Category Archives: B

1970s, 1974, B, Comedy, Grade, Past, Review, review-movie, Science Fiction, Year

Film Review: Dark Star – 1974

July 11, 2022 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	John Carpenter
Principal Cast	Brian Narelle as Doolittle Dan O’Bannon as Pinback Cal Kuniholm as Boiler Dre Pahich as Talby Joe Saunders as Powell
Release Date	1974
Language(s)	English
Running Time	83 minutes
Report Card	Click to go to Review TLDR/Summary

A red screen takes center frame. A message meant for the ship “Dark Star” begins to play. A man (Miles Watkins) from Mission Control informs the ship’s crew that the message they previously sent took near 10 years to get transmitted back to Earth where it was broadcast to rave reviews. He smirks and asks the crew to send increase the pace of the messages sent, a redundant gesture given aforementioned temporal delays.

But to add insult to injury, he proceeds to inform them that their request for mechanical assistance to deal with a radiation leak has been declined due to the same distance issues; sending up tools to their location is financially infeasible. Thus, communication is rendered nothing more than a product, losing its function as connective tool. The crew’s messages are nothing more than nicely packaged goods meant to be consumed as entertainment by the public on prime-time instead of as genuine requests for assistance meant to be acted on. They make profit but are awarded none of its spoils. The communicative farce brings to a close as the man gleefully tells the crew they’ll make do in spite of the difficulties.

Director John Carpenter’s electronic synth score plays, generating a propulsive energy as the ship appears on screen flying towards a planet. We get a view of the crew; one member – Talby (Dre Pahich) stays at the top of the ship while another 3 members – Doolittle (Brian Narelle), Pinback (Dan O’Bannon), Boiler (Cal Kuniholm) – work in a chamber of sorts. The group work in tandem to drop a bomb from their ship.

Pinback (Dan O’Bannon) proceeds to engage in cordial conversation with the bomb to set it up for its upcoming drop and Carpenter employs the traditional shot-reverse-shot between Pinback and the bomb itself, elevating the artificial intelligence qua tool of destruction to a similar agential field as the crew proper. The bomb is released and the crew engages in hyperdrive to get out of the area before the explosion goes off.

The Dark Star moves towards the vanishing point.

Carpenter deftly conveys the effects of such a maneuver in spite of obvious budgetary limitations. The ship quickly “moves” forward into the screen and disappears into a vanishing point created by the movement. A planet emulates the ship’s motion and disappears in a similar fashion. Then, the ship is seen approaching the frame from its front-side, and it comes into the frame before the screen cuts to a view of the stars.

The series of cuts up to now have generated a forward momentum within the frame and the stars begin to blur into streaks of multiple different colors. Another cut reveals the ship flying past a host of streaking colors, demonstrating the intensity of the ship’s speed.

The green lights in the chamber accentuate the intensity of the event before we cut to a screen read-out charting the explosion’s success. The final shot highlights the ship in the foreground and explosion in the background and makes the distance travelled more apparent.

Each part of this sequence is low-tech and has the propensity to feel jarring in its own right, but Carpenter knows exactly how to use them in tandem to present a convincing sequence of the crew successfully accomplishing their mission: they bomb uninhabited areas which may impede future human colonization.

The ship’s computer congratulates the crew on a nice bomb run before they set out to their next mission location. Boiler locates a 95% probability of intelligent life in one sector and asks Pinback if they should head out there; the latter scoffs at the suggestion and reminds the group that when Powell led them to find life during his tenure as ship leader, they only discovered a mindless balloon-like creature that they could do nothing meaningful with; bomb runs have proven to be more productive uses of time. This cynical move to prioritize destruction over preservation extends the farcical nature of the initial transmission sent to the ship: in a world where communication is a compartmentalized product instead of connective force, there’s no reason to prioritize incorporating more voices into one’s discursive sphere.

Thus, the crew continues on their merry way: they ignore all signs of life, plot out the destruction of planets which may impede a future humanity’s evolution, and send communications doomed to receive no meaningful responses back to this same humanity. Carpenter and screen-writer Dan O’Bannon tap into darkly comedic, misanthropic stylings of Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb in the way they navigate communicative failure and humanity’s drive towards violence but cross it against a futuristic milieu which pays homage to Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, namely in the way it uses artificial intelligence as a way to define and tease out the parameters of humanity and its tendencies.

By using two of Kubrick’s masterpieces as spring-boards for Dark Star, Carpenter and O’Bannon give what started out as a student-film enough momentum to work as a feature-length film^[1]IMDb.com. (n.d.). Dark star. IMDb. Retrieved July 11, 2022, from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069945/trivia/?ref_=tt_trv_trv. The film spends its run-time constantly demonstrating the way communication operates and breaks apart on the ship: the crew-members avoid talking to one another in favor of recording their messages for record-keeping or transmission while the most talkative parties end up being the ship’s main computer and the bombs themselves. By primarily orienting the film around screens and non-human entities, Carpenter is able to create effective set-pieces that expand on the themes without the need for grandiose visuals.

Unfortunately, the gaps made by stretching out the narrative’s running-time are large and frequent enough to seriously dampen the pacing, drawing a negative attention to the film’s sparsity. Communicative efforts between the characters, which already hinge on a dry, wit that may not work for many viewers, often devolve into unclever, insipid moments that feel like run-time extensions, undermining narrative momentum and making the 83-minute film feel like a slog to get through at times.

