Reviews

Despite being a big Kubrick fan, I did not enjoy Eyes Wide Shut very much. The film looks good and has a faint dream-like quality to it. The plot starts off really slow - in the first act Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman explore their marriage and the tension couples feel in regards to attractive outsiders. It managed to captivate me during the second act, when Tom Cruise visits the infamous party, but left me quite cold when the ending credits rolled. It's a very character driven movie, and while Tom Cruise is well suited for the role and his performance was 'fine', he never gets really interesting. I didn't like Nicole Kidman's scenes, especially her cannabis induced verbal 'fight' with Tom Cruise had me rolling my eyes a few times. I suppose the film has some provocative things to say about loyalty and sexual drive but it was wasted on me.

Certainly not one of Kubrick's best.

5/10.

Near Dark is a 80's vampire-themed film which has the 'twist' of its vampires just being redneckish a-holes who happen to be immortal, except when hit by sunlight. That premise isn't bad per se, but this film was exceptionally mediocre in my opinion.

The cast, while having some well liked actors in it, didn't feel convincing or menacing. The paper-thin plot (guy named Caleb is pushy around a girl who needs to get home before dawn, gets bitten and kidnapped (and is thus separated from his sister and father), hangs around with the vampire clique until they happen to meet said father and sister, then Caleb runs from vampires with his family, gets a blood transfusion from his father (who happens to be a vet) which cures his vampirism. Then, for some reason, the vampires seek Caleb out and he manages to kill all the vampires except the girl who he also blood-fuses into normality. Credits roll.

And again, this plot 'could' work, but it doesn't. For the first half of the film there's hardly any momentum, the leads don't have much chemistry, Bill Paxton's character is supposed to be 'fun' but feels forced and out of place and the dialogue is wooden at times. I'd say the lack of likeable or believable characters is the biggest lack of the film.

However, the soundtrack by Tangerine Dreams is great, the cinematography is pretty good at times and the special effects are pretty decent. That doesn't help mitigating the feeling like I wasted an hour and a half watching this.

5/10.

After watching 'The Exorcist' yesterday, I gathered the notion to skip the sequel and go straight for the third part. And while it wasn't horrid, it surely doesn't live up to the original.

I wouldn't have mind if the entire story would've been a detective thriller, hunting after the 'Gemini killer' or its copycat, with some supernatural elements thrown in. The first two acts are mostly fine, although it's clear very early on that the film, unlike part I, indulges in its 'spooky' elements. Doors being thrown open by the wind, lights flickering all around, spooky voices being whispered etc. Which again, wouldn't be bad by itself, but it felt a lot 'cheaper' than the muted horror that led up to the third act of 'The Exorcist', which felt a lot more realistic.

George C. Scott plays Inspector Kinderman and he does a terrific job, I especially liked his dialogue with Father Dyer (Ed Flanders) and the film got a lot less charming once he was killed off. I didn't like Jason Miller in this though, he felt forced as a character and I just didn't find his character very frightening due to the forced mannerisms he exhibited. The main plot point, in which the demon that possesses the body of Karras is free to possess most people in the mental ward, felt undeserved.

Mostly, I didn't enjoy the final act, which felt like a mess. Father Morning suddenly drops in to perform an exorcism, fails and is mortally wounded (but not finished by the demon). Meanwhile, the nurse that shows up as Kinderman's house fails to do any damage and inevitably puts Kinderman in the position to seek out Karras/Patient X and kill him, but initially fails to do so until Father Morning suddenly compels Karras to take over control from the demon for a brief period, in which Kinderman finds the time to kill him. Bleh.

Again, it's not the worst thing I've watched, but it's not even in the same ballpark as 'The Exorcist'.

6/10.

I've finally got around to watching 'The Exorcist' after putting it off for many years. As a young teen I've once started it (I remembered the opening scenes in Iraq) but turned it off early because I thought it was all rather boring (my comparison material at the time were movies like 'The Evil Dead', 'Nightmare on Elmstreet' and 'Hellraiser'). Now I'm older and often watch 'slow' movies and it's very clear to me why this film is hailed as 'the' classic horror film.

And like other classic horror films such as 'The Shining', it excells in a lot of departments other than just scaring the viewer. It's a compelling character drama and Regan's steady tranformation from a sweet child to a vulgar, terrifying little creature of spite is jarring. Ellen Burstyn does a terrific job as Regan's mother and I love how the plot first has her exhaust all her 'normal' options to treat the afflicted Regan before eventually being turned to Father Karras (Jason Miller).

