Platypuschow
Joined Jan 2015
Badges52
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings17.9K
Platypuschow's rating
Reviews1.8K
Platypuschow's rating
Plot
In 1993, in Hollywood, California, a decadent ventriloquist overdoses and dies, leaving her two children to be sent to a foster house with their dummy. Their lives become a nightmare of abuse and murder, to be avenged by a wrathful dummy.
Cast
Rocky Marquette is actually really great here. Brian Krauss's contribution, fleeting, I don't understand why he was even brought in.
Verdict
Within minutes Triloquist gives off a certain vibe, it felt like a Full Moon pictures movie and I double checked to confirm it wasn't. It looks like one, it feels like one, it's filmed just like one and deals with subject matters that again make you feel like you're watching a Full Moon film!
I have to assume that the creators drew a lot of inspiration from them. My question is, why? Full Moon films have a certain novelty charm but they're generally consistently poor so why replicate that?
Triloguist is a comedy horror, light on horror and the comedy elements are more goofy than funny. The leads are competent enough especially Marquette, and the dummy isn't as obnoxious as such characters usually are.
The biggest flaw is the plot, you walk away feeling half like it didn't have one and half like what existed was non-sensical and kinda icky the more you think about it.
I didn't get the black and white moments, they felt tacked on and unnecessary however the soundtrack including the score was oddly enjoyable.
Then there's the ending which hit me in the feels more than it should have, I'm not entirely sure why but it was quite impactful.
Sadly none of that makes up for the fact it's a mediocre forgettable attempt at a horror comedy that I couldn't in good conscience recommend to anybody.
Rants
I don't get it, did you get it? There were certain plot points and script lines that made absolutely no sense and contradicted what had come before it. One particular part seemed like an interesting swerve but then seconds later you were witnessing things that suggested it wasn't even a thing. Did they change writers every few minutes? That honestly is the only thing that would explain it.
The Good
Passable performances Rocky Marquette Solid finale
The Bad
Why was Brian Krause there?
Plot was pretty dire Black and white nonsense.
In 1993, in Hollywood, California, a decadent ventriloquist overdoses and dies, leaving her two children to be sent to a foster house with their dummy. Their lives become a nightmare of abuse and murder, to be avenged by a wrathful dummy.
Cast
Rocky Marquette is actually really great here. Brian Krauss's contribution, fleeting, I don't understand why he was even brought in.
Verdict
Within minutes Triloquist gives off a certain vibe, it felt like a Full Moon pictures movie and I double checked to confirm it wasn't. It looks like one, it feels like one, it's filmed just like one and deals with subject matters that again make you feel like you're watching a Full Moon film!
I have to assume that the creators drew a lot of inspiration from them. My question is, why? Full Moon films have a certain novelty charm but they're generally consistently poor so why replicate that?
Triloguist is a comedy horror, light on horror and the comedy elements are more goofy than funny. The leads are competent enough especially Marquette, and the dummy isn't as obnoxious as such characters usually are.
The biggest flaw is the plot, you walk away feeling half like it didn't have one and half like what existed was non-sensical and kinda icky the more you think about it.
I didn't get the black and white moments, they felt tacked on and unnecessary however the soundtrack including the score was oddly enjoyable.
Then there's the ending which hit me in the feels more than it should have, I'm not entirely sure why but it was quite impactful.
Sadly none of that makes up for the fact it's a mediocre forgettable attempt at a horror comedy that I couldn't in good conscience recommend to anybody.
Rants
I don't get it, did you get it? There were certain plot points and script lines that made absolutely no sense and contradicted what had come before it. One particular part seemed like an interesting swerve but then seconds later you were witnessing things that suggested it wasn't even a thing. Did they change writers every few minutes? That honestly is the only thing that would explain it.
The Good
Passable performances Rocky Marquette Solid finale
The Bad
Why was Brian Krause there?
Plot was pretty dire Black and white nonsense.
Plot
On January 8th, 2015, a man with a black umbrella broke into 818 Hilltop drive at 3:38 a.m., committing a double murder. The investigation that ensued proved that some murders shouldn't be solved.
Cast
Nobody of note. And top 5 one of the worst director/writers in the history of filmmaking.
Verdict
I watched The Man with the Black Umbrella without seeing who created it oddly enough, if I'd known I'd have skipped it.
Within the first 10 minutes I started seeing signs, things that looked awfully familiar, which is very impressive in a film where nothing happens.
A found footage film made for a budget comparable with the cost of a McDonalds cheeseburger and small fries, it's one of those type where it tries to counter this by building tension. And by building tension I mean, nothing actually happens throughout its run time and the whole things looks unforgivably ugly.
Is it as bad as the fear Footage Trilogy? Absolutely, it's on par as it's ultimately the same thing tweaked.
Want something that will assist you with sleep? Want something to recommend to your worst enemy? Want something that will kill your faith in the movie industry? This right here, is it.