The intent behind these moments is discernible given the film’s thematic context, but the execution suggests a focus on ensuring the relevant footage exists rather than elevating it with a more intricate build-up. Yet, the thematic intent of the narrative buoys it through its less than memorable moments, culminating in a finale that brings together the film’s best elements in satisfying fashion. Despite being a (very) far cry from his best work, Dark Star serves as a charming calling card for Carpenter’s filmography-to-come, portending the cynical, misanthropic, anti-establishment attitude that will characterize much of it.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	In spite of production issues and limitations, John Carpenters debut film, Dark Star, should provide more than enough laughs for viewers in the mood for a wry, cynical science-fiction feature that asks what life should look like in a world where authentic communication seems inaccessible.
Rating	7.8/10
Grade	B

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2010s, 2011, Action, Adventure, B, Grade, Marvel, Past, Review, review-movie, Science Fiction, Superhero, Year

Film Review: Captain America: The First Avenger – 2011

January 12, 2022 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Joe Johnston
Principal Cast	Chris Evans as Steve Rogers / Captain America Hugo Weaving as Johann Schmidt / Red Skull Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter Sebastian Stan as Bucky Barnes
Release Date	2021
Language(s)	English
Running Time	124 minutes
Report Card	Click to go to Review TLDR/Summary

Note: This review contains spoilers regarding the first 35 minutes of the film as opposed to the site’s usual benchmark of 10-20 minutes. The same effort towards sustaining the intrigue and momentum of the film, especially in its second and third acts, is maintained in this review, and all plot details revealed are just meant to be a springboard to discuss the scope of the work in better detail. Nothing discussed should undermine the “best” portions of the film or the many mysteries that keep the story engaging.

Captain America’s shield lay submerged in ice.

A crew comes upon a wreckage in the Arctic. They go to excavate the remains and discover an shield with a red, white, blue star color pattern encased in ice. The camera pushes in on the shield as a member of the crew calls for assistance; the discovery is one that has been a long time in the making. What is the story behind this American symbol?

Suddenly, we cut back to the past – Norway, 1942. An elderly man guarding a temple of sorts is accosted by Hydra, an off-shoot branch of the Third Reich. The symbol of the organization, a skull with tentacles reaching out, becomes the focal point of the camera as a car adorned with it comes into view – a counterpoint to the shield from earlier. The leader of Hydra, Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving), makes his way from the car in ostentatious fashion and interrogates the elderly man on where the hidden object is. The man refuses to give in but Schmidt is able to surmise the location of the object, the Tesseract, one of Odin’s very own treasures.

Steve (Chris Evans) tries and fails to get drafted.

The story cuts from Norway to the United States of America. A scrawny but determined young man attempts enlist for the efforts in the war. However, his medical history is fraught with complications, so he’s rejected from the war. But Steve’s patriotism knows no bounds; while watching a movie with a lengthy emphatic war-time advert preceding the picture proper, he finds himself in a battle with a heckler who loudly protests the length of the tribute. As the two deck it out outside the theatre, Steve picks up a garbage can lid and holds it up like a shield – a connection to the discovery at the story’s start.

While Steve finds himself unable to win the battle, his friend Bucky (Sebastian Stan) shows up to save the day. The two depart and talk about Steve’s ongoing efforts to enlist; he’s falsified his papers multiple times to try and get a different assessment but has failed repeatedly. Bucky tells Steve that the latter would be better off not enlisting, but the young patriot responds that his effort should match that of his countrymen. Unbeknownst to the duo, Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci), a German scientist working for the United States, hears the exchange and becomes interested in the lengths Steve will go through to help the war efforts.

Consequently, Erskine intervenes during Steve next enlistment attempt. He questions the aspiring soldier to be and concludes that Steve’s character might be the true difference maker in the battles to come. Finally, Steve is allowed to join in the war effort.

Unfortunately, his willpower doesn’t translate to physical might. He finds himself struggling with the regimen required of him but persists in spite of being ostracized by his peers. However, what he lacks in physique he more than makes up for in mental aptitude. His drill leader challenges the squadron of trainees to retrieve a flag from a pole; apparently, no one has ever been able to take it down. The group attempts to get the flag, jumping at the flagpole in indiscriminate fashion, but none of them are able to get it down. But Steve chooses to tackle the problem from a different vantage point; he takes out the screws holding the pole up and picks the flag up off the floor.

Like Erskine said, Steve’s perspective is what can shift the tides of war. Even Steve’s biggest detractors are humbled by the trainee’s charisma and unyielding moral compass. Erskine reveals to Steve that the latter has been chosen for a “Super Soldier” program initiative based on a earlier initiative that Erskine was forced to implemented on Johann Schmidt back in Germany, the same Schmidt who stole the Tesseract earlier. It turns out that Schmidt is obsessed with the ideas of Gods and treats mythology with the same reverence as history itself. He wholeheartedly believes in the idea that one can transcend and become greater than humanity; if Gods can walk the Earth and leave their artifacts then remaining locked by humanity is a sign of weakness. After his procedure, his beliefs and fervor towards achieving them only increased; the super-soldier serum amplifies whatever the underlying person’s attributes are.

While Erskine is gambling on an similarly amplified Steve on being able to deal the death blow, Schmidt hopes that the Tesseract and the weapons that it can power will be enough to take over the world. The procedure is a success and Steve transforms from a scrawny weakling to a muscular and imposing warrior capable of Thus, the stage is set for the battle between the two forces, one oriented towards protecting the peace and maintaining justice and the other oriented towards achieving dominance at all costs.

Schmidt (Hugo Weaving) is obsessed with mythological/religious iconography.

At its heart, Captain America: The First Avenger is a story about creating legacies, making a message out of oneself. Once transformed into the eponymous Captain America, Steve is forced to reckon not only with his newfound powers but the responsibility that such powers engender for him. Schmidt uses his power and influence to shoot him and his organization into the realm of mythos. Director Joe Johnston reinforces not only the intensity of Schmidt’s beliefs via stylized montage bits but also frames the character in ostentatious and showy manners, a manner fitting of a man trying to make himself into legend.

Captain America is used in a similar fashion initially and is forced to play the role of national galvanizer. His appearance becomes more about maintaining an image than anything else. If Schmidt is obsessed with religious and spiritual iconography because he believes that such works are proof of a world beyond, then Captain America’s immortalization as a cultural icon is proof that greatness is something that anyone can aspire to and achieve; being made an icon through the comic book depictions is analogous to a mythmaking of old that Schmidt is obsessed with emulating. In this sense, the primary battle between the two super-soldiers is about how legends are made.

By constantly referencing the two men along with their respective symbols, Steve with the shield and Schmidt with the Hydra icon, Johnston is able to reinforce the explicit nature of what the two men are fighting for. A shield is a tool for defense, protection, safeguarding. It’s fitting that a hero not bent on killing but on justice chooses to use such an instrument as his tool of choice and is associated with the same. Meanwhile the image of a skull with tentacles demonstrates Schmidt’s obsession with expanding his deadly influence, eliminating anything that doesn’t fit in with his vision; it’s a symbol of bloodshed and oppression.