The cinematography is excellent in a way a lot of 70s films are, and is very 'raw' in its presentation. The rest of the characters are interesting, from the drunk film director Burke to the police investigator who investigates Burke's demise. The special effects are excellent and I admit the second and third act has me quite tense and glued to the screen. Much like 'The Shining', 'The Exorcist' proves a film does not have to rely on jump scares or excessive violence and gore to terrify the audience, and I absolutely respect it for that.

In short; this film deserves it reputation.

8.5/10.

Prince of Darkness has an awesome premise, but the execution is less than perfect.

A catholic priest turns to professor Birack, a physicist (played by Victor Wong, who I adore in everything) for help with dealing with some kind of artifact, which is about to unleash a whole bunch of evil upon earth. The professor recruits a bunch of his students, students from other departments and a collegue (I presume? Dr Paul Leahy) to figure out, by means of science, what the artifact is all about.

Most of the first act is used to, slowly, introduce the cast, although none of the characters ever feel like they have a lot of substance, other than babbling about a bunch of loosely related scientific concepts. I'm not a scientist by any means, but a lot of the "science" conversations seemed quite theatrical and without a lot of significance. The second act has most of them, after being confronted with a text (which is translated by one of the students) that spells omens of doom and the devil, either reject it as nonsense or hail it as the ultimate truth. Eventually, in the third act, people are taken over by the (liquid in the) artifact, start killing/taking over people and eventually some kind of demon is born who's ultimate purpose seems to summon the devil himself from a mirror dimension... or something. All the while there are a bunch of homeless people outside the church where all this takes place, preventing the crew from leaving.

The characters are rather flat, the dialogue rather inane, the plot rather flimsy. It also doesn't help that not much happens during the movie. All the action takes place in the last 20 minutes and isn't that exciting.

Yet, I didn't hate it. While it never gets really creepy (although the guy grinning and laughing in the mirror was kinda spooky) it does manage to hold some tension during the plot, mostly due to Carpenter's excellent synth-filled soundtrack and the excellent production design.

All in all it's decent, but certainly not one of my favorite Carpenter films.

6/10.

This is a film I've heard mentioned all my life, and with a name such as "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers", I've always presumed it was one of those campy 50's sci-fi movies. But while it might be a bit campy, TIofBS is neither a 50's movie or a sci-fi flick. (note: I just read this is a remake, so it *was* originally a 50s flick)

Watching it on a whim after it being recommended by a friend, I was pleasantly surprised to find out Donald Sutherland, Jeff Goldblum and Leonard Nimoy were all part of the cast. Sutherland, playing Matthew, does a fine job portraying an investigator for the Department of Health, who uncovers an alien conspiracy to take over the planet.

My biggest complaints in terms of plot is that the the title and opening sequence of the film completely gives away what's to come, which hurts the opening act of the film, as the viewer waits for the lead characters to catch up on what's happening to their city. However, the performances given by the cast and the quick onset of paranoia kept things interesting as the unlikely (and unsuccessful) 'rebels' try to fight back against the inevitable.

The practical special effects are fantastic, the cinematography is spot-on (the dramatic lightning often gives it a noir tint) and I admit the unworldly sounds the 'snatched' produce is uncanny. While much of the plot revolves around the question, "how the hell are they going to turn this around?", which I kept pondering upon, I like the idea that the 'bad guys' win in the end. The characters end up in the DoH lab a few times and I was anticipating Elizabeth (Brooke Adams) to come up with some kind of sciency deus ex machina to thwart the invasion.

While I had some unanswered questions, like how the aliens actually communicate and how they kept knowing where Matthew and Elizabeth were at, and how the transformation was actually triggered (probably by the first contact with one of the 'tendrils'?), it didn't bother me that they were left unanswered; probably inherited from the fact that in many ways it felt like a old-school 50's flick.

It's not really scary, but tense at moments. I had a good time with it.

7.5/10.

When I decided to watch "The Wicker Man", I was intending to watch a horror film or at least a scary one. It turned out to be nothing of the sort.

Now, from the outside I have to admit that the music in this film GRATED me. I passionally hated all the singing and dancing and folk music, which probably colors my judgement of the entire thing, since there's a lot of it.

