Reviews

In 1978,John Carpenter crafted a masterpiece of suspense that is widely considered one of the greatest horror films of all time. It also spanned a series of sequels (for better or worse).

The first sequel, 1981's Halloween II, took an incredibly safe approach. Simply continue the story of the first one, directly after the first one, into the next day. This added very little to the lore, and by all accounts was an almost completely forgettable experience (though still maintained the same level of suspense as the first) due to the fact that nothing of value was added to the story.

When John Carpenter went back to the story, with the 4th installment, he found himself adding more to the lore, but everything quickly fell apart. The sequel the masses wanted could not live up to what the masses envisioned in their heads.

All this being said, Halloween II was a masterclass in directing a sequel, and Krasinski shows inspiration from Carpenter's work in his restraint for A Quiet Place Part II. Even though not much of value was added, it made an AWESOME theater experience, because viewers were given an hour and a half tour de force of the best parts of Halloween. This largely "forgettable" sequel was the only of the lot to ever capture that same feeling.

If you loved Halloween II (1981), then by all accounts you will likely love and appreciate A Quiet Place Part II. It goes nowhere you wouldn't have thought it was already going by the ending of A Quiet Place, it adds absolutely nothing to character development for any of the main cast, it introduces people just to dispose of them quickly and fiercely, and it absolutely will provide entertainment throughout the entire sitting.

Just don't come in expecting the deep introspective moments of the first film. They are absolutely missing, and the one scene where it may "add" to development of a new character of which I will not spoil, it doesn't work at all.

A Quiet Place Part II accepts the first movie as the film it was: A breath of old air that tasted incredibly fresh because we have not had it in so long within the horror genre. It does not try to outdo the first film. It does not try to add to the first film or the lore behind it. It sees the storyline for what it is and heads 120 mph in that direction without taking so much as a breather.

It is not A Quiet Place, nor should it be compared to it. Reviewers who claim it is better than the first are missing exactly what made the first so good. Reviewers who are lambasting this installment could use a refresher in filmography, especially horror sequels.

Even though Halloween II came nowhere close to offering what the first installment did, it was one of the best horror sequels (IMO) of all time precisely because it understood it couldn't live up to that.

Ultimately, Krasinski does the best he can with the remnants of what he had left after the ending of A Quiet Place. Some will groan at the end that we got Halloween II, but the alternative is Halloween IV.

Ultimately, it fails to live up to its predecessor, but is more entertaining than any horror sequel in the past few decades. Sometimes, less is more. 8 out of 10.

I am absolutely shocked to see the reviews of this film. I can only believe that people watched an entirely different movie, or took the first movie as anything more than a campy comedy satire.

You can tell the script writers are absolute lovers of the Evil Dead series. In many ways, Babysitter: Killer Queen is the Evil Dead 2 of the franchise. Those that liked the horror aspect of the Evil Dead series more will always prefer the original and find the second to be a near identical comedy which is far inferior in every way. If you loved Evil Dead 2 more than you loved Evil Dead, it is my guess that you will actually like The Babysitter: Killer Queen better than the original.

If you are a fan of Evil Dead 2, go into it knowing that it has shed its horror elements completely to go full on camp.

I felt the exact same way about The Babysitter: Killer Queen as I did the Babysitter, for its first 20 minutes. I thought: This movie is going to suck. However, neither of those things are detriments to the movie. It makes the "kick start" of the film that much more random and absolutely hilarious. I got a pretty good chuckle when The Babysitter kicked off with its first death. This film outdoes that by 100,000. The single first death scene alone is worth watching this film. It is by all accounts the "Ash bobbing with the lamp and laughing with the deer head" scene from Evil Dead 2. And the laughs just keep on coming.

It is almost essential to watch the first movie and then watch this, within a short time frame. If you barely remember the first movie, many of the jokes will fly over your head. It is an absolute laugh fest of the lowest brow.

I rarely make reviews for films, usually when I feel the people have gotten it completely wrong. I have seen plenty of half baked praise attempts. There are lots of critiques written by individuals who do not understand the camp genre. This movie will be hated and then loved. This is a Cult Classic in the making. I will only say this: Give the film a chance, and watch both movies back to back.

Forgive what feels like plot holes, too. Because, I dont think they actually are plot holes at all. This is the part where I will get into the sad truth of the world. Many do not believe that nobody would believe what happened to him happened to him. However, during the Satanic Panic in Europe, there were instances where there was so much evidence of something occurring, and yet people still did not believe it occurred. When people refer to satanic occultic stuff, it is absolutely dismissed, regardless of evidence. Not to mention, in this world, Satan is real, and if Satan is real, he controls the realm, thus "cops werent found dead" and stuff makes sense within the context. It is absolutely setting up for its "Army of Darkness" finale, and I absolutely hope that comes to fruition.

A single point off for the cringeworthy cutaways. They are all but 10 seconds and there might be four of them, but when i own the film im definitely gonna personally cut those out for home views. Great film, perfect shlock camp, absolutely hilarious, 9/10

I can start by saying, at least at times this movie was a visual treat. I can't say all the time, though. The majority of this movie was Sheri wandering around aimlessly from location to location, where the script highlighted her laughably bad acting. I can't say she is by any means a bad actress, this movie just never gave her an opportunity other than to sleepwalk. Sleepwalking is probably the best way to describe this film, which takes a rather interested premise and manages to bore the death out of everyone with it. Literally the only saving grace is the orgasmic last 1/6th of the movie, without it this score would've been borderline 1. Also, I will add, for a musician to be making this film, I expected a far greater soundtrack.