Alas, the film doesn’t utilize its strong groundwork as effectively as it should, choosing to settle instead of using its requisite elements to generate something greater than the sum of its parts. This issue is apparent from the very start. Once the camera pushes in on the encased shield, the film should have cut to an image of Steve with a shield, positing a relationship between the hero to be and the icon that represents him and his ideologies. For example, the film could have cut to Steve being beaten in the alley ^[1] Obviously, this assumes other minute plot changes and showed us his assent from the very start; given the importance vested in the shield, this direct connection would have made it clear that the movie is Captain America’s. The choice to instead cut to Schmidt and the symbol of Hydra suggests that this is both of their tales and both symbols are intertwined, which though true to an extent, makes the choice to open the movie on the discovery of the shield feel like a wasted storytelling opportunity.

The effects of this can be felt in the rhythm of the film. While the majority of the run-time goes to developing Captain America, very little goes to developing Schmidt. He gets the necessary backstory and the film cuts him doing “nefarious” things as a way to hammer in how “evil” he is in comparison to Captain America but therein lies the problem. His story is boring and interjecting it so often in the tale of Captain America’s assent only stifles the pacing of a tale that’s actually worth getting invested in; not bifurcating the opening would have made the impact and subsequent battle between the symbols and the men who represent them all the more impactful.

With all that being said, especially for an early entrant in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, The First Avenger does a more than adequate job juggling its elements around in satisfying enough fashion. When the story focuses on Steve, which it does for the most part, its engaging and should satisfy those looking for a lighter superhero outing.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Captain America: The First Avenger‘s tale of a weakling turned superhero should satisfy any viewer looking for an engaging, albeit predictable adventure that examines what it takes to become an true icon. Not all the moving parts synch up when they need to, but the story’s strong foundation lets it weather rougher patches and stay engaging from start to finish.
Rating	8.0/10
Grade	B

Go to Page 2 for the for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2010s, 2019, B, found footage, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, supernatural, Year

Review: Hell House LLC III: Lake of Fire

July 9, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Stephen Cognetti
Principal Cast	Gabriel Chytry as Russell Wynn Elizabeth Vermilyea as Vanessa Sam Kazzi as Jeff Stone Scott Richey as Harvey Jordan Kaplan as Max Bridgid Abrams as Jane Leo DeFriend as Gregory Brian David Tracy as Andrew Tully
Release Date	2019
Language(s)	English
Running Time	85 minutes

If you’ve read my review of Hell House LLC II: The Abaddon Hotel, you already know that I’m a big fan of Cognetti’s conclusion to the Hell House franchise. It’s not perfect. It doesn’t right the wrongs of the second movie nor does it replicate the magic of the first movie. What it does do is present an interesting connective tissue between the two while never forgetting that it’s supposed to be entertaining in its own rite. There are some ideas that feel like they would’ve been better served being the focal point(s) of the second movie, but the developed ideas that the story goes with give the series a more elegant and meaningful feeling.

The story picks up a year after the end of Hell House II, with the Abaddon Hotel set to be destroyed after the disappearance of the crew from the last movie. Just before demolition, the property ends up getting purchased by billionaire Russell Wynn who intends on using the hotel to stage his famous play, Insomnia, a retelling of the tale of Faust. We’re told at the beginning of the movie that the “documentary’s” purpose is to conclusively prove what happened on the night of Wynn’s grand re-opening of the hotel. In this way, the movie’s set-up is fairly similar to the first Hell House in that it’s chronicling some event after the fact, but it’s different in that the audience isn’t told what the event is or whether it was good or bad. What adds to the mystery is the fact this Russell is the same Russell who made the second movie, as in he’s the person who made the second “documentary” in-universe. Given the way that ends, with Tully talking about how the tapes made then would be sent to someone else who would continue the chain of getting people into the premises , it’s even more intriguing thinking about why Russell would buy such a property. Is he in on Tully’s plan to bring more souls into the lake of fire? Was he shown doctored footage to come to a different conclusion? What is his end goal?

This layered approach to the mystery rewards attentive fans of the franchise and utilizes the self-referential nature of the movies to its fullest. Taken along with the story of Faust and suddenly you have some interesting sub-text to go along with the mystery and meta-questions. Once the ball starts rolling and things start getting revealed you’ll be shocked at where all the threads end up converging. That being said, the way that clues are scattered and set up does make me sad that some of this work wasn’t done in the second movie. The way everything concludes is satisfying but there are aspects that feel like they could’ve been better set up to make some of the thematic questions/ideas more salient.

To go along with the documentary approach the movie, like the previous two installments, cuts together footage from multiple different sources including: interviews with older members from the franchise, clips of supernatural events from the first and second movie, unseen clips of interactions not previously seen, and the “main” connective news footage from the initial documentary footage shot by Vanessa, a reporter who was sent to document Insomnia before its grand opening at the Abaddon. Most of the footage is taken from this last source and is comprised both of Vanessa’s personal interview footage and self-recorded footage off of personal camcorders given to Insomnia staff members.

Now because the movie’s purpose is to explain what happened on the opening night of Insomnia it treats the audience like they haven’t seen either of the previous movies. That means if you were tired of seeing cuts to the same random events, get ready to relive some events again. This can feel grating but it makes sense given the context by which its being shown in-universe. For example, a character from the main timeline will mention a disappearance and the movie will cut to said disappearance from a previous movie to prove said event happened and to give it context. Unfortunately, cuts to previously seen footage/events also happens when they doesn’t need to. For example, Max, an actor in Insomnia, talks about how he’s watched the previous release of the in-universe Hell House and knows where all the exits in the Abaddon are and the documentary then cuts to a cut of all the exits not working from the first movie. Is the point that Max is stupid because if he saw the first movie he’d know that knowing where the exits are doesn’t help? Or is this supposed to be evidence that the first movie was actually doctored and the truth of the exits not working was covered up? But that doesn’t make sense given that the first movie is presented as a “true” documentary meant for mass consumption. Confusion aside, these moments happen a bit too often for my liking and bog the pacing of the movie down. Not all of them make me think this hard/introduce unnecessary questions, but all of them do feel like they’re their to pad out the runtime.

