hidden away genetic rejects which inbreeding in the "colony" created. Oh, and the townie rednecks (who beat up her father for, like... existing?) show up to help too, because why wouldn't they.

Then, wait a minute... could it be? Yes! A fourth act! Ten minutes before the credits roll we see daddy and daughter (with baby on the way) living well and preparing for pizza and popcorn night! Until, of course, the "colony" shows up next door (wearing plaid, no less) and kills the whole family. Or... just kidding! The family's fine. But the plaid is unfortunately real, and apparently convincing enough to bring mama-to-be back up the mountain. Except... more kidding! 'Cause she ends up killing the whole clan just as the drive back starts, save for the little mute girl. The two of them take a lovely (and bloody) hand-holding stroll back home through the rest of the credit roll.

It's crystal clear that the creatives behind the scenes didn't know what they wanted this film to be, other than "different." So, they made it a ridiculous amount of things which all-together, unfortunately, don't add up to much other than a higher quality, but just as silly sequel in the series.

Long story short: after physically healing from a mysterious significant injury, an amnesiac is forced into a psychiatric hospital to heal mentally as well. It doesn't happen.

I kept waiting for the twist to come, wherein he's _not_ the president (which he believes he is) but is in fact the man who killed the actual president. Instead, they went with the obvious non-twist wherein: nope, he's not the president _or_ an assassin, he really is just a crazy guy in an hospital.

So, the entire point of the story amounts to: psychiatric hospitals aren't fun. It had potential to be a lot more than it ended up being.

No, contrary to what the synopsis makes it sound like, Dianne Wiest's character does _not_ take Rosamund Pike's character to task. It's her son, a former Russian mob boss played by Peter Dinklage, who _attempts_ to, but ends up making her CEO of a corporate elder abuse company.

Yes, all the reviews about how awful Rosamund Pike's character is _are_ accurate.

Yes, she does get shot and killed in the very last moments of the film, but...

No, that will not leave you with any form of satisfaction after nearly 2 hours of a character completely devoid of any semblance of a redeeming quality getting everything she wants at the expense of any innocent person she can literally manipulate to death.

I gave it 3 stars for the acting of the overall cast and the admittedly interesting visuals dispersed throughout the film, but the -7 stars are thanks to the oh-so-very ridiculous writing.

I'm guessing they wanted to go down the Blair Witch route of calling this film what it isn't in an attempt to get more viewers, but it's certainly _not_ a documentary. This is a work of fiction in which a couple decide to open their relationship without setting clear boundaries and, shock and awe, things get sour as a result. Their characters behave irresponsibly in their plot and they behave irresponsibly in their advertising of the film.

Zoe is played by Natalie Medlock who has been in a well-documented relationship with Robbie Magasiva since 2011.

Maybe if you watch all the Texas Chainsaw films in the order I did, you'll be able to appreciate this film as much as I do:

• 1. 1973 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)
• 2. 1986 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986)
• 3. 1990 - Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990)
• 4. 1995 - The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1994)
• 5. 1955 - Leatherface (2017)
• 6. 1969 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006)
• 7. 1973 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
• 8. 2013 - Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013)

With the gigantic mess that is the continuity between the many films in the series, I put them in somewhat of a chronological order, but in two separate tiers. Essentially there's the original run of films ('74-'95), and then the more recent sequels/remakes/prequels/reboots/what have you ('03-'17). And after all of that, honestly... "Do your thing, cuz" was a pretty awesome way to round things out. By the end of this watch order, big ol' nasty Leather getting a somewhat happy ending is actually pretty damn satisfying.

It's essentially a found footage Cabin in the Woods (2011).

What people _don't_ like about this film is the acting and interaction between the characters. And they're right to not like it.

What people _do_ like is the big turn the film takes, going from a pretty lame camping trip to a somewhat exciting "escape the laboratory" film.

Full disclosure: I'm a massive found footage fan, it's easily my favorite horror subgenre. Many things some might overlook are redeeming qualities to me that give a lot of found footage films a pass in my book. In this particular case, the unlikable characters and the illegitimate reasons for most of the "good" second half of the film to even be on camera do _not_ give this one a pass.

Watch it if you've run out of other found footage films, but don't expect to enjoy it until at least about 45 minutes into it. And only then if you're into faint glimpses of monsters seen between screams and shakey cameras. Think: Buffy's Initiative as all the hostiles are set loose, except there are no lights, nor any semblance of balance on the part of the camera operator.

I truly cannot recall feeling more uncomfortable during a film viewing. It is pure, horrendous psychological terror at its utter... best? I mean, if "best" means never wanting to watch another psychological horror film _ever again_, EVER means it's really good? Then, yeah. Bravo.

Suffice it to say, this one will leave you with the top drawer of gut punches.

(Spoiler...) My only hope is that a sequel is coming with Erica murdering the absolute holy hell out of Tori and Britt.

If not, then this single film will stand as a torturous account of what society's expectations might cause a person to do.

This review (which absolutely contains spoilers, mind you) is definitely me just complaining about my one issue with the film (and all filmed media in general that seems to take this stance) and should not be considered a review of the entire film, which I generally found genuinely intriguing and very well-made.

The very last scene leaves us with the "dead" Alex suddenly appearing to reveal not much more than: the alleged pedophile wasn't one.

I watch _a lot_ of stuff. An uncomfortable and, frankly, inappropriate amount of movies and television for someone who doesn't get paid to do so. With that said, I cannot name a single instance where a character painted to be a pedophile actually ended up being one (or ultimately being treated like one), save for Broadchurch (in which season 2 lets him off the hook, so... even that doesn't count). It's unrealistic and, in my humble opinion, a painful disservice to reality. The stance this film takes on the subject is quite subtle and, as I said, very brief, but nonetheless left quite the sour aftertaste.

Eric Johnson can't seem to play a good guy for the life of him, so even just seeing his character's first appearance raised a red flag for me. Then there are hints of his characters' previous victimizations of young boys throughout the film, but again, we're left with: he's _actually_ a good guy.

Had the writers, producers, film makers, et al. found _any other way_ to paint Alex's parents as the clear bad guys other than making Charlie III an apparent good guy, I would have nothing but good things to say about this one. But, alas.