Reviews

I have no doubt that The Shining has many metaphorical layers, and Stanley Kubrick was a stickler for details who inserted certain symbolic, visual aspects into the film. However, some participants in this documentary read way too much into what they claim they see and suggest wild, unsubstantiated claims about symbolism in images and themes within the film. One participant claims Kubrick's face was airbrushed into the clouds in the opening credits, but we never see where. Another claims that a poster of a skier is actually the image of a minotaur, but the image looks nothing like a minotaur. It's not all conspiracy theories, but there are so many in this documentary, that the interesting, legitimate observations are overshadowed by the ridiculous claims of several of the participants.

It's interesting how the armchair critics here keep saying things like, "everyone hates this movie, because it doesn't have enough violence, gore, etc.," as well as "if it wasn't linked to the original,The Exorcist, people would like it more." Well, I don't believe fans of the original film were looking for gratuitous violence and blood, and considering the success of films like, Get Out, I believe that even the youngest audience members are capable of appreciating non-gory horror films as long as they're well written and entertaining. As far as these critics also claiming that people are comparing it too much to the first film, perhaps we couldn't help but do so, since this movie tries, and fails, so hard to mimic aspects of what made the original film so successful. The bottom line is that in our current time period, any script that attempts to piggy back on the success of the original film is destined to fail simply because since the original film, exorcisms have been done ad nauseam in horror films, and it's neither scary nor intriguing as subject matter any more. There's no mystery and history behind the rite, because we've all seen it done a million ways, and no amount of head spinning, levitation or regurgitation can traumatize a familiarized, desensitized, modern audience. Toss in that this movie is horribly edited, contains some terrible dialogue (poor Ellen Burstyn), and has an ending that leaves the door open for another sequel. God help us. Literally.

I guess there were some trailers for this movie that spoiled a lot of what happens, but luckily I didn't see any of those. It's difficult to write a review of this without spoiling it, so I need to keep it short. The acting is wonderful, the plot keeps you on your toes, and the editing is done well enough so it's just the right length and never feels too quick or too drawn out. So many thrillers in this teenage genre have a predictable pattern with their characters and plot lines, so this one really mixed up that formula, and the result is a refreshing, very intense and finely adjusted tone that knows when to add the laughs and when to add the terror. Yay for originality and creativity.

The best aspect of this adaptation of Capote's classic is how it reminds us why the first filmed adaptation starring Geraldine Page resonates so effectively. When sharing memories of childhood, we usually tell our stories by sticking to a particular event or person and only the relevant details which left the greatest impressions in our memory. The first film adaptation focused mainly on the relationship between Buddy and Sook and their fruitcake and Christmas adventures. It is Capote's story about his relationship with Sook and really nothing else. You feel like you're watching a story that you, yourself would tell about someone from your past. In this adaptation, the other relatives in the house, the neighbor, the maid, and most unfortunately, the military academy all become significant plot points. You don't get the feeling of someone sharing a fond memory, you get something more akin to an itemized police report compiled from several eye witnesses. The storyteller's voice is lost, and the nostalgic, dreamlike transport which pulled at and warmed our heartstrings watching the first adaptation is nowhere to be found in this one. It's still a good story, but it doesn't feel like witnessing a memory.

I suppose some producer thought it would be a good idea to hire 33 year Henry Winkler to play the elderly Scrooge character in this tedious adaption of Dickens' classic, because he was one of the hottest TV stars at the time. The result is a freakish, bizarre performance by a heavily aged Winkler complete with latex prosthetics and a wig that looks like bad hair plugs. Winkler's singular acting choice to embody this legendary character is to low talk under his breath and deliver his lines like a sportscaster commenting on a long, slow golf tournament. I have to believe the positive reviews here are a result of the nostalgia-effect of people seeing it when they were younger and associating the movie with a happier time. Otherwise, people just have terrible, terrible taste in movies.