One of my biggest gripes with the previous two movies has been the use of this awful glitching effect when something supernatural comes onto the screen. Unfortunately, this movie not only continues the trend but uses a similarly frustrating glitch like effect to transition between clips from different sources. The effect in transition is less jarring than the supernatural effect but it’s definitely something to take notice of if you’ve been annoyed by the effects use in the past installments. There’s also some questionable CGI in the third act, but it’s used so sparingly and with such a specific purpose that I can’t fault the movie too much for it.

Thankfully, bad camera effects aren’t the only thing this entry inherits from its predecessors. Like the cast from the first movie, all the principal characters here feel grounded and real . Vermilyea is great as Vanessa and makes her characters decisions feel logical and grounded. There’s some maneuvering and posturing she has to do in latter portions of the movie and her facial reactions to these moments always feel spot on. I love Richey’s performance as Harvey, Russell’s assistant of sorts with an eccentric personality to boot. He adds a fun festive energy to the otherwise serious feeling piece and never comes off feeling forced. All the actors for Insomnia, feel like like a genuine cast of friends who have done a play over and over and are just doing it again in a creepier place. No character’s decision feels especially out of place and they all have distinct enough personalities so you can tell them apart. The only real issue I have character wise is an awful rendered scar on Russell’s face. No amount of acting from Chytry could save that damage. That being said, his performance is a highlight and the mystery of the movie only works because of how well he plays the nuances of his role.

All in all, this is a fitting end to the trilogy that neatly bookmarks all the loose threads into one resounding conclusion. Some ideas feel a bit under-cooked and underdeveloped – one of them being a pivotal part of the climax’s reveal, but I respect and appreciate the ingenuity of what was being attempted. Just because it doesn’t fully succeed doesn’t mean it fails and if anything I think Cognetti has proven that found footage can and should be taken seriously as a way of telling meaningful horror stories. There’s so much more that can be done with the mechanisms of the sub-genre and I appreciate this trilogy, this movie in particular, for opening my eyes up to them.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	If you’ve seen the previous two Hell House movies you owe it to watch this one. I’m of the opinion that if you’ve seen the first you should just grit your teeth through the second to watch this one. The movie doesn’t hit all the marks it wants to (someone please ban the glitch effect) but it’s innovative use of previous entries and the found footage style is something that fans of the sub-genre need to check out. It’s not a masterpiece, but for a found footage movie Hell House LLC III:Lake of Fire packs a lot more of a punch than expected.
Rating	8.0/10
Grade	B

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

1980s, 1981, B, Grade, Horror, Review, review-movie, slasher, Thriller, Year

Review: Halloween II

April 9, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Rick Rosenthal
Principal Cast	Jaime Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode Donald Pleasence as Dr.Sam Loomis Dick Warlock as Michael Myers
Release Date	1981
Language(s)	English
Running Time	92 minutes

Halloween II picks up immediately after the end of Halloween with Laurie being transferred to a hospital following her near fatal encounter with Michael. Unfortunately for her he’s not only alive but he’s also looking to finish what he started by taking her out of the picture. What follows is a Halloween skinned Friday the 13th style slasher that’s packed to the brim with spectacular kills and a score that’s as iconic as the originals.

I’ll be honest. I think that Halloween II introduces a plot point/reveal that the mainline Halloween franchise has never been able to satisfyingly deal with. It’s the core behind Michael’s motivation and deflates a lot of the ambiguity that makes him so frightening in the first movie. As a result everything from the first movie feels off. Myers goes from “the Shape” to a person with human desires. The issue is the movie then tries to reconcile that with his general supernatural and distant characterization and it comes off as confusing. Furthermore, the way the reveal happens is so cheap and tacked on that the entire movie feels like it could have happened without this scene’s inclusion. It feels lazy and out of place, which is made all the worse because it is literally the driving force behind the story.

Now that I’ve gotten that out of my system, I can absolutely say this movie is entertaining if you can look past this plot point. The kills are creative and the set-ups are well worth watching. There’s one scene in particular where a nurse thinks Michael is her lover, whom she doesn’t realize has already been killed off. Watching the scene play out demonstrates the fundamental identity issue with the movie. The scene is terrifying because you know what’s going to happen and the nurse’s manner of death is particularly dreadful to imagine. However, the drawn out almost comical nature of it feels counter to how decisive and no-nonsense he feels in the first part. It’s not like all the kill scenes are like this. In fact, Rosenthal has more than his fair share of voyeuristic camera kills like Carpenter had made all the more interesting by the long white hallways of the hospital. It’s just that when a kill happens that doesn’t fit in the with that general current you can feel how out of place it is. If you’re just looking for a slasher with innovative and entertaining kills, this movie has them in spades and I can see why so many fans of the franchise have a fondness for this movie.

The score is also noteworthy for being nearly as entertaining as the original’s, which I think is one of the most immersive scores in horror cinema. Carpenter’s new rendition of the iconic theme is similar enough to evoke the feelings of nostalgia but feels new and energetic. Granted, I love synth music but I also think the score perfectly captures what the movie wanted to do in hearkening back to the original while being it’s own thing. I love how the usually sweet and soothing “Mr. Sandman” by The Chordettes is utilized in the movie. It comes off as sinister and unnerving in context which I think is testament to how well Rosenthal nails atmosphere. The first time I heard it play while watching I thought it was coming from somewhere else because of how odd its selection felt in such a movie. However, if you ask me now, I can’t imagine the movie without the song.

