ryanpersaud-59415's reviews

I remember in 2019 seeing and generally disliking this film, and I was wrong. I'm a man who can admit his mistakes. Last Christmas is utterly delightful; it's the sort of breezy, saccharine, Christmas romance we just don't seen in theatres anymore.

Emilia Clarke is fantastic here; if all you've seen her in is Game of Thrones, you owe it to yourself to watch this movie. She has excellent comedic timing, is unbelievably endearing, and really makes Katerina her own. I also, in hindsight, didn't appreciate how great Emma Thompson is here. I don't know if her Croatian accent is good or not, but man, she disappears into this role. Michelle Yeoh is awesome, as usual, and Henry Golding gives a pretty good, if unremarkable performance.

This film has a fundamentally optimistic warmth and loving nature to it that really makes it a perfect Christmas film. It also wonderfully showcases multicultural London in a way you just don't see a lot stateside. I initially found the film preachy and annoying with its not-so-subtle political themes, but honestly, that was more of an immaturity on my part. I actually think the theme plays well into Katerina's (or, Kate, as she likes to be known) "issues" she has to deal with: her own identity as an immigrant.

It's also a really nice looking film; watching it, you really see how different this would've looked in 2025. There's a warmth and beauty to London during Christmastime that's really great. Santa's store alone is amazing and maybe one of the best sets I've seen in a recent Christmas film.

The music is almost entirely Wham! And George Michael songs, with Christmas songs making up the remainder. Overall, the songs are integrated well as needle drops, though it is a little weird Mr. Michael is such a big part of the film and no one at least acknowledges being a fan. I do like the music a lot though, and there are some sequences where it really elevates scenes.

And yes, some of the film's "subversive" nature feels very late 2010s; of course it can't be *just an average* romance, that's not theatre-worthy.

The film feels quite hokey and predictable towards the end, but I feel like if you're not even a little moved, you might be a sociopath. It's a really sweet movie, and honestly, probably one of the best Christmas rom-coms in recent memory.

What is there to even say about Fargo at this point? It and the Coen Brothers - alongside Quentin Tarantino and his 90s classics - pretty much created the template for the dark comedy crime caper.

Quirky characters? Check. Criminals completely out of their depth? Check. A strong sense of place? Check. Pitch black comedy and brutal violence? Check and check.

It's almost hard to watch a film like this and think about it objectively. The film's impact and influence is so vast that it ceases to be a movie, but a cultural institution. That being said, it's a really good move in its own right.

I was surprised by how small of a role Frances McDormand's Marge actually has in this movie. She's actually quite marginal to the plot, and it's mostly driven by Steve Buscemi's Carl and William H. Macy's Jerry. Jerry is arguably one of the best examples of a truly pathetic man put to screen. He's so pathetic that you can't help but feel bad for him, but not that bad when you consider all of this problems are directly due to his own conduct.

Famously, Fargo - which does not take place in North Dakota or Fargo - is one of Minnesota's greatest cultural exports. Some may decry the exaggerated, almost caricatured accents and "aww shucks," nature of many of the people involved. I think it's brilliant.

The entire point of the film is to uncover the seedy underbelly behind even the seemingly friendliest people; a dose of Americana that is both sentimental and willing to confront the violence bubbling right underneath. Oh, and winter itself is am omnipresent, almost oppressive character in this film as well. Fargo is undoubtedly one of the best "place" films ever made. (The Coens are from Minnesota, by the way, so it's not like they just made this stuff up)

Yeah, it's a masterpiece, and it's a movie that is pretty much essential viewing for a comprehensive look at American cinema. Without it (and a few other movies), how we think of crime films would be completely different. And honestly, mostly for the worse. You betcha this rocks.

When i first saw this film as a child, I not only didn't really understand it, but really hated it. On the insistence of my wife, we decided to give it another watch and honestly...it's pretty good. But I think part of my opinion derives from the dire lack of films like this anymore.

Holes is an adaptation of a young adult novel that FEELS like it's for pre-teens and teens without trying to be overly edgy or saccharine. It explores some very interesting themes about racism, injustice, and exploitation, but does it in a way that's digestible for young audiences to understand. I also felt the mystery that drives this film really fun and engaging, if not a bit *convenient* how everything sort of falls into place. Yet, from the beginning their is some established supernaturality going on here, so I'll give it a pass.

There's a fair bit of wackiness and toiler humour you'd expect from an early 2000s Disney flick, but it's not excessive. I'll admit the requisite "silly family" stuff is probably the weakest aspect of this movie, but it does help keep everything fairly light hearted.

Shai LaBouef is really good here and it's crazy watching this film and knowing how his career (and frankly, life) would turn out. He has screen presence, charisma, and is so likeable in this movie. While I did feel his relationship with Zero (Khleo Thomas) was nice, and very sweet, it did come out nowhere and very much falls into the "did we just become best friends?" trope that kind of drives me crazy in movies like this.

Sigourney Weaver, Tim Blake Nelson, and John Voight are really fun here as well, doing their best "villainous Disney adult" schtick before that term..meant something a little different later on.

I did briefly mention the themes this film explores and again, while I can't fault director Andrew Davis or even the studio for this...I do wish the themes of racism was a bit more explicit than it was.

It ends up being a pretty big plot point and was a bit jarring given that a substantial portion of the plot takes place in early 20th century rural Texas. It's only when it's absolutely necessary is it a topic that comes to the forefront, but I feel like even small indicators (passing glances or disapproving statements) would be more effective. As it stands, the film implies that racism was an aberration in this time period and region, used by bad people to get what they want, and only part of that is true: racism WAS the norm for a majority of people, and yet, it was used by bad people to get what they wanted.