There are so many great things going on in this movie that it's kind of sad that it has some big issues that keep it from being a great success. The concept is interesting, the cast is wonderful, and the story moves very quickly, although sometimes to its own detriment. Two major things could have saved this movie for me. It would have been a mini series, so it wouldn't have felt so rushed and the relationships between the characters could have felt more developed. Because there was so much underdevelopment in the characters and plot, I had a hard time understanding the parallels between the stories of the real and magical worlds. I'm still not sure if there's any more of a parallel other than the protagonist proving his worth. If that was all, then it was a pretty big "to do" for such a simple theme. Also, I didn't care for the production design for the magical world. I honestly feel that the real world setting of the school was so much more interesting and charming than the beigeness of the magical world which often resembles the desolate, depressing landscapes of Dune. One would expect the magical world to be more vibrant and exciting to visit than the real one. I found myself more enjoying the real world and its storylines, just not enough.

I'm usually pretty good at picking out the themes and metaphors in movies and getting the bigger picture of what the director is trying to say, but that was not the case here. I'm not sure there is some kind of message about parenting or trusting your kid's instincts , or unconditional love. I think the writer and director just ran with an idea out and made up the rest as they went along. The other big issue here is that there are major plot holes which surround the parents' actions and motivations, so you never quite understand why they do what they do, and why, with some many other good ideas you as a viewer can come up with to avoid the current circumstances of the movie, do these parents not use more common sense and make better choices? It's fine to make a horror film and just decide no one has any motivations and everyone's just crazy, but if you pair that decision with a script that is essentially a mystery, then you excuse yourself as writers and directors from having to solve all of the mystery. The good news is that these issues don't really bother you until later on when thinking about the movie long after it's over. While watching, the movie delivers good scares and has some good payoffs. The end is great. So, if you could care less about substance and meaning, but just want to be scared, this is probably a good movie for you and a majority of horror fans who measure a good movie by jump scares and blood volume rather than thought provoking, social commentary.

I'm not sure why they decided to use the "Goosebumps" brand for this series, but I imagine they thought they'd get a lot more views playing the nostalgic reboot card. Had they just given it an original name, there wouldn't be as many reviews from viewers who are incapable of separating the style and format of the original series and accepting this new one. There would also be fewer viewers claiming this new show ruined their childhood, not because the show is bad, but because they grew up to become idiots who refers to everything that doesn't fit into their narrow-minded per views as woke. The good news is, if you're a decent, functioning member of modern society who can look past the fact that not every character is straight and white, and how those characters actually speak and act like people of their age in 2023, you might enjoy the creepiness and sometimes genuinely gross and chilling aspects of this series. More so, if you're intelligent, too, you might appreciate the smart writing and the metaphors woven into the specific storylines featured in each episode. As much as I'm enjoying it, I have some issues with it being derivative (Nightmare On Elm Street), predictable (I figured out what happened in the past in episode 2), and having a major plot hole (why doesn't one character's kid and their friend back up their story and prevent them from having to be taken away?) Aside from these small gripes, it's an enjoyable series, especially if you like the horror genre and you're looking for something new to watch around Halloween.

Cracking up at the reviews being nit picky about them not getting things right about the 80s, when it's pretty accurate in my opinion and having lived through it and at the same age as the main characters. I'm sure there will be lots of comparisons to this being Back to the Future meets Scream, but that would be totally accurate. At first I thought the concept was ridiculous, but it ends up working really well. I hope this movie marks the retirement of Kiernan Shipka playing teenagers, because she is about to turn 24, and she absolutely looks 24 and not 16 anymore. That's not a bad thing, it's just that we've always associated her with being a child actor because of Mad Men and Sabrina. Her acting has really matured, and she should be playing more age appropriate roles moving forward.

