Freaky Tales

"Freaky Tales" is one of those anthology films that feels like it's almost onto something - but never quite gets there. It's visually engaging and has a certain nostalgic flair, and I did find myself enjoying a few segments, but overall, most of the stories rely heavily on well-worn tropes without offering much that feels fresh.

The third tale, featuring Pedro Pascal, stands out as the one with the most potential. There's some emotional weight and intriguing character dynamics, but just as it starts to build momentum, it's over - underdeveloped and leaving more questions than satisfaction.

While "Freaky Tales" has energy and style, the majority of the narratives feel like sketches rather than fully realized stories. They're loud, flashy, sometimes fun, but ultimately forgettable. It's not a bad watch, but it's also not particularly memorable. A 6/10 feels fair: some fun to be had, but not enough depth to leave a lasting impression.

Presented in a 4:3 aspect ratio, this film in its presentation emulates an old videotape. Cut-off titles and all. Clearly shot on digital video, I still appreciated the Betamax (not VHS) artifacts. But it finds Inspiration from many direct to VHS (mostly horror) films from the 80's. The "tales" (as in Tales from the Crypt, etc.) in the title promises multiple story segments and this promise is kept. But rarely did period pieces overlap so perfectly with their segments. Worst case: 3 or more short films added together by a narrator. Not here however.

At the same time, it's impossible to view this and not see this as being inspired by the Grindhouse format from Quintin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez. Both in "retro pulp" and violence terms.

Any criticism? Yep. For non-Americans the second segment is not that interesting. We found ourselves "sitting it out" this part on the strength of the first (imperfect) segment. Only to be rewarded by the third segment. International audiences will be unlikely to make it to the third segment. Thus my "Hizzle for Zhizzle" in the title of this comment. We are Dutch, so associate this subject matter at best with "Do The Right Thing" (and at worst with "The Fresh Prince of Bel Air".

Pedro Pascal "did some acting" and the other well known actor... from Forrest Gump... Tom Hanks... they are in this. Pascal did a descent job. A good one in fact.

This is a film you should see if you remember 1987. And like violence and stuff. Or if you enjoy well made pulp-films.

It's probably one of those 'you're either gonna like/love it or hate it' situations. It's definitely not a movie to be taken seriously but i think that's pretty obvious before you're even ten minutes into it.

What I'M wondering is how they got some of the people in it to BE in it...i know one of them grew up in Piedmont(Oakland), but still...he's one of THE most popular actors from the last 45 or so years...i think he did it as a favor. A salute to, 'cool that you're doing a movie in Oakland'.

As far as story elements go, the movie is all over the place...but, overall, it was FUN. Of course, having lived in Berkeley for 20+ years helped me to enjoy it. And i liked seeing Angus Cloud again.

I have decided this is what was going on in Oakland while Otto and his fellow repo men were dealing with their problems in Los Angeles. Loads of fun, good acting, and, unlike in the real world, people get their comeuppance. I am old enough to enjoy this film's pedigree and wish the effects were practical rather than CGI, but I am obviously spitting into the wind on that one. Every section is solid although their connections are a little tenuous like a lot of 90's indie films. I couldn't really decide if this was another homage or just the same problem those earlier films had but, in the end, I just didn't care.

The opening episodes are tired clichés that nearly put me to sleep. The background becomes the main source of narrative, while the flashy, hyperactive style induces genuine yawns. The only interesting segment features Pedro Pascal - everything else is bland, tedious chaos. The film can't focus on anything, trying to be everything for everyone and ending up as nothing. It's a hollow citation of 1980s cinema - all pop, no substance. Good luck falling for this "love letter" to the era. If you want actual storytelling, look elsewhere.

First 40 minutes? Chewed-up tropes: punks vs neo-Nazis, rappers vs the system, blah-blah-blah... The neon aesthetic and soundtrack are just crutches for narrative lameness. Only Pascal's revenge storyline breaks through - mercifully free of postmodern smirk.

No depth. No originality. Just soulless set dressing - style as empty calories. Every episode is vapid posturing without compelling characters or drama. Essentially - a kaleidoscope of colorful shards with zero meaning. Pascal's classical vengeance arc works precisely because it's not another "experiment". This isn't homage - it's nostalgia plagiarism without vision. At festivals it might pass as "bold"; at home it's reheated leftovers. Without Pascal, this mess would vanish among a thousand forgettable flicks. Visual fast food - strip away the 80s neon and synthwave, and you're left with... nothing.

Now you might argue: "Don't all genre films rely on clichés?" "Isn't 80s nostalgia the whole point?" "What if chaos IS the intention?" "Maybe you're obsessing over Pascal?"

Sure! And you're right! But for real 80s kicks, I'll rewatch:

• RoboCop ('87)
• Die Hard ('88)
• Pulp Fiction ('94)
• The Terminator ('84)

...while this one's already fading from memory.

Freaky Tales is like neon wall art: bright but disposable. Hang it up to flex your taste, but stare too long and you'll spot the emptiness.

The filmmakers couldn't decide between parody, drama, or straight action - so we get a lukewarm reference salad. Pascal's the only frame-worthy element. The rest? Pulp fiction in every bad sense.