This might be the most random reassessment of any movie I've previously seen, but yes, Holes is good. Did anyone need this recommendation in 2025? Honestly, maybe, given how rare live action kid oriented dramadies are nowadays.

After Hours is a seminal film in the "night time movie" microgenre that I personally really enjoy. There's something kind of magical about films that capture "one crazy night," and After Hours is pretty much a must-watch if you're looking for that.

This is a film bursting with chaotic energy, dark humour, and this veneer of almost cosmic unluckiness that befalls our very ordinary protagonist, Paul (Gene Hackett), who is just trying to get laid. It's great seeing Scorsese's style and unique pacing applied to a relatively low stakes dark comedy.

The film feels like a fever dream and straddles the line between surrealism and reality. Often, it's hard to tell if something is actually happening or if it's metaphorical. But, the film succeeds because at the end of the day, absurdity - and our brief encounters with it - is a staple of the night time. The freaks come out at night, as they say.

I honestly don't have much to say about After Hours. Just watch it.

The Assessment is a high concept sci-fi thriller/drama with a truly fascinating and heady concept, that sort of falls short on the execution side of things, and kind of unravels towards the end, in my opinion.

In a resource-controlled dystopia, a wealthy couple, Aaryan (Himesh Patel) and Mia (Elizabeth Olsen), must pass a weeklong "assessment" by an agent, Virginia (Alicia Vikander), to have a lab-created child. As the week goes on, Virginia's methods grow invasive and suspect.

You sometimes hear people who say things like, "ugh, people should have to have a license to have a child," and I feel like this film makes the case as to how evil of a position that really is. There is something deeply inhuman about an institution "deciding" who should procreate or not. From the outset, the world of The Assessment is cold and sterile; there are no animals, there's a constant shade of grey, the characters eat nutrient rich gruel. The film does a great job of putting this world's inhumanity front and centre.

And yet, Aaryan and Mia seem like a couple deeply deserving of a child. Patel and Olsen have excellent chemistry and really sold me on their relationship. Alicia Vikander, as usual, delivers a stunning, yet menacing performance as Virginia. Her devolution into childlike behaviour, whilst absurd in the moment, makes total sense: of course the "assessment" would come to see how parents react to a challenging child. Naturally, Virginia begins to test their relationship generally, and a strange dynamic emerges that I found very compelling. The movie hints at cracking through the façade and outlining our characters' true motivations.

The film rolls towards what I'd hoped would be an emotionally devastating and thought provoking treatise on parenthood, desire, and identity, but then decides to start expositing about the world the film lives in. I cannot understate how much of a mistake this was; we go from compelling human drama, small scale in nature, but huge in implication, to really bad sci-fi. There are so many inconsistencies regarding the world these characters inhabit that I would've never thought about had the film kept its focus.

The final act is flat out bad. Vikander's psychologically complicated and fascinating character is given motivations that feel ripped out of a soap opera, tragic backstory and all. It really hurt the film for me, and i even found her performance to cap the film off quite terrible, complete with huge slips in her accent, likely due to poorly written dialog.

I was totally on board for most of this film, and but it just did not stick the landing. Flaws aside, this is a well-made, original film that's worth seeing. It's thought-provoking, but I only wish it stayed focused on the questions it's best equipped to ask.

I really enjoyed the original "Wicked," film and went into knowing very little about it aside from the premise and a couple of the more iconic songs. I knew even less about the second half of the story, but the curious lack of instantly recognizable hits like "Popular" or "Defying Gravity"...was an indicator that this half was probably going to be a little worse.

I learned after the fact the above hunch is basically what everyone thinks of the second half of this story, and I agree. Wicked: For Good lacks the expansive imagination of the original. I found myself compelled by the reimagining of the world, lore, and story of the Wizard of Oz, and impressed by how many little elements of that story were examined and expanded upon (i.e. Elphaba's green skin and reception from the Ozians being an indicator of how easy Oz can be led to hatred).

With Wicked: For Good, there's decidedly less of that; the story now intersects with the Wizard of Oz proper and has to integrate itself with it, to varying results. Did I need to know the origin of the Cowardly Lion, the Tin Man, and the Scarecrow? No. But was it fun anyway? Yes. It did however, veer a bit into the realm of "elevated fan fiction," and less into a "world expanding" narrative, though.

It's a god send that the characters are so likeable and I found myself genuinely invested in them. And, of course, that the performances are overall really good. I also felt that it was a really good decision to split the story up. For Good is distinct enough where it literally makes no sense to try and jam pack this narrative into one mega movie (naturally, it was a commercially sensible decision too).

I think Ariana Grande steals the show here; her performance as Glinda is phenomenal and she embodies the character with many little moments of personality that I genuinely felt was Oscar worthy. Erivo is good too, but I felt like she left less of an impression on me this time around. There's also the "turn" her character makes towards the dark side that I don't feel her performance communicated very well.

I was really surprised by Ethan Slater in this film; look, the man was about as intimidating as Spongebob in the first film (yes, I'm aware), but he really comes off as a deeply wounded and bitter person in this one. I found myself quite invested in his and Nessarose's story, to the very end.

However, given the structure of the story, it's reasonable to say that a lot of these characters sort of just...vanish from the story at a certain point. Let's just say there's this invisible wall that exists in this movie; on one side, there's Wicked, and the other, there's the Wizard of Oz. And once a character fully crosses over into the latter, they are unceremoniously dumped from the movie until they cross back over into Wicked. So, expect characters you've come to enjoy to just...disappear for long stretches of the story.