A Scottish police officer (Sergeant Howie) gets an anonymous letter, tipping him off to the disappearance of a child on Summerisle; an isle off the coast of Scotland. He decides to investigate the matter, finds an entire island of Celtic pagans preparing for a summer festival. The twist at the end is that Howie himself is the sacrifice, and everything was just a ruse to coincide with the pagan ritual.

As a mystery/detective story, it's alright I suppose. Early on in the film it's made apparent that everyone's in cahoots with each other to make sure Howie doesn't find out what's been happening with the lost child, which makes the rest of the movie a bit of a drag (not helped by the singing). Howie is a devout (puritan) Christian who is appalled at the heathen culture of the island and its master (played by Christopher Lee). This clash of cultures is, in my opinion, the most interesting dynamic in the film.

I'm not sure what else to say, as there's not much going on in the movie besides that. I watched the 'directors cut' in 4K, which had a lot of added scenes not shown in the original release, which didn't help my enjoyment a bit. Apart from the fact that everyone on the island seems a bit 'off', it's never tense or frightening. When the 'twist' is revealed at the very end, I just hoped he'd be brave enough to bump Christopher Lee off the coast, but he isn't. Instead he rants about Jesus in the giant wicker man that gives the film its name.

I hated it and might only be able recommend it to some sort of hippy types who may enjoy it for the depiction of new age rituals.

3/10.

"The Mist" is based on a novella by Stephen King, which I haven't read, so my complaints about the script and story might be applicable to just the film adaptation or both the original story and the film.

After a heavy storm one night which kills most of the power in a certain residential area, the main character David heads to a large and busy store to get some supplies and groceries. Quickly afterwards, a thick mist rolls into town, a local man (named Dan) runs in and says "the mist took someone" and hence they decide to close the store doors since there seems to be something disastrous happening with this mist.

And that's my first complaint; the human motivation. I'm not sure how it's explained in the original story, but there's no way people would choose to stay in the store for as long as they did with barely any explanation whatsoever. Mist is mist, and it seems obvious to me that most people would just go about they business. The fact that Dan said something about the mist taking someone also doesn't really come up for a while. Only after David and some other store-dwellers fend off a tentacle monster in the loading bay does Dan pop out again and reconfirm that yes, there's 'things' in the mist.

Now I'd argue that this film is firstly about human nature/the flimsy basis for civil society and only secondly about the monsters in the mist. The most memorable (and annoying) character in the film is without any doubt the doomsday-lady, who manages to convince everyone in a night or two that God is taking vengeance upon humankind because of abortions and such. Now, I live in a rather nonreligious society and so it's hard to wrap my head around the fact that she, with her lack of charisma, manages to start a death-cult in so little time. I agree with the sentiment, expressed in the film, that society can be flimsy at times of crisis and when people are scared, yet this plot development didn't feel very organic and rather forced.

The best part of the film was, without any doubt, the point the doomsday-lady gets shot in the head, which got a little cheer out of me. The bittersweet ending also got a chuckle out of me. Again, I'm not sure how this was written in the novella, but he could've at least tried to drive to a gas station of some sort, prolonging the life of his passengers. Nobody in the film ever listens to a radio either, which might've been useful since then they would've known that the military was coming in to kill the alien monsters.

Speaking of which, the monsters were a hit-and-miss. I thought the ending shot of the humongous beast covered in mist looked awesome, but most of the CGI bugs looked very cheap. It didn't help that the tentacle monster in the beginning was only slightly better rendered than something you'd see in "Sharknado" or movies like that. It would've served the film well to have shrouded most creatures in mist, instead of showing them in their full CGI glory. Again, the only 'scary' aspect of the film is the way humans treat each other, not the bugs.

There were parts that felt a bit drawn out and I remember checking how much time was left after about one and a half hour, since I was ready for it to end at that point. Luckily, that's about when they shoot the lady, finally exit the store and drive off into the mist, which was a welcome relief from the store and the annoying preacher lady.

Oh, and the "aahhhhhh" music that played towards the ending was grating. Don't put "aaaahhhhh" music where it doesn't belong.

All in all, I didn't really enjoy "The Mist" that much. With better special effects and some trimming in the script to give it a bit more momentum it might've been good.

4.5/10.

"The Mist" is based on a novella by Stephen King, which I haven't read, so my complaints about the script and story might be applicable to just the film adaptation or both the original story and the film.

