|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Dec 31, 2021 15:38:05 GMT
I think it gets a lot of flack, and not so much slack, but anyway... I haven't seen it in a while but I remember this movie fondly, even though I also know a lot of it stupid. I recall reading Roger Ebert's review of it where he was pointing out this dumb thing and that stupid moment, applying logic to this quite illogical movie; and I couldn't disagree. But, I did disagree with the overall assessment. It's still an enjoyable movie in memory. It had a very different look and tone for an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. It's equally silly as a lot of them, but it feels darker and more gravely serious. And some of the effects are cool. Maybe it would look dumber if I revisited it, but I thought that Demon at the end was awesome back when the movie was new. And I bought that soundtrack CD back when that used to be a thing too. Whoops, actually meant to say flack
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Dec 31, 2021 11:13:56 GMT
It's that time of year, New Years Eve, where I revisit this Arnie classic. I know it gets a lot of flack, but it's a guilty pleasure or mine! I actually enjoyed Arnie's performance and trying to portray a more vulnerable character. I thought he sold it well even though he still allowed himself to bring it up to eleven, i.e. the Choirboy line. But Gabriel Byrnes just chews up the scenery and I love it. Kevin Pollack is more or less doing the Tom Arnold sidekick like True Lies, but it's no less enjoyable or funny to watch as he's a good actor. I think it's a good blend of action and horror and got some good cinematography and action set pieces. The helicopter stunt is really well done. I'll always revisit this film/!
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Dec 15, 2021 12:20:39 GMT
She was successfully hiding in 3...but she didn't vanish completely because Dewey had her phone number, that's how the killer found her and drew her out of hiding. Shed need to actually go off grid and then she's only protecting herself, leaving Gail and Dewey to deal with things. Honestly at this point in the timeline, if i were the killer, i wouldn't even want to tangle with Sid, Dewey or Gail. They've killed all the previous killers. Yeah, fuck that. Pick a new mask and MO and make sure you get away with it. I kinda thought it would've been cool, after Randy died, if one of the killers survived and played a Randy-ish, but also Hannibal Lecter-ish role in the series. But they kill 'em every time. That was kinda the original plan with one of the Scream 3 scripts. Stu had survived the TV falling on his face (even tho there's no reference to him still being alive in 2) and he was in prison and kinda giving instructions to the new killer and actually lead his own cult of some sort. It was a really messed up twist in the end that all the "victims" were followers of Stu and weren't really dead.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Nov 15, 2021 13:03:29 GMT
I've recently reappraised these films, particularly the first 3, number 2 being my favorite. 3 has a lot of problems, but I enjoy it for doing something completely different than the previous and trying to comment on life in Hollywood. Number 4 was alright. I know it was trying to comment on remakes but there was just something off about how it looked that it didn't feel like a Scream movie. But I absolutely adore Neve Campbell as Sidney Prescott as she is my favorite scream queen.
I'm cautiously optimistic about this new one. I hope it doesn't fall victim to a standard slasher and it will keep up with the humor and meta commentary on horror films because the trailer does play it really serious. Legacy sequels with just the same title as the original is obviously the next horror trend, so I would hope something like Halloween '18 would get mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Oct 13, 2021 9:06:22 GMT
It's all pretty vague, but I guess when you piece these disparate things together it does sorta sound like it's gonna be more elaborate, even though this one says it's a brief... but also that it's inadvertently funny, which is unfortunate. I imagine it would be the same voice actor as last time, who we all seem to agree was not great. Having seen the film, I can confirm we get CG Pleasance. Or perhaps it was a lookalike. It was weird and off-putting either way. Well it's essentially what they did with Tarkin with Rogue One. They got a stand-in who resembles Donald Pleasance just enough, but overlayed him with CGI to get the finer details of Loomis correct.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Sept 12, 2021 5:03:44 GMT
The reviews are about what I expected... except I didn't know Will Patton was coming back. Didn't he get stabbed in the throat AND run over by a car? And speaking of questionable returns, CGI Donald Pleasance? Oh no. I was excited for Anthony Michael Hall and the return of Tommy, but it seems like him and his posse are getting mixed reactions. I almost expect them to sing "Raise the flag, sing the song Here we come, we're 50 strong And 50 Haddonfielders can't be wrong Let's kill the Shape Kill the Shape, kill the Shape!" I know he's gonna be in it, but I got a feeling it's not gonna be a whole lot than a glorified cameo, but I wish we had more focus on Leigh Brackett. Not in just this current trilogy, but in any of the continuations. I know these movies have always been Laurie's story and her family fighting Michael, but Leigh Brackett has just as much reason to want to kill Michael for killing Annie and it's never been something seen until now at least. I hope he has his own moment to shine.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Sept 9, 2021 17:26:28 GMT
First reviews are out. 46% based off of Rotten Tomatoes.