Aside from the inherent problems with the story, I felt that this film suffers in two big places: pacing and the music. It's apparently supposed to take place 6 years after the first Act, but the film does a tremendously bad job at communicating this. In fact, I left the theatre thinking this was all supposed to be a few weeks or months later.

That might not sound like an issue, but the film never really establishes what has changed since Part I, and consequentially, everything feels like it's happening over the course of a couple of days. Whereas the first film took its time to draw you in, this one seems like it's rushing through every story beat. It really needed to slow down and build up the conflicts it sets up.

The songs are...objectively worse thing time around, and to be honest, most of them passed through one ear and out the other. Outside of "For Good," which is truly beautiful, I genuinely do not remember any of them. It also didn't help that so many of these musical numbers are shot so flatly. I get that the tone is overall darker and you may not want big choreographed musical numbers, but stripped away from the choreography, it's VERY apparent that John M. Chu doesn't know how to shoot a musical number.

The actors are mostly standing or sitting or walking around and singing to each other; the worst case of this is the duet between Cynthia Erivo and Jonathan Bailey ("As Long As You're Mine"), which genuinely veered into bad Lifetime movie territory.

While the idea that a musical's worst aspect being its songs and musical numbers might seem like a death knell, Wicked: For Good is still a lot of fun. The VFX and visuals are quite excellent, the chemistry between Grande and Erivo is great, and the ending really sticks the landing, emotionally.

But given there was a pretty big narrative change, I wonder why Chu and company chose to stick SO closely to the source material, knowing its flaws? I felt like there was a missed opportunity to make some key changes that would've helped everything flow just a little bit better. I suspect that knowing the audience expects this instalment to be a little worse than the first one, the studio probably pushed the film makers not to be too ambitious and adapt it (mostly) faithfully. It certainly feels that way.

Black Bag is a sleek, stylish, and sexy spy thriller that feels a bit like an endangered species nowadays. An adult oriented, small scale drama, that - predictable for the 2020s - flopped when it was shoved in post-holiday movie wasteland that is the first few months of the year.

I do feel that part of the universal acclaim the film gets is in part due to film nerds yearning for "more" movies like this. I like a lot of what Soderbergh does here; I like that the film isn't expository and lets us understand the world of these characters naturally and through context clues.

I think the performances are overall really great and the mystery at the centre of the movie, and all the characters scheming and trying to best one another is highly entertaining. This is not a film you can just passively watch while looking at your phone; it requires you to be engaged with it and pay attention. (Which is why it's even worse that it performed so poorly in theatres)

I liked the cinematography a lot as well; the lighting was really interesting and sometimes hard to look at, but it sort of harkens to the idea of these people "living in the shadows," so the harshness of light peeking through was a brilliant choice.

However, I did find some of the dialog a bit alienating at times; perhaps a bit pretentious and attempting to be a bit too clever and cute. The opening dinner scene just didn't work for me for this reason; we barely know these people and their spouting dialog that...I personally needed a bit easing into. I actually turned the film off when I first tried to watch it for this reason. I eventually came back a few weeks later and committed to it.

I also felt we never got a chance to truly know the characters either. While they're stylish and cool, we learn more about the circumstances around them than we ever learn about the characters themselves. Aside from Michael Fassbender's George, I guess. The film essentially explores how someone can live a somewhat normal life when their profession is entirely dedicated to deception, subterfuge, and spying.

That is a super interesting hook for a movie, but the characters just didn't feel like interesting enough vessels to explore it through. I found myself really not connecting with Cate Blanchett's character at all, for example.

So while Black Bag has a lot going for it, it's lacking heart and people to actually root for or take much of an interest in. It's a good time, but that's basically it.

The biggest problem with "The Roses", is that it never commits to a tone. Oscillating violently from quintessentially British verbal sparring to dark comedy to SNL style absurdity (and that very American, kind of annoying improv style that felt old in 5 years ago). It tries to do it all, and doesn't do any of them particularly well.

It also never commits to being a truly "dark" comedy; the cynicism and bitterness that original is known for just isn't here. I often got the feeling that the film was holding back how mean and dark it could go, out of fear of focus group tested audience reaction. It also takes far to long to actually give us what we want; so much of the movie is actually watching Cumberbatch and Coleman basically get along and be a loving couple.

Yet despite the insistence that they are deeply mad for one another, I didn't really buy them as a couple. They didn't have great chemistry and I felt Coleman's character in particular was quite inconsistent. She's supposedly this free-spirited hippie who loves life but at the same time, quickly begins to neglect her children at the first taste of success? She comes off as mostly unreasonable, as Cumberbatch puts his career aside to raise the children and all he asks for is a little balance.

It ends up being so overwhelmingly clear whose in the right here that the rest of the film feels kind of silly. Not helped by the zany antics of Kate McKinnon and Andy Samberg, who feel very out of place here. And don't get me started on the kids, who genuinely feel AI generated. There's not even an attempt to portray them as actual characters.

I will say, the film gets pretty fun when it's Cumberbatch and Coleman going completely insane and trying to get one another out of the house. (Basically, the stuff the original War of the Roses was known for) It ends on a pretty good note, but honestly just made me want to watch the original, which I actually haven't seen.

Which, I guess is an accomplishment itself?

The Long Walk, based on the Stephen King novel of the same name, follows a dystopian America that holds an annual competition where a boy from each state is picked for a gruelling and deadly competition called "The Long Walk." The objective: walk until no one else can. No sleep. No bathroom breaks. No rest. Just walk.