Horror and thrillers on Hulu are usually terrible, so I had very low expectations going into this. Happily I was proven wrong for the first time on Hulu and for the first time in a very long time when it comes to a good horror film in general with suspense, action and substance. This entire film contains only one line of dialogue, and for almost the entire film we are only in the (human) company of the protagonist, so that automatically presents some challenge in terms of creating an engaging, suspenseful film. The lead actress is so wonderful in this, and you really get behind her and root for her from start to finish. I don't want to put in spoilers, so I won't get into the ending too much. Suffice it to say that it is really, really good, meaningful, and left me full of hope and joy. If you love horror films, but find that modern ones often lack anything more than gore and jump scares, you'll appreciate this, too.

When you think of this story, you think about a certain spooky mood and expect to be frightened. This just bored the heck out of me. Tony winner Brent Carver gives a fantastic performance as Ichabod, but the rest of the principal cast seems to have come from a community theatre production of "The Crucible." It's like the director just hired their cousins and nieces and nephews and poor Brent was trapped having to act circles around these semi-literate amateurs. The actor playing Bram is so beyond bad and miscast, that it was literally painful to watch him try to act. It's like they picked some random high school kid off the football field and offered him an acting job. I would not recommend this movie.

I thought this was going to be filled with nonstop action and a laugh riot, but it was just kind of long and boring. I can't help but wonder if someone like Paul Thomas Anderson or the Farrelly brothers took this on how the absurdity of the subject matter would actually be reflected in the tone and style of the movie. There were definitely some fun moments, but overall it just fell flat. There were long periods of time when scenes just kept dragging out, then when something exciting would happen, it would be so exciting that you'd think things were really going to pick up and the movie would find it's rhythm. That never happened.

Based on the ads for this movie, I was concerned it was going to be kind of a Hallmark version of a gay romance. My hope was that writer/director Matthew Lopez would live up to his excellent reputation in the theatre. I have seen his complex, wonderful plays, "The Whipping Man" and "The Inheritance," so I thought this story would be a little elementary for him. I was very happy to have all my concerns put aside early on in the movie, and I believe this will go down as one of the great romantic gay movies. I wish I had a movie like this around when I was in my teens and twenties. How lucky the young members of the LGBTQ community are to have this kind of story and representation. Thank you for making something beautiful.

The most enjoyable part of this movie was the relationship between the two main characters and how it was shared and explained through flashbacks. As good as that part was, I feel that the suspense aspect of the movie was disappointing. Typically with these types of M. Night Shyalaman movies, you are questioning whether or not what you think is going on is really going on right up to the end. The suspense is fueled by trying to figure out what is true and what may not be as it seems. In this movie, we are led to believe that this kind of plot device is being employed, but then the veil is lifted and the doubt is removed earlier than expected and before the climax, which seemed more like a common sense necessity rather than a climax. I feel like we could have had both a great suspenseful moment as well as an emotionally poignant moment if the veil wasn't lifted earlier, and that was a missed opportunity. Consequently, the end didn't feel very cathartic. It felt more like the fizzling out of a fuse on a dud stick of dynamite.

It's my own fault for watching a D-List horror movie after seeing Eric Roberts in the first scene, as everyone knows if there's one actor who will do any bad horror film, it's Eric Roberts. "I hate a crying woman," he says, just to let us know he's a bad guy. Roberts aside, the really bad part of this movie is the writing and direction. While the actors are serviceable, they are basically written and directed to act nonchalant as the main character proceeds to have a massive, bloody, masochistic meltdown. When the leading lady places her hand on a hot electric stovetop, her bff standing next to her reacts as if she smudged her mascara, even as her friend is pulling her hand off the stove and leaving large chunks of skin behind. All her friends seems to be sure she'll be fine. What could possibly go wrong?

The entire time I watched this movie, I assumed Hudgens was in her late teens or that the movie came out 15 years ago. The more I watched her disturbingly childish behavior, and the more I started to put together in my mind the fact that it's been decades since those High School Musical movies came out, the more I realized that I was watching a 35 year old woman with the demeanor of a 13 year old child. That is the really scary thing about this movie, not the ghost hunting part. I have friends her age who have teenage children in junior high who behave more maturely than her. At one point in the movie she complains how people only acknowledge her role in HSM. Perhaps if she grew up and acted like an adult she might get cast as an adult in something.

