Reviews

The first Insidious is still the best, but this one is better than all the others and is a nice, tight ending to the Lambert's nightmarish saga. This movie had a lot of great callbacks to the original, which is something I always love because it shows the filmmakers care for the source material and want to treat it with respect while also making it their own, which debut director Patrick Wilson does.

Speaking of Wilson, he did an excellent job in his directional debut. Even though this takes place a decade after the first two chapters, all the characters seemed to have grown organically. The growth and what the characters have become reflects the struggles and things they went through in the first movie, making them feel real and relatable since they actually have depth to them.

Wilson also did a great job building up the tension, then delivering the scare. The build-up is there and so is the payoff, which is more than I can say for 90%of horror movies these days. The tension isn't just mounted for a phone to ring extremely loud for a trash gmmicky 'jumpscare'. There is always a terrifying payoff at the end of the mounted tension, something that cheap horror movies these days don't know how to do.

I will say that I wish there were a couple more demon/entity designs and that those demons/entities paid a bigger part in the story/lore of the Insidious universe. The score also wasn't quite on the level of the hair-raising first movie. The frat party sequence, though fun, didn't really make much sense and felt kind of rushed through.

All in all, a pretty good ending to a very spooky trilogy. James Wan would be proud.

7.5/10.

If you like Wes Anderson, I'm sure you'll like this movie. If you don't like Wes Anderson, definitely don't see this movie. I've seen 5 Wes movies; some I really like, some are just 'okay', but this movie was not good. It is my least favorite Wes movie thus far.

It felt like Wes had three completely separate ideas going on and tried to force them into eachother to make an interesting kind of narrative concept. Unfortunately, it didn't work at all and just distracted from the actual Asteroid City story. This narrative concept he was going for just made the movie convoluted and honestly just stupid. He should have just stuck to telling the Asteroid City story normally without the other distractions because the only thing it added to was the runtime.

Overall, this is my least favorite Wes movie. It's a beautiful movie to look at and I was a big fan of the alien, but that's really about it.

5.5/10.

I'm glad that James Gunn's humor is still sharp because that is the best part of the movie. I found myself laughing out loud countless times during my viewing. For being two and a half hours long, the movie didn't have that much action. There are like 4 action scenes. The story and villain also seemed pretty thin. The villain is some dude in a power suit who wants to destroy the universe, yada yada yada how original.

The villain and Rocket's relationship is what the whole movie's about, it's the driving force of the plot. The villain wants Rocket and will stop at nothing to get him, and that is the plot for this entire TWO AND A HALF HOUR long movie. I also hate that they brought back Gamora. Like, why? Why bring her back? She really didn't add anything, and by bringing her back, you let the audience know that anyone can be brought back, which then takes away all the stakes of the movie.

This movie is best when the Guardians are together and having their typical Guardians banter between themselves. The eye-popping production design, make-up and visuals are all top notch. The big showdown at the end had potential to be great, but then went very Disney and was just kind of "eh".

Overall, I'd say this is the 2nd best MCU movie post-Endgame (behind Spider-Man). There is some solid emotional depth and nice closure for Rocket, but I would still put Guardians 1 and 2 a tier above this one.

7.1/10.

It pains me terribly to say that this movie was not good. Over the years, 'The Evil Dead (1981)' has become one of my favorite movies of all time. I've watched the director commentary multiple times to see how they created a shoe-string budget indie masterpiece, which they explain through hilarious stories from the production/filming process. The entire cast/crew put themselves through the highest of highs and the lowest of lows to get the original 'Evil Dead' made. Nothing but sheer will-power and creative ingenuity are what got the original movie made. Actual blood, sweat and tears from the cast and crew poured onto the original, glorious-looking Necronomicon. None of that love went into this movie.

We've seen what a modern 'Evil Dead' can look like with 2013's remake, which I thought was pretty good, definitely miles better than this. This movie was extremely tame, way too tame to have 'Evil Dead' in the title. The cheese grater scene that was hyped up so much (that I was looking most forward to), that they made a WHOLE POSTER FOR, turned out to be a MASSIVE let down. The tattoo gun scene you get a glimpse of in the trailer? Also a massive let down. Why were they so afraid to show gore and intense violence in this one? 2013 (and the originals) went WAY harder than this. For God sake, a woman gets assaulted by a tree within the first 20 minutes of the original! No boundaries are pushed with this entry. It makes no sense why they went so tame for this, especially since Terrifier 2 (which just released last year and made BANK at the boxoffice) was extremely BRUTAL and had insanely gory and violent scenes that showed off somewhat cheesey, but also very impactful practical effects (what 'Evil Dead' is supposed to be all about).