It's an interesting premise and done fairly well, mostly because the actors have real chemistry and do their best with what is admittedly sort of strange material. There's no bones about it: 90% of this movie are guys walking and talking. If these actors and characters aren't compelling, the movie falls apart.

I think the actors are pretty good, but the dialog is unfortunately pretty bad. I don't know how faithful it is the book; but man, this certainly sounds like a Stephen King story. The way these 18 year old boys talk is as if it's the 1950s, there's lots of hokey, corny dialog. While I liked both Cooper Hoffman and David Jonsson, I felt both characters were a bit too..."aw shucks", if you know what I mean. Too cleanly perfect and loveable to the point where it almost feels manipulative. Of course these guys are going to make it; they're about as pure as you can get it in a move like this.

This is a brutal film and doesn't pull punches, but I felt like it often took itself too seriously. The premise is obviously an allegory for war, but the nature of the competition is so clearly stacked against the players that I find it hard to believe anyone would willingly do this. (The majority of soldiers in any given conflict do not die. Full stop. It's not a neat, 1:1 comparison.)

That's fine, but given that, I'd prefer some artificiality and surrealism; something to emphasize that this isn't necessarily meant to be taken literally. It's a metaphor. I love when movies lean into that because it makes the absurdity of our world starker. (Apparently in the book the general public has more of a presence as well, which I felt would've been welcome social commentary)

As it stands, I feel like this film is a pretty grim watch with an ending that I can totally understand as being "metaphorical", but isn't presented that way, so it comes off as a bit abrupt and silly.

I really wanted to enjoy A House of Dynamite. I'm a sucker for well-researched, compelling political thrillers with lots of highly competent people doing their jobs and confronting the inherent and unavoidable complexity of an issue. Kathryn Bigelow excels at this stuff too, and I figured this film - with an all-star cast and super interesting subject matter - would be a slam dunk.

Simply put, a story following what happens when a nuclear tipped ICBM is careening towards the United States is always going to be interesting. The problem is that the film's structure - three different perspectives on the same 20 minute event. - aren't distinct enough to keep the story going.

Act I is about the response from the White House Situation Room, and mostly centers around Captain Olivia Walker, a senior officer in the White House Situation Room played by Rebecca Ferguson and Major Gonzalez, a commander at Fort Greely, Alaska, as they attempt to shoot the missile down.

Act II is about the retaliatory response; trying to figure out who sent the missile and why, and primarily follows General Brady of STRATCOM (Tracy Letts), the Secretary of Defense (Jared Harris), and Deputy National Security Advisor Jake Baerington (Gabriel Basso)

Act III...is essentially about the same thing as Act II, except now, the focus is the President (Idris Elba), who appears to be completely out of his depth and weirdly detached from this single most important moment of his and anyone's life. (Which, I do imagine is a bit of political commentary)

In theory, there's nothing wrong with this structure, but there's not enough to differentiate these segments from one another to keep it all engaging. There's surprisingly little of the outside world outside of these various rooms, which makes everything feel a lot smaller than it ought to be. I honestly found myself very confused by the beginning of the second Act, because the information isn't conveyed very well.

The performances range from pretty good to passable; no one is bad here, but I also felt like none of these characters had any time to breathe or any of the actors any opportunity to truly leave their mark.

I think the film is trying to be decidedly "un Hollywood" in its execution, emphasizing the work of a sprawling cast rather than individual heroics. In that is really succeeds, but also feels a bit narratively unsatisfying and cold. I think I'll watch this again, because I didn't feel I truly connected with it the first time, but I might upon rewatch.

Oddity follows a blind medium and curio shopkeeper, Darcy (Carolyn Bracken) who is still grieving the death of her twin sister a year prior when a wooden golem from her collection becomes crucial to her quest to uncover the truth about her sister's murder.

This film does well what a lot of "slow burn" horror films do wrong: it doesn't forget that the purpose of a slow burn is to build dread and tension. This is a film that has you looking around the frame constantly, as if you're playing a game with it, trying to (unsuccessfully) predict the well done jump scares.

While clearly small scale and lower budgeted, it never really feels that way. The image is sharp, the costumes and effects are great, the cinematography is excellent. This is a film that feels more expensive that it actually is and once again reminds us why horror is such a gateway genre for so many film makers: you can do so much with a killer premise, a good story, and great performances.

I also loved how this film invokes so many different spooky elements, making it quite the perfect little film for Halloween. You have a masked killer (who leaves an incredible impression despite relatively little screen time), a medium dabbling in the occult, ghostly visions, and cursed objects. All of these elements seamlessly intersect to tell a really compelling story.

That being said, there are two big problems with the film that keep it from being truly great in my mind. One is the central "mystery", which is incredibly predictable. There are other things going on that are told in a non linear way that feels narratively satisfying; elements of the story that begin to slowly piece together in a very fun way. But let's be honest, you'd have to be a young child to not figure it out well before the end of the film.

The other problem is there are some scenes that, oddly (pun intended) feel like actors in a theatrical productions forgetting their lines or marks. Little moments where characters are just walking around or not saying things that would've been ordinarily said that hurt the pace of the film. For example, the fact that no one immediately tosses that creepy wooden golem out (even though Darcy is literally blind and would have no idea if it was gone or not) feels...unrealistic. So much so to the extent where it feels the writers didn't really know how to handle this plot point, so they just sort of ignored it.

That being said, for what it is, Oddity is a really good horror film. It nails the atmosphere, it's compelling and interesting throughout, and while predictable, it does have a pretty narratively and emotionally satisfying conclusion. I honestly wish it were a weee bit longer because enjoyed a lot of what it was doing.