After a heavy storm one night which kills most of the power in a certain residential area, the main character David heads to a large and busy store to get some supplies and groceries. Quickly afterwards, a thick mist rolls into town, a local man (named Dan) runs in and says "the mist took someone" and hence they decide to close the store doors since there seems to be something disastrous happening with this mist.

And that's my first complaint; the human motivation. I'm not sure how it's explained in the original story, but there's no way people would choose to stay in the store for as long as they did with barely any explanation whatsoever. Mist is mist, and it seems obvious to me that most people would just go about they business. There's one lady in the beginning who's asking other people for help to 'help a lady on her way', since she wanted to go home to her child. Nobody feels like helping her through the mist, so she curses them all to hell. All the while I was thinking "HELL LADY ITS JUST MIST!!". The fact that Dan said something about the mist taking someone also doesn't really come up for a while. Only after David and some other store-dwellers fend off a tentacle monster in the loading bay does Dan pop out again and reconfirm that yes, there's 'things' in the mist, and even then people need a lot of convincing that something's amiss. If it took that much convincing; why not go outside?!

Now I'd argue that this film is firstly about human nature/the flimsy basis for civil society and the monsters in the mist are more of a backdrop to this conflict. The most memorable (and annoying) character in the film is without any doubt the doomsday-lady, who manages to convince everyone in a night or two that God is taking vengeance upon humankind because of abortions and such. Now, I live in a rather nonreligious society and so it's hard to wrap my head around the fact that she, with her lack of charisma, manages to start a death-cult in so little time. I agree with the sentiment, expressed in the film, that society can be flimsy at times of crisis and when people are scared, yet this plot development didn't feel very organic and rather forced.

The best part of the film was, without any doubt, the point the doomsday-lady gets shot in the head, which got a little cheer out of me. The bittersweet ending also got a chuckle out of me. Again, I'm not sure how this was written in the novella, but he could've at least tried to drive to a gas station of some sort, prolonging the life of his passengers. Nobody in the film ever listens to a radio either, which might've been useful since then they would've known that the military was coming in to kill the alien monsters.

Speaking of which, the monsters were a hit-and-miss. I thought the ending shot of the humongous beast covered in mist looked awesome, but most of the CGI bugs looked very cheap. It didn't help that the tentacle monster in the beginning was only slightly better rendered than something you'd see in "Sharknado" or movies like that. It would've served the film well to have shrouded most creatures in mist, instead of showing them in their full CGI glory. Again, the only 'scary' aspect of the film is the way humans treat each other, not the bugs.

There were parts that felt a bit drawn out and I remember checking how much time was left after about one and a half hour, since I was ready for it to end at that point. Luckily, that's about when they shoot the lady, finally exit the store and drive off into the mist, which was a welcome relief from the store and the annoying preacher lady.

The acting overall was pretty good although I didn't like the son character. That's probably a Oh, and the "aahhhhhh" music that played towards the ending was grating. Don't put "aaaahhhhh" music where it doesn't belong.

All in all, I didn't really enjoy "The Mist" that much. With better special effects and some trimming in the script to give it a bit more momentum it might've been good.

4.5/10.

It being October, I'm watching a bunch of horror films, and 'Tumbbad' came unto my radar due to imdb's recommendation system. Since I'm not well versed in Indian cinema, I thought it'd be neat to watch a well-rated Bollywood flick as to subvert any possible expectations.

The story and premise behind this horror/monster flick is pretty good. Ancient legends speak of a goddess who bore another 160 million gods (Indian mythology tends to be like that), the first god borne (named Hastar) is a greedy bastage and wants to take all sustenance (gold and wheat in this case) for himself and is shunned and (sort of) banished to the Goddess' womb for it.

Vanayak is the main character and the plot follows his journey from his youth to his eventual demise. He finds out the actual location of the Godesses' womb and robs Hastar with some trickery throughout the film.

I'd say the actual plot is quite flat, despite the premise. Greed is the obvious theme throughout the proceedings and (almost) every character is thus inflicted with a healthy dose of avarice (exception being the very last scene). And while such characters don't have to be necessarily unsympathetic, I found it hard to sympathize with any of the awful people in the film, which was part of why I didn't enjoy it a lot.