Variety: "It Will Feed Your Nostalgia…for Mediocre Slasher Sequels" Honestly, pretty much what I would have expected. Certainly not the worst case scenario. Michael Myers is the OG slasher in my book, and just from the reviews, even the bad ones mention that he's down right brutal to almost Zombie's level of violence as we see the kills in all it's gory glory, so I'm all for it. Here's where I stand really on this new trilogy. On a cynical level, it's simply just a cash-grab, even with bringing back Jamie Lee Curtis and didn't really need to be made. But, on a more optimistic level, with any franchises or series of any genre that have had revamps and been revisited, from Star Wars, James Bond, Rambo, Terminator, Predator, Alien, Halloween obviously, to, while they all eventually just run out on originality, it is nice to see each generation get their own versions essentially. Let's be honest, what else can you do with the franchise? Exploring what makes him evil didn't work in the older films or to an extent, Rob Zombie's films, so just upping the kills is really all you can do for a slasher film.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 31, 2021 19:09:13 GMT
Oh I totally get he slaughters all kinds of innocent people, but it's just the way the final act is set up by Burke and how its written by Peele, particularly the way Anthony is killed by the cops. In general, I didn't like that plot idea of Burke trying to create a new Candyman as it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But it just feels like a blatant overstatement rather than a genuinely clever way to intertwine a commentary on blacks being killed by cops, and they were looking for an excuse for Candyman to kill a bunch of cops as a catharsis for black audience members who endorsed abolishing the police following George Floyd's death.
It's funny you mention the original possibly commenting on black on black crime, when Anthony's transformation into the next Candyman relies on the violence by Burke himself, which is glossed over. When a film wants to make a comment on modern society, I'd just prefer it look it do it from both sides. The developers wanted to make this film through the POV of black trauma at the hands of cops, that's fine, but they had the opportunity of also commenting on black on black crime by having Candyman killing Burke instead of the girlfriend. Even though she's black and still killed him, it's just glossed over and doesn't have the impact it could have if it was the Candyman who killed him instead. I think any sense of catharsis is undercut a little by the fact that Anthony, a guy we've presumably grown to like, is now cursed to be a murder ghost and his life and relationships are over. Plus, the deaths of the cops are almost entirely offscreen, even the guy that tries to coerce the girlfriend. Compare to Texas Chainsaw 3D - a bizarrely similar movie now that I think about it, but that one focuses on police brutality and their karma to the point that it stops being Horror and turns into a superhero movie with Leatherface.
The Burke stuff was a bit weird, but checked out with the film's mythology. The various Candymen have similar origins so a crazy person could have decent odds of making the next one. I don't exactly agree it glosses over Burke's violence - his sawing off Anthony's hand is the most grizzly part of the movie, and he's the most outright villainous character. You're saying he should have died during the cop massacre at the end?
God that's probably one of the worse entries in the Texas Chainsaw series. But that didn't really endorse police brutality, but rather town justice when they all got together and killed Leatherface family, which that in itself, for a Candyman movie that deals with racial violence, blends better as a plot point rather than using a squad of conveniently "racist" cops as secondary antagonist for the sake of commenting on police brutality.
I just think from a narrative standpoint, as a critical commentary on both police brutality and black on black violence, it would have been better if Anthony, as Candyman, killed Burke. I still have a lot of problems with the final act in general and how it's written, but Burke could spend all this time setting up the final act of making sure Anthony is another victim to the epidemic of police shootings of blacks he claims he wants to end by bringing about the Candyman as an instrument of vengeance. Yet he's also sowing the seeds of his own demise at the hands of Anthony not only extracting vengeance against the cops, but also against Burke for turning him into this ghost who has to suffer for all Africans and kill to keep the legend alive. It'd be similar to the recent Halloween where the doctor thinks he can control evil and it comes back to bite him in the ass. It was a stupid plot point in that, but it's something I think could have and can worked in a Candyman film, because from a narrative standpoint, if it's executed correctly and makes sense (which Halloween and to an extent, this, did NOT) a character believing he can control said-villain or slasher as an instrument of violence for his own agenda and it turns out they can't is an interesting character arc to follow. It's just all about the execution.
Either way, Burke's character is probably one of the biggest problems of the films for me as he's there for the exposition of the whole Candyman character, but then takes a 180° turn by trying to summon his own Candyman through Anthony. But, what happened to Sherman then? Why couldn't he summon him? Or even Tony Todd's Candyman? Or is he just trying to expand the hive by giving the Tony Todd's Candyman some new recruits essentially. But, if that's the case and they're all supposed to represent black pain and suffering, so what is Helen Lyle supposed to be? Is she part of the hive? What does she represent when she came back as the new legend in the first film?