There was a decade between this and the 2013 remake, and tons of production time, so why was the script so bad? The way the Necronomicon was discovered in this movie was some of the most lazy, terrible writing I have seen in years. Also, what is up with the characters? None of them are likable and they're all female, half of which are pronoun warriors. If I didnt know any better, I would've thought Disney had their hand in the writing material for this entry. The 'Evil Dead' franchise broke the mold by being one of the very few horror franchises to have a male be the hero/survivor. 99% of horror movies (especially today) have a final girl. We had Jane Levy as Mia in the 2013 remake swap roles with Ash by being the sole survivor of the Deadites, and I thought that worked pretty well. Levy kicked ass and earned her right to be the final girl. That is not the case in this movie.

Another thing I don't understand is if they're going to do something different with the franchise, why not go all the way? What I mean is that they changed the setting, and that's about it. The Necronomicon was discovered in the same way (albeit WAY dumber and less believable in this entry), the story beats were nothing new, a close knit group has to defend themselves from the Deadites, etc etc. Almost nothing but the setting (which they didn't even use well) was anything new for the franchise, so I'm not sure why they're trying to pass it off as some game-changing entry. They also used one floor of the apartment for 90% of the movie, so it's not like they even changed the setting that much.

The homages in this movie felt so out of place, like they were forced into the movie. 'Evil Dead Rise's' eyeball homage made me roll my eyes to the back of my skull, hoping I'd become possessed myself because it felt so forced. I could feel the director writing all these homages with a big grin on his face like 'Oh yeah, Mr. Raimi's gonna love this hehehe!'. At least 2013 was subtle with their homages, whereas this movie was just blatant and forced, making the homages feel extremely out of place. I'd rather they just did their own thing and not have any homages at all than get the homages I got.

THE GOOD PARTS: The main possessed mom actress stole the show. When she first got possessed, her movements and facial expressions were top notch. I'd say she's the best Deadite probably since first two 'Evil Dead' movies. I would even go to say she may be the best demonic portrayal in many years. She was really chewing up the scenery early on. Everyone else was just meh, but it's not the actors' fault that their characters are trashcans.

Obviously, there was gore, but really not that much, and when there was gore, a lot of the times it was implied. They'd pan away a lot when a kill or something gruesome was about to happen, or the character would kick the demon off before getting brutalized. This is easily the most tame 'Evil Dead' entry; some guys in the bathroom were even saying the same thing. The demon kill count is also pathetic; none of these women could kill a demon for the life of them. The theater I was in was damn near sold out, yet my girlfriend and I were the only ones to laugh during the entire showing. Everyone else was dead silent throughout the whole movie, so that should let you know how things were going.

OVERALL, this was a massive disappointment, but not just as an 'Evil Dead' movie, but as a horror movie. The movie doesn't stand on it's own enough; story and lore-wise, it just doesn't really carry the franchise forward in any meaningful way, leaving me questioning what the point of the movie is. At this point, I think it would be best for the 'Evil Dead' franchise to do what 2018's 'Halloween' did and only count the original 'Evil Dead' as existing, then make a trilogy from there. That being said, do it better than the new 'Halloween' trilogy because those took a nosedive quick. I'm not saying 'Don't see this movie'. By all means, see it. But don't expect to be on the edge of your seat terrified. Don't expect creative and crazy camera work, lighting or practical effects. Don't expect the franchise's story to move forward in any meaningful way. But most saddening, don't expect any soul in this movie (possibly because it was sucked dry by the studio). Hopefully, for the next entry, they get Damien Leone or Ari Aster, someone who is passionate and thrives in the indie horror scene and pushes boundaries when it comes to extreme horror; something 'Evil Dead' is supposed to be about, but apparently not this time.