For me, an unapologetic lover of Halloween, the final film of my annual Spooky SZN marathon has to be a banger. I'm happy to say Oddity was a worthy finale.

Haunt follows a group of college kids who go to a haunted house to cap off Halloween night that, as one may expect, turns out to be much more than they bargained for.

I feel like there are certainly worse options out there to get you in the Halloween mood; Haunt is very competently made, it has moments of brilliance, and can be genuinely tense, with some unexpected and shocking moments of violence. It feels professional and not like random streaming slop; a movie that people cared to make and the actors are wholly committed to. And, at the end of the day, it gives you essentially what you'd expect.

On the other hand, it also feels a bit aesthetically and thematically hollow, despite its attempt to kinda-sorta be about domestic abuse, its characters only barely feel like characters, and it really needed to be a lot more fun.

I couldn't help but think about Hell Fest, a movie with essentially the exact same premise and execution, but way more entertaining simply because the titular Hell Fest was amazing. Serial killer notwithstanding, I'd want to visit that place. It's perfect to get you in the Halloween mood.

This again, is a movie you'd literally never watch outside of Spooky Season, but it doesn't lean into the holiday the way it should've. Instead, I get the sense that the film is trying its darnedest to be "elevated" horror by bringing up a legitimate social issue, but not really saying or doing anything with it. I'd much rather know more about our antagonists; that's where the movie could've been fun, weird, and a bit goofy. But it plays everything very, very seriously.

As for the many stupid decisions the characters make, I'm a horror fan. If I had a problem with characters making dumb decisions, I wouldn't be. I genuinely don't get why people have such an issue with these things; if you don't want to watch a horror movie, don't watch it.

As for this one, it's fine. Perfectly serviceable, but there are both much better and much worse options out there.

Poltergeist is one of my earliest horror memories, and most definitely one of the films that spurred my lifelong love for the genre. As a child, I found this movie terrifying, but also oddly compelling and comforting. While for some horror heads that may sound like a knock, I actually think it works really well.

The film feels like a nightmare that a child would have; it plays upon elemental fears of things that go bump in the night: the tree whose branches scratch at your window, the open closet, the toy doll. And even for adults, it taps into fears we all have or can understand: losing your child or not knowing the history of the home you've poured your life savings into.

And yet, just like when you wake up from a nightmare and feel better, this film reminds us of the power of humanity and kindness. The problems in this film don't feel insurmountable. In fact, this perhaps the only horror movie I can think of where the "villains" are perfectly reasonable, when you think about it. Even to the ghosts, the film extends its sympathy.

While the CG is a bit dated and even some of the practical effects are wonky (seeing the "steak" scene as an adult was very jarring, because I remember as a kid being terrified of this scene, but to be honest, it looks quite goofy), Poltergeist is an overall very technically impressive film. I'll never knock a "pre" or "proto" CG film for bad effects unless it's super obvious no thought or effort went into it. I'm more impressed by people making things work through physical manipulation than through a computer. In many ways, Poltergeist truly feels like movie magic.

Anyway, look, this film came out in 1982, is a defining film of that decade (and something that you really don't need be to recommending). It's great. It's a classic. Watch it.

Dog Soldiers is a lot of fun. It is low budget, a bit cheesy at times, and goes exactly where you expect it to go. The characters are more or less simple archetypes: the soldier-with-a-heart-of-gold, the cold hearted commander, the posh scientist who gets her hands dirty..you know the drill.

What elevates the film are the performances and natural chemistry between the actors. It's a demonstration of how good direction and a talented cast can make material, that on paper, feels like it wouldn't be anything special, much better in practise.

I was also really surprised by how good the werewolves in this film actually look; the make up and costumes are excellent. Of course, they also barely move and the film is full of copious shakey cam as a result (as well excessive and unconvincing blood squibs, largely intended to let you know a character has died for clear budgetary reasons).

So, take it for what you will. It's not a film that will blow your mind, it is a fun directorial debut for a great film maker (Neil Marshall), and has some great performances by some great British actors, and if you're looking for something less American, but still in English this Spooky SZN, you could do worse.

This is the Carrie I remember from my childhood, and I suspect for a lot of us, this is the first one they remember too. And no, I'm not going to say that it holds a candle to the 1976 classic, but there are some redeeming moments here and there.

Angela Bassit's perfectly weird and uncomfortable presence really left an impression on me; dare I say...script aside, I feel like she is by far the best Carrie I've seen on screen. Her physical performance is fantastic; the way she shakes during every social interaction and just oozes discomfort is so good. My wife described her as "pasty and weird as you want Carrie to be," and I totally agree. This is a big problem with the 2013 version, but even with the original: Carrie should FEEL like someone most people wouldn't want to associate with.

As for the rest of the high school cast, the performances range from passable to honestly quite terrible, but I mean, it's an early 00s TV miniseries. Why would anyone go into this expecting any less? One standout are Emilie De Ravine and Katherine Isabelle, who yes,are playing a comically evil high school girls, but do so in such a hammy way, it ends up being very entertaining.

But unfortunately, there's not that much positive to say about this iteration. It's a TV miniseries that's needlessly drawn out and spends much of its 2 and 1/2 hour run time on going into aspects of the story that aren't particularly interesting. A lot of it feels like a high school drama and not a particularly great one at that. You'd think they'd work on exploring why Sue Snell decided to skip out on her own prom, but they really don't. Weirdly, the film's version feels better developed and more understandable despite less time spent on her.