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 31, 2021 0:05:03 GMT
You see, the problem I have with it is definitely the setup of that by Burke. And it delves into parody when Burke even has the coat and hook to attach to Anthony's hand. The jacket and hook aren't the Candyman, it's that he's a victim of racial violence, at least according to what the film is saying with the hive. The problem I take with your idea, and what it kinda does anyways is that it's taking the Candyman character and turning him into an anti-villain like black hero by killing cops. It becomes a statement more than anything for BLM by just turning all cops into racist bad guys. Not saying in 2021 you can't have a character who's a racist cop, but to go ahead and turn them all into racists just becomes a parody of what it's trying to say. Even as a victim of racial violence, Candyman killed anyone indiscriminately, whether you were white or black. He was willing to burn a black baby alive in the first one. So for them to take the character and turn him into a black folklore hero really misses the point of what the first film.
Several innocent people are indiscriminately killed by Candyman in this, and it's implied several more will be after. The cops are an exception. Candyman even says all this: "I must shed innocent blood, though in your case not so innocent, yadda yadda".
The scene checks out because it was a cop that said the last "Candyman", Candyman is not specifically seeking out white racists. The cops that killed the main Candyman are never even targeted. It's also not the first horror movie to have the villain kill some secondary villains. I don't think one scene makes Candyman a folklore hero anymore than Jason killing Dr Crews does.
The thing about praising the original Candyman for killing more black people as less statement-y, is that I think that was in of itself a statement about black people being the main victims of black crime. *shrug*
Anyway, if there was a way for the movie to comment on police brutality to your liking, what would it have been? Oh I totally get he slaughters all kinds of innocent people, but it's just the way the final act is set up by Burke and how its written by Peele, particularly the way Anthony is killed by the cops. In general, I didn't like that plot idea of Burke trying to create a new Candyman as it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But it just feels like a blatant overstatement rather than a genuinely clever way to intertwine a commentary on blacks being killed by cops, and they were looking for an excuse for Candyman to kill a bunch of cops as a catharsis for black audience members who endorsed abolishing the police following George Floyd's death.
It's funny you mention the original possibly commenting on black on black crime, when Anthony's transformation into the next Candyman relies on the violence by Burke himself, which is glossed over. When a film wants to make a comment on modern society, I'd just prefer it look it do it from both sides. The developers wanted to make this film through the POV of black trauma at the hands of cops, that's fine, but they had the opportunity of also commenting on black on black crime by having Candyman killing Burke instead of the girlfriend. Even though she's black and still killed him, it's just glossed over and doesn't have the impact it could have if it was the Candyman who killed him instead.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 30, 2021 20:40:07 GMT
I was disappointed. For me, it just got caught up with it's high and mighty social commentary on black trauma, particularly police brutality. Wasn't subtle at all and just comes off as a parody of what it thinks it wants to be, especially in the final act. It's a beautifully shot and crafted film and the performances are fine, but it's not scary at all, and it severely lacked Tony Todd's presence. Bernard Rose's take with the commentary on race and class in the original blended much better because it was in the foreground, while he was focused on actually making a horror film. If we are allowed to talk spoilers, there is a lot I'd like to get into in regards to the problems I have with the new one. You can spoiler tag stuff by putting [ spoiler ] (no spaces). My problem with the police brutality angle was It seemed a little silly that they would come in and automatically blow Anthony away while he's half-dead on the ground. Can't even recall if they gave a warning. Then one of the cops turns into a mafia don before they've even left the scene to give Anthony's girlfriend (who somehow wasn't shot by the most trigger happy cops in the world) an offer she can't refuse.