The one aspect of the movie that I genuinely enjoyed and think was pulled off well throughout the movie is the fear of the holiday of Halloween. The idea that it’s a holiday filled with fear and repression is exemplified through multiple different actions that are only tangentially related. Near the beginning of the movie a child is in the Emergency Room and we get a glimpse of his bloodied mouth. It hearkens back to rumors of razors in candy-bars and the fear that our own neighbors could harm our children. Moments like these add a much needed texture to the movie that place the central conflict within the schema of traditional Halloween scares and fears. It doesn’t elevate the movie up to where Halloween is, but it certainly gives the movie a more distinctive identity than just die fodder die.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	I have a love hate relationship with this movie. On the one hand I love that it feels and plays like a continuation of Halloween . You could literally play this as soon as the first movie ended and it would feel like one fully encompassing piece. The similarity is so uncanny that fan-cuts mixing the two movies feel seamless without close inspection. Unfortunately, this latter half of the two-parter undoes a lot of what made the original so frightening and interesting, settling instead for a Friday the 13th style slaughter fest with a hackneyed plot that serve as the story’s main driver. It’s an entertaining gore-fest but feels less elevated in its themes and atmosphere.
Rating	8.0/10
Grade	B

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2010s, 2018, B, Grade, Horror, Review, review-movie, slasher, Thriller, Year

Film Review: Halloween – 2018

March 20, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	David Gordon Green
Principal Cast	Jaime Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode James Jude Courtney as Michael Myers/The Shape Judy Greer as Karen Andi Matichak as Allyson Nelson Haluk Bilginer as Dr. Sartain
Release Date	2018
Language(s)	English
Running Time	106 minutes

Michael (James Jude Courtney) stands chained up.

The film opens in a psychiatric hospital. A psychiatrist working at the institution, Dr. Sartain (Haluk Bilginer) escorts two true crime reporters, Aaron (Jefferson Hall) and Dana (Rhian Rees), for an interview with the subject of their latest investigation, Michael Myers (James Jude Courtney), before he’s transferred to a more maximum-security prison. The duo approaches the serial killer, but Michael doesn’t budge; he stays with his back turned to them. But he’s very much aware of their presence as evidenced by a “reverse” over-the-shoulder shot.

Frustrated with the lack of discernible response, Aaron steps forward and taunts Michael with the latter’s iconic mask, hoping that the provocation will elicit a response. But the response comes from the other patients around Michael who start to panic and become disturbed due to the sight of the mask; the lingering presence of evil is palpable. The cries of the patients interrupt and disorient Aaron’s attempted interview but he persists, desperately asking Michael to say anything.

Suddenly, the title card drops and the iconic Halloween theme starts to play; Michael doesn’t need to speak when the music does it for him. The intro sequence pays homage to the original film’s opening. In the 1978 classic, the camera slowly pushes into a jack-o-lantern, becoming the “point-of-view” of Halloween itself. In the 2018 sequel, the camera pushes in on a broken and beaten jack-o-lantern which recovers back into its original form – a rebirth. If the original signified the birth of Michael, then this narrative is about the resurrection of the Boogeyman.

Aaron and Dana leave Michael and head towards Laurie (Jaime Lee Curtis); if the killer won’t talk, get the survivor to fill in the blanks. Aaron narrates his report on the drive over and gives us the subtext in not-so-subtle fashion. Have Michael’s actions had an impact on Laurie such that the latter has become metaphysically changed by the encounter. Has one monster made another?

The answers to these questions become murky as the reporters arrive at Laurie’s gated compound. They speak with her through a security system in order to secure an interview but receive no response until they offer to pay a fee. The gate opens and they’re allowed entry. But the inside of Laurie’s compound is even more securitized than the outside. Cameras and lights surround the outside. It’s clear that Laurie’s confrontation with Michael has radically transformed her, forcing her to live her life with a neve-ending fear of the darkness and the forces inherent to it.

Aaron and Dana mention as much in their interview with Laurie, probing into how the incident derailed her life. It’s apparent that the duo doesn’t believe in the legend of the Boogeyman and see Michael as just another serial killer waiting to be examined, a profile to be added to a personality database. They suggest that Laurie’s obsession with the myth of Michael have cost her dearly. She’s had multiple failed marriages. She lost custody of her daughter, Karen (Judy Greer), years ago and now lives estranged from any family. Instead of continuing to live her fear in deference to idea of Michael qua inexplicable evil, they suggest that she communicate with Michael and lay her grievances to rest.

But they don’t understand what Michael is or the nature of what he put Laurie through so many years ago. They don’t understand that the person known as Michael is nothing more than a moniker for a force unconstrained, an evil with no direction. Laurie knows they don’t care about such proclamations, so she end’s the interview almost as soon as it starts and sends the duo out after getting payment.

Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) looks outside and sees Michael.

Meanwhile Laurie’s granddaughter, Allyson (Andi Matichak), asks Karen if Laurie was invited to a celebratory dinner. Karen claims that Laurie was too busy to come, but Allyson knows that Karen most likely never sent an invite out. This becomes clear when Allyson peeks out of her classroom window and notices Laurie standing outside staring back at her; this is an explicit call-back to the original Halloween where a young Laurie peeked out and saw Michael staring back at her. In spending decades preparing for Michael, it seems that Laurie has adopted some of his characteristics. Allyson calls this out when the grandmother and granddaughter reunite outside. The latter pleads with the former to give up the obsession with Michael and return to a semblance of normalcy in order to engage with the family again.

But Laurie is right and Michael proves that her concerns are more than valid when he manages to escape from the bus transporting him for his prison transfer. Now free again, the shape is more than ready to begin his nightmarish slaughter. However, this time there’s a party that’s willing and who’s trained the majority of her life for such an encounter.

The film’s set-up offers a lot of promise by building upon the original’s themes in an organic fashion. Laurie becoming jaded and militaristic after her encounter is understandable. She witnessed a person survive fatal wound upon fatal wound with no genuine injuries. She’s the only one to have an understanding of the terror he brings, so she’s focused on eliminating him and not understanding him. Opposing her are parties that attempt to domesticate Michael, either because they have trouble evaluating what he’s done in a grander or context or because they believe that his drive towards destruction contains within it some kernel of truth which can help inquiries into the psychological nature of evil. All the while, Michael kills without reason and gives no indication that he cares or remembers any of the parties desperate to control him.

If done properly, the narrative could have interweaved between all the different strands chronicling Michael and taken the question of how narratives form around evil to its most literal sense. Alas, the narrative fumbles around with its ideas in haphazard fashion, wasting much of its potential in favor of scraping the surface of the most basic themes. Part of this stems from the noted sub-text problem above; much of the story relies on characters explaining the themes and ideas as opposed to showcasing the same visually or through the sound design, so there’s a constant discord between what the films aspiring to be and what it manages to achieve.