The effects are god awful, to the point where it is quite literally IMPOSSIBLE to take what you're seeing seriously. Even in 2002, these would've been terrible. The big "Carrie" scene at the end is just ridiculous and looks ripped straight out of a video game. And the worst part is, a lot of it is very unnecessary; did Carrie really need to level the entire town like she's an asteroid?

This movie is worth a watch if you have a high cringe tolerance and remember the 00s with fondness. If not, there's probably nothing here for you.

The fact that Trick r Treat hasn't had like five sequels at this point is truly baffling; horror is a genre known for milking franchises far longer than anyone actually wants, and yet, this cult classic from 2009 has not ONE sequel? It almost feels wrong.

Trick r Treat isn't a masterpiece by any mean, but it's a ton of fun. The Halloween vibes are truly immaculate with this one. It's the sort of movie that inspires people tomup their own Halloween game; the decorations in this movie, the Halloween parade, and of course, Sam the Halloween spirit is one of the best mascots for the holiday you can imagine.

That Sam isn't known well outside of horror Ffandom and isn't up there with Jason Voorhees or Art the Clown is a travesty. His character is truly awesome; childish and cute, but also genuinely terrifying. He elevates the film every time he's on screen, if only for a moment.

Individually, the stories here aren't that great, but together and they feel really cohesive and make each other better. Unlike a V/H/S film, whose stories vary wildly in tone and quality, this film's istories are way more consistent and work well together tonally.

The dark humor of the opening story - Principal - following the irreplaceable Dylan Baker as a serial killer hiding in plain sight, feels the least developed and satisfying of all of the stories, but works to let you in on the tone of the entire film. It's fine, and I'd rather a movie start weakly than end weakly.

Halloween Bus Massacre is a good old fashioned ghost story, and reminded me of Goosebumps, which honestly is never a bad thing. Again, it does feel like this story was undercooked just a tad, and it would've been nice to gave a couple of additional jump scares, but I can't hate on this one too much.

Sam, the final story, featuring the aforementioned Sam, Is a great way to end the entire thing and such a fun little short. Brian Cox delivers a perfect performance as a grilled, lonely old man who cannot believe the situation he's in. Sam looks great and the animatronic face and puppetry on display here is excellent.

Finally, Surprise Party is just by far the most fun, with the best twist and premise. Yes, I will fully acknowledge that I'm a straight dude and four stunning women in Halloween costumes, wading through an awesome Halloween parade looking to get laid...is a story that appealed to me the most when I first saw this film as an 18 year old, as it does now. Fun, sexy, gory, and with a killer twist, it's my favorite of the lot.

Yes, some of the dialog and performances are a bit uneven, but the absolutely stacked cast here, does the best with the material. I've given up hope that we'll ever see a sequel to this, but man, is this a Halloween classic that deserves it.

I Know What You Did Last Summer pretty much exemplifies all of flaws of modern studio film making to such a tee, I genuinely think it could be studied in film classes. It's got everything:

An incredibly dumb and overly talky script, that constantly over-explains character's thoughts, feelings, and actions. The film opens up with Chase Sui Wonders' Ava trying on different outfits and explaining to us exactly how she feels about each one. Characters can't just glance at each other and through performance, editing, and music indicate how they feel. It must be explained to us, point blank.

Excessive cutting that breaks up the rhythm of every single scene and often leads to unintentionally hilarious moments. It's why the film feels so disjointed; some shots make me question whether some characters/actors are in the same room together. The characters in general are really unlikeable and paper thin. We don't even get the satisfaction of fun, creative kills: they're all formulaic and lack any of the nautical fun of the original. Oh, and we have to wait nearly 40 minutes for a character in the core cast to get killed.

The film overall feels very sloppy, and its riddled with technical errors too. Egregious ADR seems to be a hallmark of Sony films nowadays; people speaking on phones and television feels like voices coming from the heaven and actors in the background sound like they're in the foreground. There's even a moment where Ava is making out with someone, we can see her lips are locked with this guy, and yet she delivers dialog. I honestly had to rewind the film because I couldn't believe it.

(To put a finer point on it, this film commits the cardinal sin of at least 5 moments that seem like an ending, only to extend for 20 minutes. When it actually ends, it's abrupt, awkward, and on a shot that seems almost like it was left in by mistake)

I can't blame the actors for being so bad, given the script and editing, but man, are the performances rough here. I got the sense watching this that the actors knew how much of a trainwreck this was going to be, and consciously put in as little effort as possible. I'm still not sure I really like Chase Sui Wonders; I never bought her character at any point in the film. Her relationship with Madeleine Cline's Danica is entirely based on the two women saying "I love you," with a typical Gen Z vocal fry over and over again. None of the actors have any chemistry with one another.

Cline is also really bad here, but because her character is supposed to be a bit ditzy, she can pass off terrible line delivery as "comic relief." (I hate to say this, but I also could not get over how unnatural her lips look. I'm sorry).

Not to be spared, Freddie Prince Jr. And Jennifer Love Hewitt feel like they're in a Hallmark movie and completely phone in their performances. The movie even has the audacity of bring Brandy (yes, that one) of all people back for a post-credits stinger. Her performance is honestly so bad, I genuinely could not believe they kept her completely unnecessary scene in. She sounds like she's reading the script for the first time.

Of course, being a slasher movie post-Scream, there's a "mystery" as to who the real killer is and the revelation makes no sense narratively, let alone logistically. We literally see the two killers talk to each other in multiple scenes, as if they have no idea what's going on. The only way the mystery works is for the film makers to literally lie to the audience and have characters act a way towards one another (without anyone else being there) that hides their true motivations. Even then, I figured out who the killer was from the first 15 minutes or so.