Rants
Ricky Umberger shilled his Fear Footage trilogy badly, he first denied it then later admitted it claiming he did it to counter the bad ratings/reviews which he believed were appearing in some kind of hate campaign. Truth is the faux 10/10 reviews came before any of the negative ones so survey says, that was a lie. If you have faith in your movie, why lie to the world? Let it succeed off it's own merits.
The Good
Literally nothing
The Bad
Incredibly boring Very ugly Nothing happens Totally unoriginal and uninspired.
On January 8th, 2015, a man with a black umbrella broke into 818 Hilltop drive at 3:38 a.m., committing a double murder. The investigation that ensued proved that some murders shouldn't be solved.
Cast
Nobody of note. And top 5 one of the worst director/writers in the history of filmmaking.
Verdict
I watched The Man with the Black Umbrella without seeing who created it oddly enough, if I'd known I'd have skipped it.
Within the first 10 minutes I started seeing signs, things that looked awfully familiar, which is very impressive in a film where nothing happens.
A found footage film made for a budget comparable with the cost of a McDonalds cheeseburger and small fries, it's one of those type where it tries to counter this by building tension. And by building tension I mean, nothing actually happens throughout its run time and the whole things looks unforgivably ugly.
Is it as bad as the fear Footage Trilogy? Absolutely, it's on par as it's ultimately the same thing tweaked.
Want something that will assist you with sleep? Want something to recommend to your worst enemy? Want something that will kill your faith in the movie industry? This right here, is it.
Rants
Ricky Umberger shilled his Fear Footage trilogy badly, he first denied it then later admitted it claiming he did it to counter the bad ratings/reviews which he believed were appearing in some kind of hate campaign. Truth is the faux 10/10 reviews came before any of the negative ones so survey says, that was a lie. If you have faith in your movie, why lie to the world? Let it succeed off it's own merits.
The Good
Literally nothing
The Bad
Incredibly boring Very ugly Nothing happens Totally unoriginal and uninspired.
Plot
A cult is about to waken H. P. Lovecraft's most feared creature.
Cast
Unfamiliar with those involved
Verdict
When you go into any ITN movie you should naturally assume the worst, whatever you think it's going to be it'll almost certainly be worse. Then the Lovecraft element, nobody seems to be able to do his work or anything even vaguely resembling it justice and therefore also going in you have to assume it'll be bad. Therefore a ITN Lovecraft title? Never really stood a chance did it?
To its credit it starts well enough, the production values feel higher and the cast aren't your usual suspects and that's for the most part a good thing. Sadly it doesn't last, ITN's ability to tell a coherent story rears its head at around the 1/3 mark and the film falls into illogical chaos.
It's easy enough to follow, but it's all over the place. It's unoriginal, not engaging and screams yet another movie cashing in on the good name of H. P Lovecraft.
Building to a messy predictable finale Monster Portal is as poor as the title suggests it would be. There are plenty of passable Lovecraftian tales, choose one of those after this travesty.
Rants
Without Danielle Scott, Chrissie Wunna, May Kelly etc is it really an ITN film? It feels weird at this stage. Same cast, every film, when none of them are present it feels.......wrong! And yet probably the best decisions considering movies they're in are consistently terrible.
The Good
Based on the works of a horror genius
The Bad
Most of the CGI is of a very poor standard Story is a mess This is far from Lovecraftian.
A cult is about to waken H. P. Lovecraft's most feared creature.
Cast
Unfamiliar with those involved
Verdict
When you go into any ITN movie you should naturally assume the worst, whatever you think it's going to be it'll almost certainly be worse. Then the Lovecraft element, nobody seems to be able to do his work or anything even vaguely resembling it justice and therefore also going in you have to assume it'll be bad. Therefore a ITN Lovecraft title? Never really stood a chance did it?
To its credit it starts well enough, the production values feel higher and the cast aren't your usual suspects and that's for the most part a good thing. Sadly it doesn't last, ITN's ability to tell a coherent story rears its head at around the 1/3 mark and the film falls into illogical chaos.
It's easy enough to follow, but it's all over the place. It's unoriginal, not engaging and screams yet another movie cashing in on the good name of H. P Lovecraft.
Building to a messy predictable finale Monster Portal is as poor as the title suggests it would be. There are plenty of passable Lovecraftian tales, choose one of those after this travesty.
Rants
Without Danielle Scott, Chrissie Wunna, May Kelly etc is it really an ITN film? It feels weird at this stage. Same cast, every film, when none of them are present it feels.......wrong! And yet probably the best decisions considering movies they're in are consistently terrible.
The Good
Based on the works of a horror genius
The Bad
Most of the CGI is of a very poor standard Story is a mess This is far from Lovecraftian.
Insights
Platypuschow's rating
Recently taken polls
469 total polls taken