EDIT (May 5): Upon a second viewing, I've gotta admit... that this movie is indeed bad. I double down on everything I said previously. They did to Evil Dead what Disney did to Star Wars. How they found the book is awful, the deaths (which are almost all off screen) were lame and uninspired, the setting was completely wasted, and all the characters were worthless and annoying. This movie felt like a dumb kid (Lee Cronin) copying an essay of a smart kid (Sam Raimi) and just changing one word per paragraph to try and pass it off as their own. What a joke.

5.1/10.

Ari Aster went full Ari Aster on this one, to varying degrees of success. I would divide this movie up into 3 parts, 1 hour a piece.

I thought the 1st act was the best. The movie started out like a standard(ish) movie and was chaotically hilarious, with some twists and turns thrown late into the act.

Act 2 is where this movie took a nose dive. Ari Aster just went way too Ari Astery and unleashed his indie arthouseness. The issue was that, although visually pleasing, Act 2 didn't really add to the story or make much sense. Plus, it was very boring in my opinion.

Finally, Act 3 was alright, better than Act 2 anyway. There is one big reveal where EVERYONE, and I mean E V E R Y O N E, who sees this movoe will be talking about the big "reveal" in the atic. Though the reveal was shocking, there was no closure with it and felt kind of pointless. I feel like there was very little closure with the majority of the characters and stories once the credits started rolling.

Overall, definitely an interesting and oddly hilarious viewing, though my least favorite Aster film thus far. This is probably one of those movies where you only watch it once in your lifetime because it's so long and a LOT to take in. It started out great and had some great scenes throughout, but then buckled under the weight of its own scope and ideas in the later acts. Joaquin's performance was great; he was hilarious and pathetic. It was definitely new ground for him. The cinematography also carried the movie, it was truly remarkable.

6.8/10.

Wow what a boring, bland piece of demonic trash! Almost nothing happens this entire movie that takes place in basically one setting. Every trope ever conceived in an exorcism movie is on full display, but in the most bland way possible. It's as if the director doesn't know how to orchestrate tension because there was ZERO.

The demon was an absolute joke with little to no power. All the demon would do was stay tied to the bed and yell terribly wirtten expletives that you would hear a 9 year-old yell in an Xbox Live lobby.

The only somewhat redeeming/entertaining factor of this movie was Russell Crowe in an extremely random role. Still, they didn't let Crowe chew the scenery enough because the director probably wanted to keep the vibe of the movie "dark and horrifying", though it was most definitely neither.

There was also a terrible part during the finale where Crowe and his sidekick pull out their crosses for one last chance at beating the demon. I kid you not, when they pulled out the crosses, they made a high-pitched "power-up" noise, as if the crosses were charging up a power attack. What an absolute joke!

I can't believe all the people giving this dumpster fire a 9 or 10. Thats just complete disrespect to cinema and you should be thrown to the depths of Hell for such blasphemy.

3.5/10.

This is the 2nd best movie I've seen this year, right behind John Wick 4. Mario Bros was a delightful little treat that wasn't too long or too short; it was just right. The movie's animation is eye-poppingly gorgeous and the music and sounds are all so fun and nostalgic because they meshed the classic video game sounds with super clean audio touch-ups of the present.

I honestly think my favorite parts of the movie were when they weren't even in the Mushroom Kingdom. The world-building they did for this movie's version of Brooklyn was honestly very impressive. They crammed so much love and so many Easter eggs inside this movie that you can't help but be a fan. Mario Bros' Brooklyn also has the potential to set up villains and characters for the next movie. I wish there was more Shy Guy since he's my favorite character from the Mario universe, though there is blue star character that steals the show in my opinion.

Overall, this was a pretty good movie with top notch animation and sound design, with a lot of heart and soul to boot. It's no Wall-E or Toy Story, but I would say it's the best animated feature to come out in the past couple years.

7.1/10.

Renfield was 'alright'. The plot and characters of the movie are paper thin. Most of the dialogue the characters spew is exposition explaining what's happening currently or characters explaining they're motives and reasons why they're the main character(s). As a viewer, this gets very repetitive and tiresome. This is why you must SHOW and NOT TELL. I feel like 30+ minutes of this movie is exposition.

The only character not guilty of being an exposition workhorse is Nic Cage's eccentric portrayal of Dracula. I'm a huge fan that they based his design off of Bela Lugosi's classic portrayal. They also had fun with some flashbacks that looked like they were from Lugosi's 1931 Dracula.