Despite the thin plot and unlikable characters, there's a lot of good to be said about the production design and cinematography. Gorgeous shots of Indian landscapes and architecture keep the visuals interesting and while not all the special effects wowed me, I appreciated the scarcity of CGI.

Perhaps the biggest problem is that it's not really scary, which is the main thing I'm looking for in a horror film. As such, I can't really recommend this as a scary movie, but it's originality and visuals at least made it memorable.

6/10.

I just saw 'The Void' after recently being disappointed by the execution of 'Event Horizon', but intrigued by the concept. Searching for some 'cosmic horror' recommendations brought me to see this film and I had a good time with it.

I'd say the first act, in which the viewer is dropped into a current of seemingly random events happening in some part of rural America is probably the most 'scary' portion, mostly because things are most frightening when left (mostly) unseen. Now I've spoiled myself by the knowledge that this was a Lovecraftian/cosmic horror film and thus the direction of the plot, or at least the nature of the threat, wasn't much of a surprise.

Yet, for a smaller budget horror film it ticked most of the boxes. The acting was mostly decent (all being unknown actors to me), the film kept the tension high throughout the relatively short runtime and I wasn't bored for a second. Whilst the 'horror' aspect (in its most literal sense) wore off pretty quickly, mostly due to the first Lovecraftian tentacle monster being rather slow and clumsy (being hacked to death by two fire axes) - which in turn made them seem not *that* much of a threat, the monster designs were convincing and grotesque. I'd say the 'horror' of the film eventually leaned more into 'Hellraiser' territory than a truly scary film such as 'the Shining'. Fans of body horror and practical effects will surely enjoy this.

Some of the sub-plots weren't that interesting (seemingly everyone was dealing with miscarriages or other family drama) and most characters were rather undeveloped (especially the guy who looked like Alex Jones and his son). I thought the very ending was the weakest part and it didn't really conclude on any satisfying note. The evil doctor has this supposed master plan that comes to fruition, but his resurrected child gets mangled by some fire axes (seems to be the bane of cosmic monsters) and eventually gets crushed while sluggishly chasing someone. The evil doctor turned demi-god gets himself pushed into the abyss by the main character who's been wounded severely for several times... so I suppose the villain wasn't that powerful after all.

The last scene, in which the main character and his (ex?) wife stand around on a seemingly ending planet, seemed rather unnecessary.

Despite the flat ending and despite it not being that scary, I still enjoyed it.

7/10.

Whilst being a sci-fi fan, I never saw 'Event Horizon'. As I've seen the movie mentioned as a decent horror/sci-fi flick in various places online, I decided to give it a whirl. I expected a somewhat shlocky film, but was not prepared for whatever this was supposed to be. Frankly, I'm rather surprised at the high imdb rating and the way some reviewers seriously think this is some sci-fi/horror masterpiece. Although tastes vary and everyone's opinion is in some form valid, it's difficult to see any redeeming qualities in 'Event Horizon'.

The biggest problem is the plot. Whilst the premise isn't bad per se, the execution of the premise is, a bit like 'Prometheus', so dumb that I couldn't help but wonder if Paul W. S. Anderson meant this as some kind of parody. A group of ~10 space marines get sent on a rescue mission of the ship called 'Event Horizon' in deep space, together with a 'scientist' (played by Sam Neill, who I like as an actor) who developed some kind of warp drive. It quickly turns out the Event Horizon is haunted, the crew starts hallucinating and horror stuff happens.

Pointing out all the dumb stuff that happens during these events would be describing the film almost scene-by-scene. Why does everyone feel the constant need to run around on their own on the ship? Was Sam Neill already possessed before the mission? If not, why does he act the way he does? Why are the body cams of the crew only used in the first 5 minutes of the rescue mission (would help with discerning the hallucinations)? Why does the crew member 'Justin' feel the need to stick his hand into some weird warp drive material during the first 5 minutes of the rescue mission? Why, if the ship is 'alive' and can apparently teleport people, make them immortal and read their thoughts and memories, unable to just halt Laurence Fishburne from blowing up the warp drive?

My brain turned off about 20-30 minutes in and thus I managed to get through the entire runtime (thank god it's not a long film). The characters are all one-beat and walking cliche's, the dialogue is condescending (at one point a crew member is walking by himself, noticed there's blood dripping on him, and he just has to tell the viewer... 'its blood!') and the acting is embarrassing at points. I did get a chuckle out of Sam Neill doing a Pinhead (Hellraiser) impression and I suppose this could've been a 'fun' movie in the late 90s if you were drunk and stoned out of your mind and was watching this with a couple of buddies while ridiculing it, but it's by far the dumbest movie I've seen in recent memory. I'll give it a few points for the premise and the visuals, but can't recommend it to anyone.