The rotten cherry on top of this poop sundae is the constant "memberberries" the film is throwing at us. From a completely out-of-place dream sequence that exists for the sole purpose of bringing Sarah Michelle Gellar back to dropping of quotes from previous films whether or not they make sense in the dialog, this movie cannot help itself. The nostalgia bait is truly insane and desperate.

I genuinely hate this movie. It's so bad, it's entertaining, but it also feels kind of insulting the intelligence of the audience. So transparently desperate, devoid of creativity, poorly put together, and lacking in any redeeming qualities. Yet, given how great the selection of movies has been in this Spooky SZN marathon, a stinker here or there is nice. Bad movies always amplify good ones...so...thanks, I guess?

I can't believe it's taken me so long to see this film, yet it's one of those that I've felt like I've seen via cultural osmosis. Like many a film from the 2000s, it takes established lore of an iconic horror archetype - the vampire - and plays with it in refreshing and interesting ways.

Namely, framing vampirism as an analogy for growing up and the vampire's lifestyle as one all to common for many ordinary kids: marked by isolation, alienation, and a feeling that no one really understands them.

At the core of this film is the relationship between Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant), a shy and chronically bullied 12 year old boy and Eli (Lina Leandersson), a mysterious neighbour who never seems to leave their apartment complex in the day time. The film unfurls into what is a genuinely compelling romance; the sort of emotionally powerful puppy love we've all experienced at some point. Let The Right One In - buoyed by these two performances - is a genuinely tender and sweet movie.

But at the same time, the horror lurks in the foreground, never too far from us, like the snowy Swedish landscape that is the perfect setting for this story. This can be a genuinely unsettling and brutal film. The sweetness of the romance almost incongruent with the harshness of the lighting and isolated landscape, as well as - of course - the violence and gore on screen.

I think it's actually appropriate to see Eli, despite all the empathy we may have for a young girl just trying to survive, as the villain. As a person who not only murders in cold blood multiple times through the film, but ropes Oskar in the same way she (implicitly) roped Hanken in (the familiar, an old man who cares for Eli but whom we learn very little about it).

The title of the film to me, refers to Oskar, not Eli. It's her finding another victim to whom will serve her for as long as he can.

His self-sacrifice is all the more disturbing when you consider how they likely met: Hanken was likely a young boy, just like Oskar, whom he has been protecting and serving for decades. It's a chilling revelation and one that erodes the fairy tale romance in such a clever way.

While it might not be for everyone - especially with its deliberately slow, naturalistic pacing - I really enjoyed Let The Right One In.

Yeah, I'm done with this series. The V/H/S franchise has always been a huge mixed bag, with some really good and memorable segments interspersed with some truly terrible ones, but this film in particular has probably the worst batting average of the entire franchise.

Most of these shorts feel like special effects or makeup reels and less like short stories. The emphasis is on gore and screaming. The premises are almost all the same, and the acting is almost uniformly atrocious. I can't even remember most of the plots for most of these stories, only individual (and largely gross) images.

But then, there's Kidprint. A segment that I honestly felt quite embarrassed that I even had on my screen. This story exists to shock and pretty much nothing else. There is no story here, there is no compelling mystery; it's not even scary. It's a short about a serial killer who kidnaps children, skins them alive, wears their skin, and kills them. Yep.

Look, I'm a horror hound. I love the genre, and I can get behind gnarly stuff. Some of my favourite horror films are ones I know most people will not enjoy because of the disturbing subject matter. But Kidprint really crossed a line for me given its realism and sadism. Not to mention, it's just a lot of screaming and torture with no real purpose.

I have to say, after this segment, I turned V/H/S Halloween off. I can almost guarantee the final story and the wrap around wouldn't be worth my time. It sucks that the only V/H/S film to have "Halloween" in the title is also by far, the worst one.

There's a lot of good horror out there, don't waste your time on this one.

Maybe it's cheating to have this as part of a Halloween movie marathon, but whatever. Scary Movie is a blast. I actually really love the premise of tying two horror movies together and creating a new-albeit similar, story.

The Wayans are absolutely hilarious in this movie, and the running joke about Ray's thinly veiled homosexuality is so, so good. I'm sorry, I don't care how PC we get, it'll never not be funny. Anna Faris is amazing as Cindy; she became comedic royalty after this film for a reason. I actually forgot Shannon Elizabeth was in this and she was honestly great; her comedic timing is on point.

Like many films form the early 2000s, this one has a lot of pop culture references that date the film, but honestly, it works really well as a time capsule film for the era. It has all the hallmarks: mean-spirited, edgy, and relentlessly committed to the bit. This is one of those movies that throws dozens of jokes at you in a scene, not all of them land, but when they do, they really, really do.

Two years before Wes Craven would quite literally change the horror game with Scream, he sort of tested "meta-narratives" and self-referentiality with New Nightmare, a de facto epilogue to the Nightmare on Elm Street series.

The premise here is really interesting; basically, Heather Langenkamp (Nancy from the original and third film) plays herself, an actress struggling to move away from the franchise that brought her to fame, but a series of strange and disturbing events eerily similar to the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise begin plaguing her and her family. Soon enough, she learns that perhaps, reality is stranger than fiction.

Unlike the previous films, this one strips away a lot of the humour and cartoonish, which was honestly quite welcome. New Nightmare goes in the direction that I desperately wish Freddy's Dead did: to the basics, actually scary, and more restrained. At times, it even kind of reminded me of the Sixth Sense, demonstrating a shift in tone that horror movies in general would be going in.