As for the action, it was pretty decent. It was choreographed a lot like John Wick fight scenes, but with gore explosions thrown in there. There are some FANTASTIC kills in this otherwise run-of-the-mill action comedy. That being said, a lot of the action scenes near the end don't make any sense because the power levels that were built up throughout the whole movie are kind of just thrown to the wayside and plot armor takes over.

Overall, Nic Cage and the gore are the highlights of this otherwise vanilla horror/action/comedy thing.

6/10.

As of now, this is the best movie of 2023; that being said, it still has it's issues. I'll start by saying the action sequences (all 9,000 of them) are breathtakingly choreographed. John Wick's trademarked 'GunFu' is on full display in Chapter 4 (for better or worse). This chapter easily has the highest body count out of the series, but you can't rely on bodies and bullets as your main focal point, especially if it's supposedly the last chapter (I highly doubt it is). Wick is weighed down by plot armor so thick it deflects literally everything, including the viewer's belief that Mr. Wick will ever be in any danger. Hit by 10 cars? Tis but a scratch!

My main issue with Chapter 4 is that the plot is very thin and it's stretched out over 3 hours. This chapter is very 'Beginning. Middle. End'. The beginning and end are 5 minutes a piece, while the middle is two and a half hours of John effortlessly walking through goons (which is great, until it's not). I love me some Wick slaughtering goons, but when 95% of the movie is gun fire, you begin to forget what the plot even is, what the movie's even about, which is not good. This movie could've easily been cut down to 2 hours if they edited the fight scenes to a reasonable time, so I hope you don't like plot with your action.

Another gripe I had is the fact that John Wick had like maybe 10 lines of dialogue? The guy barely spoke a word throughout the entirety of the movie, and when he did speak, 99% of the time it was him going "Yeah..." (which is great, until it's not). Maybe use Keanu/Wick as a vehicle for the plot instead of having him be a mute protagonist of an FPS video game? He's the title character for God sake! In Chapters 1 and 2, Wick showed a lot of emotion and vulnerability through dialogue and acting (at least more than this chapter) to express himself, but in this he is pretty much the Doomslayer. Also, is it just me or was Keanu's acting extra bad in this one? The line delivery sometimes was just... oof, even for Keanu standards.

My favorite part of the movie is a top-down one-take scene near the end where Wick is blasting through goons with incendiary ammo.

Overall, the movie is a good time and if you're a Wick fan, then you won't be disappointed. I'd say this is a step up from Chapter 3, but not as good as 1 and 2.

7.2/10.

The movie itself (the plot, characters, dialogue, etc) is very average and pretty much what you'd expect from a movie aptly titled Cocaine Bear. The characters and their motives are all paper thin, there's shoddy dialogue throughout, and there are pacing issues (mainly in the second half). That being said, there are 2 to 3 scenes in this movie that are absolutely fantastic. I'm talking laugh-out-loud hilarious.

One of the great scenes im talking about takes place in an ambulance and it's just pure gory, comedic chaos. I haven't laughed or clapped that hard during a movie in years. Unfortunately, shortly after this scene, the movie's pace begins to seize up a little bit and lost its footing at the halfway point. I also wish Ray Liotta had a bit more screen time to chew up the scenery for his final role.

Overall, the movie is pretty average, but there are some truly spectacular moments sprinkled throughout that you can't help but laugh and clap hysterically at. Those couple scenes alone make the movie worth a watch.

6.7/10.

Where do I even start with this boring, exposition-drenched Star Wars wannabe?

I guess I'll start at when I knew the movie was going to be trash. At the beginning of the movie, Ant-Man has to go down to the local police station to pick up his daughter from jail. She was arrested because the police were tasked with clearing out a homeless encampment (in reality, encampments are a serious crime issue on the West coast), but Ant-Man's daughter didn't like that, so she destroyed police equipment. The next scene at dinner, Hank Pym said he would've marched in there and broken her out of jail. Why is Marvel pushing anti-policing/anti-justice and having a teenage girl as their "martyr" or spokesperson or whatever. Shouldn't the Marvel heroes be working together with the police to stop crime? What is this leftist gibberish? I have grown to expect this from Marvel after the Disney acquisition, but man were the politics extra loud in this movie.