This is an effect of the film’s misguided focus. Instead of building up its primary cast of characters and letting them get entangled naturally as the night builds up, the story gives them only the basest amount of characterization necessary to get them ready for the next story beats. Time that could have been used to flesh out the characters and make their journeys more engaging is spent on building up Michael’s soon-to-victims. These characters are little more than “cannon fodder” and do nothing but converse in “comedic” ^[1] Comedy is subjective, but most of the jokes between minor characters are irritating more than anything else. fashion. Cuts from the main storyline to these characters are meant to introduce a levity and get the viewer to care about the carnage to come, but the conversations between said characters are so insipid that not only do they not get the viewer to care about what’s to come but also serve as an ugly contrast with the purported severity of what the film is trying to do. It’s hard to take Michael seriously as a threat when his violence is intercut with small talk and comedic banter.

In this sense, what’s missing from the 2018 incarnation of Halloween inherent in the original is a sense of gravitas capable of transforming the on-screen violence into a nightmare that gets under the skin. Without this severity, the discussions of the film’s subtext by major characters feels even more out of place. Consequently, while the film’s depiction of Michael’s night of violence is technically satisfying, none of his murders rises past the level of momentarily shocking spectacle.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Halloween is one of the better attempted sequels to John Carpenter’s seminal 1978 classic, Halloween, but is still a far cry from the original in terms of its ability to leave an lasting mark of fear on its viewers. There’s a missing gravitas that makes this update to the slasher franchise feel lacking, but the technical competence and general respect given to the original film make this more than satisfying for fans looking for decent Halloween or slasher fare.
Rating	7.5/10
Grade	B

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2010s, 2016, B, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, science fiction horror, supernatural, Thriller, Year

Review: The Void

February 23, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Steven Kostanski Jeremy Gillespie
Principal Cast	Aaron Poole as Daniel Kenneth Welsh as Dr.Richard Powell Kathleen Munroe as Allison Daniel Fathers as Vincent Mik Byskov as Simon
Release Date	2016
Language(s)	English
Running Time	90 minutes

When a group of people find themselves trapped in an isolated hospital , surrounded on the outside by hooded cultists and on the inside by grotesque Lovecraftian abominations, they’re forced to work with each other to survive the night. Even though the resulting story feels a bit contrived and convenient in how it plays out, it’s a satisfying homage to 80’s B Horror movies and knocks it out of the ballpark with its creatures effects. If you’ve been itching for cosmic horror that nails the aesthetic, this is it.

The movie shines when it comes to its presentation. It’s obvious how much effort when into the creature animatronics/effects. They’re dripping with that otherworldly dread that manages to get under your skin. The camera doesn’t shy away from showing these mangled monstrosities in all their glory. They’re not hidden away in the shadows or obfuscated by some lighting/visual effect. Likewise the makeup/prosthetic work done for the antagonist is captivating and perfectly feels otherworldly but serious. Once the third act starts, things just go fully bonkers and it’s a joy to watch the chaos unfold on the screen. There’s always something that catches your eye in how strange or revolting it looks. I’m not lying when I say that the aesthetic work here is on par with The Thing, and if that’s not an endorsement nothing is.

The story oozes with mystery from the way that character relationships are revealed to the meaning of certain images/visual motifs. It’s cool and provides for interesting discussion afterwards, but I thought that the story was missing too much of a solid base for the mystery to add nuance. The movie flirts with ideas about death ,rebirth, and moving forward but they’re barely given anytime to marinate , because they’re shrouded in imagery and never examined in a way that unfolds naturally. If the movie had spent just a few more moments explaining certain character decisions, then I think the the whole piece would have felt more connected in what it’s trying to accomplish. It’s not like the movie is shy about utilizing exposition. Most of the relationships between characters are told between strange expository dialogue and the majority of the “mystery” is revealed by the antagonist in the third act. However, in spite of giving us so much information, none of it ever amounts to anything that’d push the movie over the hump into something amazing. If you’re going to tell us this much, you might as well tell us just enough to feel like the story did it’s own unique thing. It’s a shame because I liked a lot of the surface level ideas the movie wanted to talk about but just couldn’t get into how vague and the sloppy the themes came across.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	The Void tells the story of a group of strangers who are forced to fend off a hooded cultists and Lovecraftian monsters. Thought the movie doesn’t push the genre forward and feels like it relies on mystery too much , it’s so visually stunning and well put together that you won’t find yourself nitpicking too much. This movie has some of the best creature effect work since John Carpenter’s The Thing, so if you’re looking for a fun and quick cosmic horror movie, look no further.
Rating	8.1/10
Grade	B

Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2

2010s, 2017, B, Drama, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, supernatural, Thriller, Year

Review: Pyewacket

February 21, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Adam MacDonald
Principal Cast	Nicole Munoz as Leah Reyes Laurie Holden as Mrs.Reyes
Release Date	2017
Language(s)	English
Running Time	90 minutes

Pywacket takes a family drama about the agitations of growing up and dealing with grief and combines it with slow burn supernatural horror in an attempt to highlight the consequences of emotional decision making and communicative mishaps. After a series of tense and emotionally fueled agitations with her mother, Leah decides enough is enough and wishes for the former’s death. Unbeknownst to her, dark forces were listening and she’s forced deal with the consequences of her ill-begotten wish.

The story takes a while to build up and the supernatural elements don’t really ratchet up till the third act. The core of the movie is the drama between Leah and her mom and their inability to deal with the loss of their father/husband. Each party has valid grievances but can never find a way to gauge the other on it. Watching them struggle to communicate hits real emotional nerves because it feels so real. Their disagreements feel commonplace and easy to locate in our own lives. It also helps that Munoz and Holden bring vulnerability and volatility in all of their interactions, so its easy to get lost in the emotional ebb and flow at the heart of the movie.