Where did this go wrong? First thing comes to mind is the decision to make this a feature film. This film had about as much content as a short film, and if it would've stuck to this route, IMO, it would've been much better. The film almost consists of entirely filler. The first time we are introduced to the Salem witches it is a visual treat, the 10th time it has long warn thin. I'm just wondering why Hollywood can't seem to make a witch movie right. The Craft is usually pointed to, but upon second viewing the Craft is nothing special. Don't bring up Hocus Pocus, either. It seems that witch movies tend to be so poorly done, and it is such a shame. I really wanted Lords of Salem to bring something new to the table.

What we got instead was every horror cliché in the book, terrible acting, horrific soundtrack, filled with at least an hour of pointless filter.

This film far from accomplishes what it set out to do, though, I must admit, towards the end I had a smile on my face. It was a sad reminder of exactly what this film could've been. 4 out of 10.

The Oranges gives the viewer a light hearted look at what is traditionally considered very taboo. A middle aged man whose daughter still lives at home falls in love with his best friends daughter, who happens to be the same age as his daughter. Factor in that he is still married, and she as of last week was engaged, and all the makings of a dark depressing midlife crisis come to a head in tragic and heartbreaking ways in what could only be an indie drama... Except that it isn't a drama, it is a lighthearted family comedy.

Such taboo subjects, under a different light with different music, could easily have found itself in contention for being quite the drama, but alas, the whole film is flipped upside down with a plot that feels so unauthentic and ridiculous that I often had to stop myself and say "no way his friend would be feeling okay with this." It felt like these families were alien, living in a different soda-pop world than the one I have seen of the suburbs. If this didn't make me cringe enough, the music would pop in and make me feel like for some reason I'm supposed to be okay with throwing your wife away for a newer model.

However, oddly enough, at the end of the day the complete and total disregard for all things righteous actually won me over. I won't by any means label this as anything worthwhile to filmmaking, which it wasn't, but the absurdness of all of this (especially the music) piling up somehow worked, and the film mainly works because the acting really makes the ridiculous believable. Catherine Keener gives an awesome performance, as well as Oliver Platt, who sells the most unrealistic character ever devised like he is more real than Shakespeare (yes Shakespeare is real.)

This film at several moments felt like by all means it should fail miserably, but thanks to the talent involved, it manages to be saved. One can tell that the screenplay just wasn't very good, but at the end of the day, somehow this film works. It is far from a great film, by any means, but it works. 7 out of 10.

Would You Rather takes an interesting look at a common children's game, playing it for the delight of a rich man with far too much money. The plot tells a story of a young girl whose younger brother lives with her after her parents have passed on, leaving nothing but mounting debt. Her brother is dying, her house has been sold, and ever job lead seems to fall through. One day somebody offers to pay for everything and find her brother a donor, at a price.

This being said, the piece was decently acted, standouts being that of Sasha Grey and the always delightful Jeffrey Combs (Re-Animator). The movie found ways to make you cringe without ever resorting to full on sight gore, the worst parts were left heavily to the imagination. This was a film that actually benefited from a lower budget, seeing that in a heavy budget one might be forced to see the over usage of all the stunts.

The movie is certainly not without its faults, first and most prominently is the lack of a decent score. The film never really utilizes music to draw you in, which is especially noticeable at the beginning and end of the film. The ending also felt so flat that it could hardly produce sympathy from the audience, an attempt to cater to the twist-necessitating crowd that has been delved since Saw's low budget first film hit our eyes. Unfortunately, it is such a negative that it makes one wonder if the whole damn first 30 minutes of the film were worth anything. This also repeats itself with a worthless subplot involving the doctor. The amount of filler placed within this movie alone degrades it, and unfortunately tampers an otherwise great horror gem to unnecessary viewing.

For all the gripes, though, the film does its job when it finally gets there. If I were to simply judge the 2nd act of this film it would get an easy 9, however, that being said, I believe a 6 is not only fair but accurate.

I have watched a lot of movies in my days on this earth, but I have never quite stumbled upon a film so "critically acclaimed" that was absolutely horrible in every single way. The acting is almost the first thing to notice, which is never cringe worthy but seems to be at a perpetually wooden state. The characters seem not to breathe or feel whether alive or in "Purgatory House".

The non-existent budget could be seen as a reason to look past this, but even movies with very small budgets (Primer, for example) are made to look like Last Tango in Paris in comparison. Acting aside, lets get to the 'plot'. It was clear here is where the "made by a 14 year old" is meant to put things into comparison. You are supposed to look at the subject matter and say "wow, for a fourteen year old, this is very good!" The problem with this is that even for a 14 year old it is trite and absolutely ridiculous.

I acknowledge that to be 14 is a remarkably tough time for anyone, but it all too often feels like taboo topics are thrown into the mix just to somehow try to relate with other teenagers. It all feels shoddy at best and at worst a joke. We can't just accept rubbish because it was written by teenagers. "The Shadow Thief" was written by a thirteen year old, and was absolutely awesome by all standards. "Thirteen" another movie screenplay written by a very young teen, hits everything this movie tries to and does it in a way that makes this film look even worse. This film reminds me of a crossbreed between Thirteen and Wristcutters: A Love Story, filled with trash and absolute rubbish.

This being said, there are hints that the writer might be able to develop later on in life. The God being a transsexual was an immediate highlight, and whoever did the soundtrack did a passable job. To be fair, most first time screenplay's usually get pitched. This was the result of a father who couldn't tell his daughter that it sucked, but keep writing. The only people who could possibly rate this film good are fathers and mothers who have a hard time telling a kid they can do wrong and sucker themselves into believing only pure art comes from children, suburban teenage girls who have absolutely perfect lives and have never experimented with drugs who feel like this girl gets it (newsflash, she doesn't), and finally film snobs who are so high on their horse they can't tell the difference between the artistic vision of David Lynch and the films who try desperately to recapture edgy teenage drama that has been done to death in far superior ways for decades. 1 out of 10.