Regardless of the extreme leftist political pandering written by someone who is completely detached from actual society and the real world being forced onto us, the movie was still trash. Kang was an absolute joke of a villain in this movie. I have no idea how they plan(ned) on making him the new big bad, someone on Thanos's level after what I just saw. The action was so boring and drab because you know everyone's going to be fine. There's no sense of danger or risk that something won't go as planned. So many scenes and sets were just blatantly ripped from A New Hope it's honestly pathetic.

I know Disney owns Marvel and Star Wars, but keep them separate. Let them have their own feel to them, like back when the first Avengers came out. That movie had its own unique feel/aura and has aged extremely well. Marvel movies are now too busy pandering to politics to tell an interesting story with real fleshed out characters dealing with serious issues that have consequences. It feels like every Marvel movie is trying to be Thor Ragnarok now, and that only spells disaster.

I'm more sad than mad. I thought this movie looked decent from the trailers too. After this, I don't think the days of actual quality films like Iron Man or Avengers are coming back, not from Disney.

The most criminal thing about this movie is they somehow even made Paul Rudd unlikable.

2/10.

This movie is not a finished product, not even close. This needed AT LEAST a month or two longer in the editing room because it is a mess! I'm not even talking about the terrible story or acting because I knew I was getting that regardless, which is no problem for me as long as there's some carnage. I'm talking about the atrocious sound mixing/editing, the abrupt cuts and transitions, and nauseating camera work. The basics of filmmaking! Whenever someone is getting murdered, you can't even tell what is going on because the camera work is so amateurish and shoddy. It's almost like the camera operator was having a seizure whenever they were supposed to film a kill.

This movie had a $100,000 budget, yet they showed almost no gore/make-up FX when someone would die. If you're filming a low-budget B horror movie, people are going for the kills and not much else, therefore you better be pumping 80% of your budget into the "horror" aspect of the movie and show some people getting slaughtered.

Terrifier 1 had a $25,000 (a fraction of Blood and Honey's budget), yet showed every kill in grisly detail and people LOVED it! Then they made a sequel for $250,000 and made 13 million off it. I'm not sure where the $100,000 budget of this movie went, but it was most definitely not the kills, editing or acting. Maybe Pooh and Piglet's costumes were each $50,000 a piece, and if so the costume designer definitely pocketed that money.

The only reason I'm not giving this a 1 is because I like the concept of taking a fictional character from the public domain and putting a B horror twist on it. Though a good concept, the execution could not have been much worse. This should not have left editing room let alone released IN THEATERS! The distribution company should be held accountable. It's like video game developers releasing unfinished games. Trash.

2/10.

How is this movie unique, unsettling or original? And why is this labeled as a horror movie? It's not scary, suspenseful or unnerving, but it is extremely boring. This is one of the most excrutuating theater experiences I've had to suffer through in a while. Multiple people in the crowd (including myself) checked their phone numerous times to see how much was left in this slog of a film. Almost nothing happens this entire movie, and when every character is unlikable, that nothingness is amplified tenfold.

How is anyone calling this a unique or disturbing movie? This movie is just a rip-off of 'Hostel', but if directed by Gasper Noe instead of Eli Roth. It's honestly insulting to 'Hostel' to compare this pile to it, but this movie is literally if Gasper Noe directed 'Hostel'.

After 'X', 'Pearl', and now 'Infinity Pool', I refuse to ever see a Mia Goth film again. Everything she's in is just terrible. Also, her British accent was on and off this entire movie. One scene she'll have it, then the next she won't.

2/10.

I'll start this review off by saying if you're looking for a legit, scary Horror movie, this is not it. The suspense or "scares" this movie curates are very cookie-cutter and lame. This movie definitely should've been rated 'R', and it's edited to where I think there is an 'R' rated cut, but im sure the producers wanted that clean 'PG-13' rating for the money, so they edited out everything good then spat this out.

That being said, I'm not sure even an 'R' rating could've saved this movie. Nothing about this movie is creepy or suspenseful and none of the characters are likeable. 'M3gan' did have me cracking up a few times from just how ridiculous it was. I'm not sure that was the director's intent, but I laughed anyway.

Overall, pretty bad, but you'll have a few chuckles.

4.5/10.