Parent-children relationships always involve a level of friction because of the nature of the bond. Parents have to love and care for their children while maintaining their own well-being, and children have to listen to their parents, grow, and figure out their own path in the world. Clash is inevitable and sometimes when passions get too heated, we want awful things to happen to the other person. It’s scary to think about how dark our heads can go with enough stress and damage . Thankfully for us, the passions are usually momentary- fleeting moments of malevolence lost in transit. The reason the horror in Pyewacket works is because it forces us to confront our worst fears- what if that awful thing we wished on someone actually happened?

Unfortunately, as interesting as the concept of the movie is , it’s executed without a lot of creativity. Supernatural events happen whenever the story determines they’re convenient and nothing is ever that jarring as a visual scare. I’m someone who likes scary sequences to have some kind of purpose or explanation, but the malevolent entity in this movie just acts when it wants to in random ways, so its hard to distinguish it from other scary oddities in other movies. Like, Pywacket is a witch’s familiar. There’s so much potential there, and instead it’s just creepy supernatural entity #945. Now to Macdonald’s credit, the third act has some tense sequences and terrifying moments of realization at what’s actually going on, but it feels a bit formulaic given the cool set up the story has going for itself. Sure there are no jump scares, but there’s also not some batshit super fun absurd out there ending like The House of the Devil. That feels like a shame.

The movie also tries to incorporate Leah’s friends into different scenes but none of them feel fleshed out or close to her at all. I was left wondering how any of them were friends or what the dynamic between them was. Especially with how some of the scenes progressed, I figured that they would be better incorporated into the scares or the themes, but they’re just kind of cast aside.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Pyewacket is family drama about grief amplified with supernatural consequences. It’s a story about the dangers of emotional decision-making and the pitfalls of not communicating effectively. If you’re okay with a slow burn without any huge visceral payoffs, this is the movie for you. It may flub the third act a bit, but it tackles some very real fears and issues we all thinnk about.
Rating	8.2/10
Grade	B

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2020, 2020s, B, Fantasy, Grade, Horror, Review, review-movie, supernatural, Thriller, Year

Review: Gretel & Hansel

February 1, 2020 The Critic 1 Comment

Director(s)	Osgood Perkins
Principal Cast	Sophia Lillis as Gretel Alice Krige as Holda Sam Leaky as Hansel
Release Date	2020
Language(s)	English
Running Time	87 minutes

This was the horror movie I was most excited for in January. Perkins’s I Am the Pretty Thing that Lives in the House and The Blackcoat’s Daughter are some of my favorite horror movies of the past decade, so I thought his rendition of a Grimm fairy tail would be absolutely mesmerizing. I just watched the movie a few hours ago and feel conflicted. It’s absolutely stunning to watch and has a fun synth-y score that really makes it pop. There are some creepy and unnerving visuals and some neat ideas. Unfortunately, it feels a bit too preachy and the third act feels way more rushed than I expected.

The story is a retelling of The Brothers Grimm’s Hansel and Gretel. However, the focus of the story is Gretel, as evidence by the inversion of the names. After being kicked out of their house, Gretel and Hansel are forced to find their way through the woods and find a way to survive the wilderness by themselves. On the way, they run into Holda, a nice lady who provides them food and board. Unbeknownst to them, Holda is a witch, and is responsible for some nefarious things happening in the background.

First thing’s first – the movie is gorgeous. The aspect ratio is 1.55:1 (smaller and more compact) instead of the status quo’s 2.39:1. Most of the shots are also symmetrical. This causes you to focus in on whatever is happening in the center of the frame. On top of this, there are moments where the edges of the frame are blurred out. This amplifies the presence of the subject, creating this visceral connection between the characters and audience. There are gorgeous color swatches, including some surprising neons that juxtapose well with the fable background. It all culminates in a beautiful looking movie you won’t be able to peel your eyes from.

The theme at the heart of the movie is control over feminine agency. Throughout the story, Gretel is constantly told how to act. Different paradigms of proper womanhood are explained to her with the expectation that she’ll make the “right” choice. Should she embrace her dark side and give in to here more hate filled impulses or should she be a proper girl who knows her place and when to talk? Each women she comes into contact with serves as a manifestation of each of these models of being and focusing on the difference in choices between all of them reveals some interesting undercurrents. At the core of agency is our motivations. We act because we have inclinations and intend to fulfill them. However, when obstacles come in the way we can falter. We can give in and let the obstacle prevent us from achieving our task. Likewise, we can try and overcome the obstacle in a multitude of ways, to achieve something. Our orientation towards those obstacles explains why we choose to act in the way we do, so if we can’t properly ascertain and control it, we can never truly do anything.

Unfortunately, neither of these ideas is developed as well as I would have liked. The threads of these ideas are only partially explored, but they never build up into something masterful. This is mostly due to the way the third act unfolds. It goes by really fast and feels like it would have benefited from more foreshadowing and buildup in the earlier acts. I might have also just missed clues (live I’ve done with Perkins’s previous movies), but I felt like some threads just felt haphazard.

Speaking of haphazard, what is up with the dialogue in this movie? Every character has a different sounding accent and vernacular to boot, so it’s hard to make out exactly when the story is taking place. Lillis comes off as incredibly soft and has the most modern sounding lines. She doesn’t really put an accent on what she says, so she comes off as anachronistic. On the other hand, Krige is old-timey and creepy as Holda and her lines have a sinister, sweet, and sickly undertone to them. Her dialogue matches and comes off dual-edged. It’s weird reconciling these moments. It’s not that anyone sounds bad. It’s just that it’s not stable across the board so the distinctions are even more prominent.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Gretel and Hansel is a beautiful looking, slow-burn telling of the Grimm Brother’s fairy tail. The changes feel fresh and I appreciate what the movie was trying to do. Unfortunately, weird characterization issues, strange dialogue choices, and on-the-nose thematic posturing stop this movie from feeling as elevated as Perkins’s previous movies.
Rating	8.2/10
Grade	B

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2020, 2020s, Action, B, Comedy, Crime, Grade, Review, review-movie, Thriller, Year

Review: Bad Boys For Life

January 21, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Adil El Arbi Bilall Fallah
Principal Cast	Will Smith as Mike Lowrey Martin Lawrence as Marcus Burnett Jacob Scipio as Armando Armas Kate del Castillo as Isabel Aretas
Release Date	2020
Language(s)	English
Running Time	124 minutes

I’ll be upfront and say I don’t really remember Bad Boys or Bad Boys II outside of a few moments, and I wasn’t going to go through the effort of re-watching them for this newest release. Thankfully for me, the movie doesn’t require knowledge of the previous movies, but does reward people who have kept up with Mike and Marcus’s journey up to now. I left the movie immensely satisfied and think this movie will please old and new fans alike.