3/10.

Woah, it's hard to wrap my head around this film, having just seen it. It's probably the most confusing Lynch film (perhaps together with Mulholland Dr, although my memory on that is pretty fuzzy) I've seen to date.

As I like to rate films directly after I saw them, I'll rate this a 7.5/10, mostly based on how I felt throughout the experience with the caveat that I don't fully grasp it (if that's even possible) although it feels like I 'almost' get it. It's like having the feeling that you remember something important, having it on the tip of your tongue, but you can't quite articulate it.

The film starts off with Fred hearing a voice message left at his door, saying that "Dick Laurent is dead". Fred is married with Renee, and is filmed at his by Mr Creepy guy who leaves him video tapes on his doorstep. When the police get involved, Renee tells them Fred doesn't like video camera's, after which Fred says he'd rather remember events as they occured to him than see how they actually occured. I think that's at the heart of the story here.

Fred seemingly murders his wife (he sees this on video), gets send to deathrow and after a few nights wakes up as Andy. The police release Andy, who gets back to his (relatively normal) life. Eventually he gets involved with Alice, who looks like a blonde Renee. Renee eventually convinces him to rob Porno guy, who gets killed by Andy. Then Alice takes Andy to "the fence" to sell stuff they stole from Porno guy, but the fence isn't home. Then Andy and Alice have sex (again) during which Alice tells Andy, who turns into Fred again, that he "can't ever have her" and dissapears in to the fence's cabin. The fence turns out to by Mr Creepy guy, who runs out Fred with a video camera. Fred rides off, turns up at the "Lost Highway Hotel" in which he kidnaps Dick Laurent and later kills him together with Mr Creepy Guy. At the end he turns up at his (Fred's) house again and leaves the voice message we hear at the start; "Dick Laurent is dead". The cops chase him, Fred freaks out in his car, after which it gets quiet again, and the credits roll.

I don't like reviews writing synopsis, but this was just for myself :p. I'm pretty sure Mr Creepy Guy is just a part of Fred, maybe a dark part of his psyche. Alice probably also isn't real? She disappears from the picture in mr Porno guy's house when the cops look at the picture... on the other hand, the cops saw Andy meeting up (and having sex) with Alice... Also, what exactly happened to Andy at his fateful night that his parents didn't tell him about?

Now I vaguely recall having heard that David Lynch doesn't intend his films to always make 100% sense or to wrap up every loose end or present it to the viewer in a neat format, which is part of the fun. Having said that... man, this was a lot. This was a wild film (wilder than 'Wild at Heart') and I'm sure this film will be floating around in my head for quite a while. I can definitely say this is a unique experience for me.

Blue Velvet is probably the most 'conventional' Lynch movie I've seen so far. It's very weird at times and a lot of the characters are obviously completely insane, but the narrative structure is pretty clear and I could count at least 4 characters who weren't totally unhinged.

Jeffrey Beaumont (played by Kyle MacLachlan) finds a snipped-off ear one day, reports it to Detective Williams (George Dickerson), meets his daughter who tells him about the apartment of a night club singer ('Dorothy Vallens', played by isabella Rossellini) who's probably connected to the case. The biggest stretch in the film is probably that Jeffrey gets out of his way to infiltrate said apartment (and we get our first taste of an absolutely bananas Dennis Hopper in this scene). As Jeffrey chases the mystery further and further, things get more and more messed up.

I really liked Laura Dern in this, I mostly know her from 'Jurassic Park' but thought she did a fantastic job playing Sandy Williams (the daughter of Detective Williams) and she's probably the most 'normal' character in the film. Dorothy Vallens is a broken and abused character who mostly just wants to see her husband and child, and her depiction of the despair and madness that haunts her is quite chilling.

It might not be my favorite Lynch movie, but as with most of his films, it's very intriguing and I enjoyed my time with it.

7/10.

Wild at Heart was very captivating, in a way David Lynch movies often are. It's filled with so much oddities, quirks and mysteries that, even though the plot itself is sometimes trodding along, there's no moment of boredom.