This movie is definitely more of a Comedy than anything. It was never really suspenseful or horrific, so I wouldn't call it a Horror movie. It did have some good laughs in it though. Who I really thought shined in this movie was Ralph Fiennes. He seemed to really be enjoying himself throughout the film.

In the end, the film never really came together as cohesively as the meals they served in the movie. Why did all the chefs chose to be there? Why did some people get to go, but others not? The pacing got pretty slow in the middle act, but the final act is what lost me. The ending just didn't make any sense.

6.4/10.

For the past 10 years, one of my childhood friends and I have been wanting for Brendan Fraser comeback. Long before Keanu had his comeback with the 'John Wick' movies, and even before Matthew McConaughey's comeback with 'Lincoln Lawyer', 'Dallas Buyers' and 'Mud', my friend and I knew Brendan was great and that movies are missing his presence.

FINALLY, in 2022, Darren Aranofsky gives us a character that allows Brendan to show off all his acting skills and release all that pent-up emotion he's had for the past many years. What Brendan gives us in 'The Whale' is his best performance to date, and easily the best performance of the year. Brendan deserves all the love and praise he's getting for this movie. Sadie Sink also should get a nomination for Supporting Actress since she killed it as well. I'm happy that a teen/child isn't portrayed like an obnoxious pos TikToker and is actually relatable and real.

That being said, I found the actual movie and story pretty lackluster. You can feel that this movie is based off a play just by it's pacing and constrictiveness. It's slow, takes place in one room, half the characters' motives and dialogue are just not fully fleshed out. The nurse and missionary both give pretty wooden performances as well. The ending felt way too abrupt and should've had different direction to leave more of an impact.

Overall, 'The Whale' is an average film carried by dynamite performances, especially from Mr. Fraser.

6.3/10.

This movie was alright. The animation is the highlight, even though the style they use is just ripped off from a much better movie: 'Spider-Man Into the Spiderverse'. I haven't seen the first 'Puss In Boots', but I would put this one beneath all the 'Shrek' movies, and 'Shrek' 3 and 4 aren't very good.

The story is fast-paced, but the way it unfolds is very bland and uninspired. The attempted humor missed 95% of the time because it's lazyily written and geared solely towards 5-year-olds. If you're an adult, you're not going to find much to enjoy in regards to the story or comedy.

It was nice seeing Antonio Banderas have fun with the voice acting. All the new characters introduced and their motives were all pretty bad and just seemed thrown into the movie for no real reason since they held no weight or attachment to the 'Shrek' universe. My niece and nephew enjoyed it at least.

6.1/10.

I will start by saying this: the visuals are insane. Even the subtitles are insane, they're just floating their in the theater (if you see a 3D version, which you most definitely should be). I saw this in IMAX 3D and the visuals really were mind-blowing. That's about where my praise for this movie ends.

The first hour of this movie was actually very intriguing and set up a lot of interesting tropes and plotlines to explore, making it easily the best part of the movie. Unfortunately, once Jake and his family arrive at the water place, it gets pretty boring/repetitive. After Jake's kids gets in trouble for the 10th time, it's just obnoxious and a waste of screenplay (that took THIRTEEN YEAERS).

Not only did the movie get kind of boring after the first hour, but all those interesting plotlines and characters set up in the first hour are just wasted. 80% of the new characters introduced are essentially useless and hold no impact on the end/outcome of the movie.

There were also just blaring continuity issues (especially with the final battle). Regarding the story and lore, there are lots of questions brought up early on, but none really answered by the end. Also, for my IMAX 3D viewing there were framerate drops throughout the entirety of the movie. 95% of the movie played smoothly at 60fps, but then would randomly dip to like 30fps at parts. Not sure if that's because there was an issue with the transfer, James Cameron didn't finish his movie or if it was just my specific viewing experience.

OVERALL, the movie had insane visuals, but with an unfocused scattered story with mostly useless new characters introduced, making it kind of a slog to get through. I know I know: "Avatar is for the visuals man, uhbubububh", yeah yeah, but after 13 years, I expect a tighter screenplay than this.

6.6/10.

When I watched the trailer, I stopped halfway through it because when David Harbour's bloodied Santa said "Season's beatings" I lost it. I was sold immediately. I though that this movie was going to be hilariously over-the-top with great one-liners and kills. Unfortunately for me, not only was that line not even in the movie, but it was the best piece of dialogue throughout the entire film and it wasn't even included. All the bad guys had cringe dialogue and were even more cringe when they tried to intimidate or act scary. Every character was just so terribly written (other than Santa).