This movie is laden with so many annoying horror film tropes. The biggest one, the "monster under the bed, but the parents refuse to neither believe the kid nor even look" is at the forefront. Throw in the kids behaving badly, but the parents not believing that their little angels could do anything wrong, and you'll spend the entire time rolling your eyes and wishing for it to end. I would love to see a horror film where the writers could figure out how to make their characters reasonably intelligent and capable of using common sense and making logical decisions yet still have a clever plot intact.

I was very surprised that the ending of this movie was as predictable as I hoped it wouldn't be. As I was watching it, I kept thinking how it reminded me of "Drag Me To Hell," but I figured there'd be a clever twist in the end. It certainly had an opportunity to do something different, and everything up to the end was executed very effectively. The film definitely earned the right to have a big moment, but the whole didn't add up to the sum of its parts, unfortunately. I'm not sure if this is the result of lazy writing or Hollywood just accepting mediocre writing, but I suspect Hollywood would take better written, more clever scripts if they were actually ever written.

What a waste of a great subject on such a poorly executed movie. This could have been the next Paranormal Activity, except the writer/director made such irrational choices for the characters, and included such outlandishly stupid circumstances, that the entire movie comes across like a sketch comedy spoof of what could have been a terrifying, very relatable horror movie. My only hope is that another horror movie based around the concept of a doorbell camera is still a possibility despite the existence of this movie. I think it's worthy of another shot by another filmmaker who has the talent to make something good of it.

Those complaining that this movie steals sequences from other movies miss the point that it's supposed to be spoofing those movies, not copying them. It's all in good fun, and it's one hell of a ride. David Harbour is the new "Everyman," and he brings the perfect amount of cynicism, ferocity and warmth to this character. Putting Beverly D'Angelo in another Christmas classic is brilliant casting. It's great to see her on screen. My only complaint is that while John Leguizamo embodies the spirit and has the acting chops to play the villain, he is not a believable physical match for a legendary viking turned hammer-wielding, mythical, magical saint. All you can think about during the final battle is how can this little guy even get to take one swing at this seasoned warrior? It's the movie's only flaw, and unfortunately, it's a big one.

The movie is a recycling of various other horror movies including, "Summer of 84," 'It," "Silence of the Lambs," and "Mr. Harrigan's Phone." While it is a lazy, derivative script, it's still a well-made, enjoyable thriller. My favorite, subtle commentary made by the movie was how Jesus doesn't answer your prayers, and even brutally murdered children go to hell. While Ethan Hawke delivers a frightfully sufficient performance as the antagonist, the designers of some well-crafted masks should get most of the credit for his character's intimidating presence. In the end, it's the performances of the children, mostly unknown actors, who make this film a success.

I found this movie to be cringeworthy. If it had been made with an all white cast, the reviews would all say that it was an unbelievable plot, because white people would never hunt down someone in their community to steal a winning lottery ticket from them. Yet, for some reason, this is totally plausible in a black community and even considered funny? I'm not sure what kind of statement the writer and director were trying to make here, but what I took away from this mess is that there isn't a great deal of trust or support within black communities, and poverty makes people do the ugliest most desperate things. I didn't laugh even once. I was too busy being horrified and embarrassed.

This horror movie is solidly satisfying. I don't know anything about Hasidic tradition, so it was nice to see something new and different. I liked that the setting was moody and creepy, the lighting and cinematography is much better than most modern horror films, and it was superbly acted. I could have don't with fewer jump scares. I know they're part of the standard horror recipe, but it was a little much here, and there are cleverer ways to scare audiences if you're a good, creative writer. Sometimes when I see these reviews saying a movie is "stupid" or "it's not scary" or "don't bother," I wish IMDb would add an extra step to publishing reviews which made the reviewer have to recommend 3 other movies in the same genre before the review can be completed. If someone was able to share what movies they would recommend, we would probably get a better view of their taste and whether or not we share it.