The movie follows a more mature Mike and Marcus, the former desperate to continue fighting bad guys while the latter is getting ready to retire and enjoy the comforts of life, including his newly born grandchild. However, a string of murders brings the two together for one last ride (pending the imminent sequel). While I may not remember the last two movies, I know I will remember parts of this one for a bit. The reveals in the third act were fun and well-earned- definitely not what I expected when I was walking in. That’s not to say the story is perfect. It definitely has some moments of fat that could be trimmed off, especially in the second act which feels like it goes on for a while. There’s a lot of “find X” guy sub-plots happening which feel like they could have been condensed and streamlined. But in spite of all of that, it’s entertaining.

If you were a fan of the frenetic cut based directing of the previous movies, you may be upset with how tame this movie feels. There’s still a ton of action and movement, but it feels more contained and refined. I personally enjoy this style way more and appreciated how clean the action sequences looked. I could tell you exactly what was happening on the screen as it happened, which I rarely can in modern action movies.

Like the action, the character development and pacing of the plot feel more refined than ever. Both Mike and Marcus have meaningful character arcs in this movie. Martin Lawrence’s performance as the latter proves he still has his acting chops. He’s just as funny but has a clarity about him. Even the side characters get some love here. The buddy-cop duo find themselves joined by tech-driven operations team (AMMO) and each member brings a little spice to the formula. I loved watching them bounce off the main duo and their interjections keeps the movie feeling fresh. The crazy part is – none of the above are even my favorite character from the movie. That honor goes to the villain Armando, a man who’s as complex is he as dedicated to executing justice. He’s a hardened criminal who has a moral compass and nothing about it feels off. Ruthless and violent, but not a deranged monster. I dig it.

Honestly, my biggest issues concerning the movie stem from its identity crisis. The movie wants to be funny (which it most certainly is), serious, have a message, and be action-packed. The issue is that it mixes those elements in ways that make them oppose one another. For example., there are moments where something serious happens and then someone makes a funny joke almost undercutting the impact of what was said. I get that it’s funny and is poking fun at the scenario, but it really takes you out of the moment. Likewise, the humor compounded with some missed opportunities, takes away a lot from some of the themes presented in the first act.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Bad Boys for Life should satisfy fans of the franchise and newcomers alike. It’s bold and has genuinely fun moments that set it apart from predecessors, but it never takes the following steps to become something truly innovative. Good popcorn flick and one of the better buddy-cop movies.
Rating	8.0/10
Grade	B

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2010s, 2013, B, Black-Comedy, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, slasher, Thriller, Year

Review: You’re Next

January 18, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Adam Wingard
Principal Cast	Sharni Vinson as Erin A.J. Bowen as Crispian Davison
Release Date	2013
Language(s)	English
Running Time	94 minutes

I swear after I first saw this movie, I was certain a sequel would drop eventually, but unfortunately it seems like that’s not the case. It’s a shame because You’re Next has all the ingredients necessary for a classic slasher movie: stylish kills, great villain design, a dry perverse black humor, and a wonderfully bad ass main character in Erin. The premise- a rich family is targeted by unknown assailants and have to fight for their lives- is simple enough, but its execution shows a real understanding of the craft.

What immediately set this movie apart from others for me is how thought out the story feels. Character motivations are present even for the bad guys so everything has a human element to it. Erin is immediately likable and is a great protagonist to latch onto. Sharni is a bad ass and from the way she carries herself up to the way her character takes charge, it’s apparent that she’s not going to be a pushover. The killers each have different face masks corresponding to a different animals which represent their personality traits. It’s subtle character work that goes a long way in making the group of villains feel distinct aesthetically. The members of the rich family feel nice and distinct in the few moments they get to interact with each other. I wasn’t expecting so many characters to feel so unique.

The reason the characters feel so memorable is because of how odd they all are. The family might be rich, but that doesn’t mean they’re any more functional than a middle or lower class family. The earlier scenes where they play off each other are great, even if the delivery of some of the lines feels wonky. Someone’s always got something strange enough to say to add a “unique” sense of humor to scenes. I personally thought the movie was hilarious (intentionally). I appreciate dry in-your-face humor that’s predicated on the absurdity of what occurs. I think it’s a more acquired taste so if you don’t think it’s funny watching it, I wouldn’t be surprised. But I think watching it from the point of view of a comedy makes the viewing experience more memorable and might be something you consider trying out.

Despite nailing most of important stuff, the movie suffers from a lack of impact. What I mean is that we barely get a chance to gauge the characters relations among each other, so when people start dropping it doesn’t feel like anything.It’s a shame because the few moments they talk to each other had me laughing, but all of that is pushed to the wayside for immediate action.That might be good if you just want a constant source of action, but that’s not my cup of tea. The movie also struggles to balance its tone at times. It wants to be funny but then acts too seriously at other moments to let the humor breathe. It makes it hard to process, especially when the third act starts.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	If you like weird humor that’s dark and kind of perverse and also enjoy gory slashers, then You’re Next is made for you. There’s a sensible story, aesthetically interesting villains, and a great protagonist waiting to be discovered. Just be wary of strange tonal shifts and bare-bones characterization.
Rating	8.2/10
Grade	B

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

The Critic's Sanctum

Category Archives: B

Film Review: Dark Star – 1974

REPORT CARD

Film Review: Captain America: The First Avenger – 2011

REPORT CARD

Review: Hell House LLC III: Lake of Fire

REPORT CARD

Review: Halloween II

REPORT CARD

Film Review: Halloween – 2018

REPORT CARD

Review: The Void

REPORT CARD

Review: Pyewacket

REPORT CARD

Review: Gretel & Hansel

REPORT CARD

Review: Bad Boys For Life

REPORT CARD

Review: You’re Next

REPORT CARD

A place for fun and rumination