Sailor (Nicolas Cage) is uncharacteristically one of the more grounded characters (although he's pretty wild at heart) since the rest of the characters are mostly completely unhinged. I really appreciate that Lynch paints a world in which a *lot* is going on, while not feeling obliged to wrap everything up neatly in the way (regular) films usually do. Like, what was the deal with the voodoo lady/assassin trio? What was the deal with William Dafoe's (who steals the show) 'girlfriend' assassin lady or with Mr. Rendeer and his silver dollars?

Along the way we meet a lot of oddballs (the guy in Texas telling Sailor and Lula about his dog, the guy at the end looking for some random number who stamps his feet at Lula, some of the singers in the nightclubs (I loved the music in this film, being a jazz fan), etc.

Lula's mother is quite frightening and she's probably the most batshit insane (evil) character in the film, the scene in which she paints her face and hands with lipstick and flips out kinda freaked me out.

I could rant on about how... strange and bewildering the film is, but then I might rob you of the pleasure of seeing it yourself. The film is obviously not for everyone, but if you're sitting on the fence on this one, please see it!

7.5/10.

'Sisu' is as of yet, the dumbest film I've seen this year.

The film is extremely simple (which is by itself not a bad thing) as it's about a legendary Finnish ex-commando named Aatami who finds a bunch of gold in 1944, but the Nazi's also like gold so they're trying to kill him and well, surprise, he ends up killing them instead.

Aatami is not much of a character. He's old, tough and obviously is a super bad-ass. That's about it. These facts are gathered from a few conversations between Nazi's and they are kinda stressed that they have to deal with him since he is known to have killed 300 Russians by himself and apparently he doesn't die easily. Which is somewhat of an understatement, since in this movie he pretty much gives Marvel hero's a run for their money. He gets shot dozens of times (which he fixes with some first aid), protects himself from multiple heavy machine gun fire by shielding him with a Nazi corpse, at one point he blocks machine gun fire by two Nazi squads using just a small metal pan, he tosses landmines around with pinpoint accuracy in a cloud of smoke, he uses his pick axe to lift unto a flying plane and then in midair uses the same pick axe to get through the underside of the plane into the interior and when the plane eventually crashes nose down into the ground, disintegrating the entire thing, he somehow crawls out of it unharmed.

Don't get me wrong, if this was a dark comedy or some kind of satire that wouldn't be a problem, but this movie seems to take itself quite seriously. Which doesn't work since there are no stakes, since Aatami can't die. There's a lot of times the Nazi's *could* kill him, but simply ... don't. They hang him at one time by hoisting him up and just leave him there to escape, even though they've already witnessed him escaping death a dozen times.

Production wise, it's fine. There's a lot of gore, the special effects and cinematography are serviceable, the Lappish landscape is gorgeous and the actors do a decent job with the material (though it's pity that the Finnish talk Finnish but the Nazi's talk English). The writing sometimes irked me ("he's not IMMORTAL, he just REFUSES TO DIE!!!1") but luckily there isn't too much dialogue.

Halfway through I was ready to call it quits but eh, it's only a ~90 minute movie so I stuck with it. Apart from the first 'chapter' (in which he finds the gold), it's very samey the entire movie through.

I feel dumber having watched it.

4.5/10.

'Talk to me' is a fresh spin on the posession genre; young people who have fun talking to the dead and having themselves possessed. It's weird having a movie that tries to ground itself very much in reality that simultaneously doesn't acknowledge that having a consistent way to talk to spirits would be a pretty major thing. During the movie the posessions are filmed and put on the web (which is the very reason the main group of characters get interested in it in the first place). You'd think that the two accomodators of 'the hand' would've connected the dots and made a pretty penny by auctioning it or whatnot. It's also hard to fathom that nobody would, after Riley's (the kid brother) hospitalization, would not just say 'yes, the problem is this magic spirit hand here, try it yourself and you'll see what I mean'.

But okay, it's a horror film and thus I shouldn't be so anal about such things. It's a fun premise and I was mostly engaged in the proceedings, although the dumb decisions Mia kept making were somewhat annoying. But again, I can't help but mention that if I felt like I was going mad, I'd probably get that magic hand to a psychologist and/or a physicist quite quickly. I suppose there's an analogy here that has to do with drug abuse, especially after the posession party in Jade's house where it's like a bong party at one time, with everyone blasting off.