The meta narrative - that Freddy has become a joke, akin to "Santa Claus" - is great, and it's rare to see a horror franchise reflect on itself like that. This feels like the sequel Wes Craven actually wanted to make and I'm happy he got to do it. This really feels like a movie only he could make.

Heather Langenkamp shines as a leading lady again, this time more mature, and with a lot more acting range. It was really nice seeing John Saxon again, and I found Wes Craven's performance weirdly soothing and comforting. I wish we saw a bit more Robert Englund though.

There are some issues and I think a lot of it has to do with pacing. At nearly two hours, it's by far the longest film in the series, and it really didn't need to be. The first Act is pretty tiring, especially when you know where it's going to go. I genuinely believe that unless really necessary, no horror film should exceed like 90-95 minutes.

I also don't love Freddy's look. He's extremely rubbery and the effects somehow look worse to me than in some of the previous films (part of that could be the higher quality image of this one, I'll admit).

But, without a doubt, this is the third best film in the entire franchise, and the ending that horror legend Freddy Krueger deserves.

Freddy's Dead (way to spoil what happens from the jump) is not a good movie by any means, but it's definitely not the worst in the franchise. It's inarguably the most frustrating of the series though.

That's because while the movie begins like a cartoon (complete with Freddy Krueger, child murderer, doing his best Wicked Witch of the West impression), it actually begins to feel more like a serious horror film for most of its opening act, acting almost as a bridge between 1980s slacker schlock and 1990s grounded sensibilities. The film actually feels well paced, the performances not as embarrassing in the last film, and there are genuine attempts at creating a creepy, dreadful atmosphere.

I kind of liked all of the characters; our protagonist John, played by Shon Greenblatt, (whose hair is so ridiculous, you can't look away from him) is pretty good. As our the kids we meet later on, and Lisa Zane as the psychiatrist Maggie who finds herself embroiled in the mystery of whom Freddy Krueger was.

Over these reviews, I haven't given enough credit to Robert Englund. Even at his worst, he brings an indispensable energy to these films and really leaves his mark. While the next bit of this review is going to heavily criticize Freddy's portrayal, it's not for a lack of effort on Robert Englund's part. I even like Chason Schirmer as a young Freddy Krueger; he was so good I legitimately thought it was Englund de-aged or something.

But alas, to me, this movie takes a nosedive as soon as Freddy shows up. Freddy's Dead movie simply cannot balance the right tone. They could've either made this a cartoon (which I think would've definitively made this the worst of the series) or tried to make it scary and more serious. Perhaps in the hands of a more talented or dedicated team, they could've (I'm thinking of Weapons right now and how perfect Zach Cregger and co. Nailed that). As it stands though, the film swings wildly from us asking us to take it seriously and dealing with really heavy themes to us wanting to laugh at what we're seeing.

To illustrate, we have a character whose own disability - deafness - is used against him in what is undoubtedly the film's best and darkest kill. The scene itself is played somewhat comedically, even after learning that the character's deafness comes from child abuse. While that's not...great, it's fine. It works within the context of the series.

However, right after this scene, we have undoubtedly the most embarrassing sequence I've seen, where Freddy takes control of another character as if they were in a video game. Yes, there are shots of him bouncing up and down like a pogo, complete with wacky sound effects.

The way this film mixes somewhat serious performances and dark moments with wacky hijinks is incredibly annoying. I actually really liked Freddy's backstory and the film's attempt to explore on a conceptual level, but not in practise. The film veers way too much into over explaining his origin; apparently when he died, these demon fish head things decided to grant him immortality for some reason? It's such a weird and convoluted explanation to shove into the last moments of the film.

And to top it all off, it ends with Freddy exploding, his poorly rendered head sent flying towards us (three times for some reason), with an effect that looks straight out of Mortal Kombat for the SNES. The movie abruptly ends.

The more I think about this movie, the worse it is. Yikes.

This is the first film in the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise where fatigue has certainly set in a bit. My wife walked in on me watching this film and I found it difficult to explain why I was putting myself through it as well.

Simply put, this the first of these movies where I can definitively say it sucks. There are some redeeming qualities here and there, mainly to do with the inventive "dream child" idea and the general themes of motherhood and bodily autonomy. (Could these have been explored in any depth at all, yes. Would they given this is the 5th instalment in a slasher franchise in 5 years? Probably not.)

By this point in the franchise, Freddy is silly as all heck, which one the upside means we get a lot of crazy, inventive kills. Greta's death (you don't really need to know who she is, she's a friend of our protagonist Alice) is definitely the highlight; incredibly cruel, surreal, and strange. I think when the film gets weird (like the bizarre maze like dream world at the end), it's at its absolute best.

Another highlight is Dan's death, which is this extended sequence that see's Alice's beau turn into a motorcycle (Tetsuo: The Iron Man style) as Freddy's face appears as the engine and just spits out one liners and cackles. It's this sort of weird, surrealist stuff that borrows from foreign and arthouse horror (German expressionism, Japanese body horror etc.) that elevate even the worst of the Nightmare films above so many other comparable slasher franchises.

But on any objective level, from the terrible performances to the absolutely random, confusing mess of an ending to the sometimes dated effects to the choppy editing just screams low quality.

The film doesn't even seem to care about its own lore; if someone is dreaming, they HAVE to be in REM sleep. So how on Earth does Dan die when it's clear he's awake and driving a truck? How does Greta die when she must be at least AWAKE at the table with her family, right? Most comically, one character is literally ON A DIVING BOARD when she gets pulled into the dream world. Are we supposed to be believe she fell asleep up there?

This is a sloppy mess of a film and honestly, it's one where I'd generally say skip it entirely and just find the kills on YouTube.