The writer's seemed like they got bored with the script and just forced themselves to complete it due to deadlines. Even a majority of the kills were poorly set up and boringly executed, but that's not saying there weren't some fantastic kills because there most definitely were.

David Harbour and the way he slaughters the bad guys are pretty much the only thing this movie has going for it. It's a shame because this movie could've been a real joyride.

6.6/10.

There was not one good aspect of this movie. There was no story, the characters and their motives were non-existent, the editing/direction/dialogue seemed to be made by someone who has never had a normal human interaction in their entire life. Seriously, nothing any of the characters say or do makes any sense.

The movie is excruciatingly boring. Nothing happens, pretty much no one dies (on screen at least), there is ZERO suspense, tension or atmosphere. Why this movie is getting any kind of press or praise is beyond me. This is an extremely incompetently made film that somehow landed at some film festivals and garnered some praise. No one is likable in this slog of a film. The director/writer had 4 years to perfect their short film into a feature length, and this is what she gives us?

Who funded this?! Please no one fund another one of this woman's films. Those who funded this movie should be locked up and forced to watch it all day every day until they repent for their terrible sin of heaping this pile of trash onto my eyeballs.

1/10.

VHS 1 & 2 are still easily the best. Then I'd say '94, then this or 'Viral' for last place. I haven't seen 'Viral' since it released because I remember it being just too terrible, but this one was pretty awful too. There was no suspense in any of the segments in this one, except for when the girl is buried in the cemetary, but that segment is ruined when the monster shows up and looks cheaper than if I made a monster mask out of paper and mud.

'94' at least had Raatma, which I hoped would return in '99' since Raatma was the standout segment, but no. The connecting story of this movie makes no sense, not that any of the 'VHS' connecting storylines made much sense, but this one is complete nonsensical trash.

As for the segments themselves, they were all bad. Almost all the segments were just lame campfire stories/urban legends that were lamely executed. This movie also lacked the gritty, gross and snuff-like feel that the best 'VHS' movies offered. Also, none of the kids in this acted or spoke like they were from the '90s, they sounded like your typical annoying Fortniters or Minecrafters.

The first 2 'VHS' movies (and even some bits of '94') had a vibe to them where you felt like you were going to end up as a segment for just watching such a nasty-looking cursed film. But for '99', I felt like sitting through it was worse than ending up as a segment. A step down from '94', and a giant leap down from 'VHS' 1 & 2.

Hands down the best part of this movie was a hilarious performance from Steven Ogg.

3/10.

Why were the "jump scares" so loud? Oh my God, my ears were about to explode because of how loud they made their terrible "jump scares" that had no build-up or tension. Every 5 minutes there was a "jump scare" that had nothing to do with anything. It's so bad.

For instance, a character will be eating and then a piece of food will fall from their fork to the plate and an explosion of sound/music will occur. Wow so scary! Genius filmmaking! Or for instance, a character will blink and it will be a "jump scare". Any director who uses this lazy, talentless hack method to "scare" the audience instantly loses my respect.

Other than there being no suspense or atmosphere, the story and acting was unbelievably bad. This is why you dont ever have more than 2 writers work a screenplay (let alone 4), especially for a Halloween movie. It's a Halloween movie for God's sake, how many brains do you need to come up with a cohesive story about a dude who kills people with a knife?! Apparently way more than 4 because the story was so bad it makes Rob Zombie's H2 seem good! You could tell each writer tried to get their own ideas in, which ended up as an incoherent mess that plays like random scenes slapped together.

I like 'Halloween' 2018 and I may like 'Kills' more, even though it gets a lot of flak, but oh man, if you were one of the people that thought 'Kills' was bad, you are not prepared for the awfulness that awaits you in 'Ends'. 'Kills' dialogue and character choices would be questionable at times, but at least it had Michael at his angriest and most violent. You get none of that in 'Ends', where 90% of the Kills are off screen. I even bought the burnt Michael mask last year for Halloween and went as him, so you could imagine how sad I was once the credits rolled for the dumpster fire I saw last night.

Anyone who scores this above a 3 is lying to themselves. Easily the worst 'Halloween' movie. 'Resurrection' is a Kubrickian masterpiece compared to this.