I mean, I can't say for sure nothing like this has ever happened, but it was really abrupt and clunky. People here are criticizing the social commentary for getting in the way of the story, but I think it's the opposite problem. Those cops should have been more of an element steaming in the background before boiling over in the finale. Maybe the one who kills Anthony could have been an actual character investigating the case that suspects Anthony but can't prove it. We get hints he's dirty and or racist, then when he comes in at the end guns blazing, you have a set up and a pay off. As is, it's almost a reverse-deux ex machina. You see, the problem I have with it is definitely the setup of that by Burke. And it delves into parody when Burke even has the coat and hook to attach to Anthony's hand. The jacket and hook aren't the Candyman, it's that he's a victim of racial violence, at least according to what the film is saying with the hive. The problem I take with your idea, and what it kinda does anyways is that it's taking the Candyman character and turning him into an anti-villain like black hero by killing cops. It becomes a statement more than anything for BLM by just turning all cops into racist bad guys. Not saying in 2021 you can't have a character who's a racist cop, but to go ahead and turn them all into racists just becomes a parody of what it's trying to say. Even as a victim of racial violence, Candyman killed anyone indiscriminately, whether you were white or black. He was willing to burn a black baby alive in the first one. So for them to take the character and turn him into a black folklore hero really misses the point of what the first film.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 30, 2021 11:40:16 GMT
I was disappointed. For me, it just got caught up with it's high and mighty social commentary on black trauma, particularly police brutality. Wasn't subtle at all and just comes off as a parody of what it thinks it wants to be, especially in the final act. It's a beautifully shot and crafted film and the performances are fine, but it's not scary at all, and it severely lacked Tony Todd's presence. Bernard Rose's take with the commentary on race and class in the original blended much better because it was in the foreground, while he was focused on actually making a horror film. If we are allowed to talk spoilers, there is a lot I'd like to get into in regards to the problems I have with the new one.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 19, 2021 14:20:01 GMT
You're Next
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Feb 16, 2021 17:06:37 GMT
I recently watched Crimson Tide with Denzel and Gene Hackman. Great performances from the both of them and overall a great story too, even if it was a bit in the nose. Read into the story a bit, besides the obvious parallels to the Cuban Missile crisis, the internal conflict in the sub between Denzel and Hackman was based on Soviet sailor in one of the subs during the missile crisis who refused to launched a nuke at the United States. Highly recommend the film. Easily a 8/10!
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Feb 4, 2021 14:51:22 GMT
It's definitely ahead of it's time at it's release. Especially love the set up of the final shootout.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jan 25, 2021 20:23:34 GMT
The one and true King!
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jan 1, 2021 8:42:20 GMT
Not a whole lot of popular films that take place on New Year's Eve, even horror or thriller films. But End of Days still remains one of my favorite. There's some dumb cheesy and hokey pokey religious stuff in it, but I really like Peter Hyams direction and his dark and gritty cinematography, and the imagery, Gabriel Brynes is having a blast playing Satan, and I think it's one of Arnie's better performance as a human character rather than an action hero. In the same vain as Predator, it gives you everything you like about Arnold, but really deconstructs it.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Nov 30, 2020 17:36:28 GMT
I got vague memories of all the hype around the film when it first came out, and, despite Mel's, well... antics, the praise it got too. But I'm pretty sure what turned me off about it was that it was basically a foreign film and not in english. So I never got into it until this week and quite frankly, holy shit!
One could ask for all the xenophobic and racist and anti-semitic accusations under his belt, why someone like Mel would film a really beautiful and visceral film like this about a completely different culture. Even from a story standpoint and the characters, they're well rounded and developed, even for it being in a different language, and hardly treated with derision. I certainly didn't appreciate film that much when I was younger, definitely from a technical stand point and the process and how it was made and how the story was developed. But now, I definitely have a deep appreciation for films, particularly lower budget ones and practical effects, and ones that can be ambitious and pull it off without being pretentious. Like for example, I can actually appreciate the film's dialogue being completely in Yucatec Maya and what it means for the story as well. It's not a documentary, so I can definitely see a different director looking for a reason to use english. But you gotta give Mel credit and the rest of the cast for learning the language.
But the film is obviously filmed beautifully in the raw and visceral aesthetic that Mel usually brings. I can't speak for the historical accuracy of it, but I thought it was a great film and certainly recommend it!
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Nov 29, 2020 13:05:19 GMT
It could have been worse. They could have done a variation of Yoda's name like Boda, Soda, Zoda, Froda, Rosa etc..
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Nov 27, 2020 16:34:27 GMT
I say just move on. The sequel trilogy has it's fans. Shouldn't bother others if it does.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Nov 23, 2020 14:32:25 GMT
Highly recommend it! It's nice to have another great R-rated Christmas film to put with the likes of Die Hard and Bad Santa!
You should know what to expect from a crazy Mel Gibson movie. I get people don't like him. Not saying you have to forgive him, but he's still enjoyable and charasmatic as old and gruff Mel. And quite frankly, compared to some of the stuff actors and directors have been accused of in the wake of #MeToo, I just think Mel's racist and drunken rant really pales in comparison. So it's easy for me at least to separate the art from the artist.
Either way, even if you don't like him, Walton Goggins is another reason to watch it! It's pure Goggins as it gets being slick and the sly silver tongue devil you know from Justified if you ever watched that show, but it just makes that much more enjoyable. I'd say my only criticism is that the tone is definitely all over the place. It wants to be this slick and hard-R gritty Christmas movie, but has enough overt moments of humor as well to try and balance it out. But it's got great action but it's not balls-to-walls action though. It's got good acting from Mel, and Goggins is just pure gold in it! This film is two hours of your life you won't regret wasting, watching this.
|
|