The effects are well done, especially the facial features of Mia were pretty darn creepy in posesssion mode. There's very few jumpscares, which I appreciate a lot, as the tension is thus more spread throughout the film.

The ending scene is also very fitting, although I do hope they won't start pumping out sequels now.

7.5/10.

Cobweb came onto my radar due to RLM reviewing it and I'm glad for the recommendation. The first two acts are the strongest as the villain is yet unrevealed, the third act mostly suffers a bit from having the monster in the open.

I thought it was clever the way the dynamics between Peter (the son) and his parents played out. Obviously they were messed up parents (and people) but the events had me guessing they were the main threat in the film. Not only due to the nightmare Peter has of his parents but mostly due to the mannerisms and the way they interacted with Miss Devine. And while having the sister being the monster didn't come out entirely out of the blue I thought it was a nice touch.

The main problems are some which a lot of horror films struggle with; dumb people syndrome! Now I suppose I should cut Peter some slack since he's a young kid. But the fact that the home invaders in the final act didn't catch unto the fact that untoward events were happening in the house until half of 'em got killed was, due to the size of the house, not totally believable. And while Miss Devine's motivation's were clear, her methods were strange. At multiple points a 'normal' person would've contacted the authorities/some other help figure, especially at the very end when she manages to get out but runs back inside to help Peter.

The plot moves along at a brisk pace and I'm pleased by the lean script. The most important fact however is that I was mostly engrossed and had some occasional chills down my spine. Would recommend.

7.5/10.

3 Idiots was the last movie I needed to complete the top 100 imdb movies. I've been putting it off for about 1,5 year since watching it didn't appeal to me. It's almost 3 hours long, it has a lot of songs and dance (which I generally don't enjoy) and it was a comedy... I usually don't like intended comedy's unless they feature a lot of dark humor.

But I ended up really enjoying it, not even taking a break during the movie despite it's length. The script and characters stand out, a lot of character have great development throughout the plot and the writers made sure everything clicks wonderfully together at several points during the story. I'm not that familiar with Indian culture but I thought it was nice to watch the main theme of the movie ("don't mindlessly chase money/be yourself" etc) play out with nuance against the often strict hierarchical structures of the Indian society portrayed.

The songs and dance sequences weren't for me and thus I mostly skipped through those, but I won't hold that against the film.

All in all I was pleasantly surprised and I might check out some other films from the same writer/director in the future.

8/10.

This was one of the two last films I had to see to complete the IMDB top 200. I've been putting it off for about a year now, since the prospect of watching Toy Story 3 didn't appeal to me at all. I've seen the original Toy Story (probably in theaters) and liked it as a kid (I was 9 at the time), but never got as much into it as other kids seemingly. I might've seen Toy Story 2 but I remember about as much about it as the first movie... almost nothing except the names of Buzz Lightyear and Woody.

I'm also just not a big Pixar fan. I like Wall-E a lot, but most other modern Pixar offerings leave me cold. They're not bad film, but they feel a lot more like 'kid' films and often get a tad bit too preachy for my liking.

Anyhow, having just watched Toy Story 3 (on a whim), I admit this was a great film. The plot moves forward at a fast pace without ever feeling rushed, the plot touches on some emotional subjects (mostly rejection, 'moving on', loyalty etc) and it is just put very well together. I love how the daycare everyone goes to turns out to be some kind of prison camp and the fluffy pink bear its dictator. It's not hilarious, but some parts certainly made me grin. I also appreciate that it's very easily watchable for someone who forgot all that happened in the first two movies.

8/10.

Casino was entertaining and kept my interest throughout its almost 3 hour runtime. Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci give top notch performances as Sam Rothstein (a casino boss) and Nicky Santoro (a mafia thug) respectively. Sharon Stone's character is my least favorite element in the film, but I got to admit she also gives a stellar performance as Ginger: the sleazy, abused and rather unhinged wife of Rothstein. (oh, also a quick shoutout for James Woods, who plays the scumbag ex-boyfriend/pimp of Ginger)

While the story has been told a lot of times (often by Scorcese) it did keep me engrossed in the plot, although it was quite obvious from the start that the relationship of Rothstein and Ginger was built on very shaky ground. In many regards it reminded me of Tony Montana's relationship with his (trophy) wife in 'Scarface'.

All in all I liked it a lot, but didn't quite love it. 7.5/10.