2/10.

I laughed out loud throughout a majority of this film. This movie is genuinely hilarious, much more so than the first one. Obviously, given the runtime, there is much more gore and much more killing. Though not as much as I thought there'd be, especially in the second half.

I thought the first half of the movie was stronger. There was a better pace and rhythm to the story and killings, whereas the second half lost its footing and didn't really know where it was going with anything it built up in the first half.

I expected a lot more lore and background spent on Art and his revival, but there was basically none which really sucks since they could do so many things with him and what he is. There are a lot of questions that go unanswered and a lot of strange things you think would be explained or touched on, but never are.

I'd say this and the first one are pretty much tied for me. The first was leaner and meaner, but this one is a hilariously gory ride that was a treat to watch in theaters (except for the POS couple talking non-stop behind my gf and I).

7/10.

I was pretty hyped for this movie, not going to lie. I wasn't expecting some 11-time Oscar winning masterpiece, but I did expect an intense, edge-of-your-seat scarefest like that of 'Insidious' or 'Sinister', where the movie is dripping with creepy unsettlingness from start to finish. 'Smile' is not that. What 'Smile' does well is build up the jump scare, but unfortunately (and more importantly), 'Smile' forgets to deliver the scare in each of these sequences it repeats throughout its way overlong 2-hour runtime.

Example, the main character will be staring down a dark hallway while the music tenses and camera slowly zooms in, and then the phone will ring SO LOUD. This is NOT a scare! This is just lazy and, above all, annoying. These "jump scares" happen throughout the ENTIRE movie and are extremely obnoxious. I can respect jump scares if there's actually something scary at the end of the build-up, not just an obnoxiously loud noise that has nothing to do with the tension that was just wasted. An example of an ACTUAL jump scare would be like when the Lipstick Demon appears at the table for the first time in 'Insidious'. THAT is a warranted jump scare.

The plot of 'Smile' and the way the characters unravel it is almost identical to 'The Ring'. No new ground is broken, which was expected, but I at least expected a little more originality than a copy/paste story of 'The Ring' with a good amount of 'It Follows' copied as well, yet is far less than both those movies.

What I thought was pretty good was the ending, when the demon finally reveals itself. The design of the demon and what it does to its victims is actually pretty great/gruesome. Unfortunately, by the time we're introduced to the Smile demon, the movie's over. Such a shame, as this movie could have been a balls-to-the-wall nail-biting chiller. The score for this movie was hands-down the best and creepiest part. The music reminded me of 'Sinister's music, as in there was something off about it, making it unnerving.

Overall, this movie has been done before and done MUCH better. Has it's moments, but drags on without any scares for far too long.

6/10.

It's a neck-and-neck race between this and 'Bodies, Bodies, Bodies' for worst picture, though 'Pearl', 'Orphan 2' and 'Nope' are strong contenders as well. This is honestly as good a race for Worst Picture as the race was in 1995 for Best Picture (at the Oscars). Truly a remarkably abysmal year for film thus far, but there's still time for redemption. Movies this year like 'Mad God' give me faith.

I mean, where to even begin with 'Darling'? I guess I'll start by saying it's probably the slowest-paced, most boring script I've seen come to life (if you can call it that) on screen. Some are calling this a "slow-burn", yet something has to be burning for that to be the case. This is just staring at an unlit candle in the hot baking sun, waiting for something to happen as you grow less and less patient.

'Darling' is 2 hours of nothingness. Nothing happens during the entirety of this movie, and the "twist" ending is so lazy and uninspired that I wish the movie just cut to black mid-way through without even the credits to follow. Pugh is literally just her character from 'Midsommar', as in she just sobs and is in hysterics throughout the whole movie. Harry Styles plays... Harry Styles.

This movie has a $30 million budget, yet it basically takes place in a single house in a desert? Where did the money go? If this movie didn't have the names it has attached to it, not a single person would ever mention it (let alone praise it). But because of the "star power" and added drama to the press, it's getting ALL the attention. Far more worrisome, is that this movie will probably make a profit!

Don't let the star power fool you, 'Don't Worry Darling' is worse than what you would find after scrolling for hours through the abyss that is the Netflix or Hulu Horror sections.

Hard-earned 1/10.