cls0680 Reviews

Possum (2018)

This is not for everyone - and it is not horror

[6/10 · 12 October 2023]

This is a tough movie, and I imagine most people will give up half way through because I nearly did a couple of times. The problem is, it is not horror, and it is not a psychological thriller. Because its been marketed as horror/thriller, its going to draw the wrong crowd. This movie is a psychological experience, not a thriller. It is made to visually and artistically represent mental illness. It sticks with you if you make it through and really put thought into it afterward. But, if you're expecting a plot, a story, a conclusion, or any kind of direction, this is not for you. It is like abstract art: it is meant to be interpreted by the viewer in their own way.

As it is a representation of someone's experience with trauma and abuse, it is also not meant to be understood, because everyone experiences trauma differently. We can't ever understand someone else's version of their experiences with abuse, neglect, and trauma, and I think that is where this movie tries to take you - into someone else's mental illness which you can watch, but you can't ever understand. Everything SEEMS to be symbolism in this, but, if it is, it will never tell you what the symbolism means. You have to decide what you think, but you can't ever really know. It is satisfyingly frustrating! Do not expect any explanations or resolutions.

What you can expect is an extremely slow-moving, visually captivating stroll through dark, dreary, repetitive scenes watching the main character wander through a fruitless attempt to shed whatever it is that you think the Possum puppet represents, if you think it represents anything. Some reviews mentioned "jump scares." I have no idea where those were, I experienced no jumps or scares. There is no gore, no real "action," and very little dialogue. What dialogue there is in the movie is difficult to follow because the main character mumbles very softly most of the time in a strong accent. His thoughts are nearly entirely expressed through his body and face, and, I have to say, Sean Harris' ability to portray feelings physically and not verbally is impressive and compelling. I think that was the most incredible part of this movie, the actors' facial expressions are intense and real and they make you respond to his reactions and feelings - and he frowns 98% of the time - its slightly unsettling.

MINI SPOILER: If you do make it to the end, you get about 5 minutes of "action" and then it abruptly ends with no resolution. You're then left with your thoughts. Not everyone is going to allow their brain to ponder what just happened - if anything did happen - but if you do, you will get a strange sense of what it is like to have severe mental illness and PTSD and what victims of childhood abuse, and trauma in general, experience as they try to rid themselves of the "baggage" they carry. There are some interesting ideas here, for sure.

In the end, you're left with far more questions than when you started - was it real? Was it not real? Was any of it partially real? Who is the real bad guy? The character is very deeply engulfed in mental illness, so can we even trust what we are seeing from his point of view? His interpretations are not exactly reliable!

I expected a horror film, and that part let me down - a lot - so much so that I almost gave up to watch "Cat's Eye" for God's sake! The puppet wasn't even scary. I actually found myself feeling really bad for it! But, even though I didn't get a good scare or thrill, I did get an interesting, mind-numbing, thought-provoking experience and a long, sleepless night of contemplation!

So, I gave it a 6.

The Boogeyman (I) (2023)

Disappointed

[3/10 · 30 September 2023]

The Boogeyman is my favorite Stephen King story. It scared the crap out of me as a kid and holds a special place in my heart for that. I was so excited for this movie - but...

This movie is NOT the story Stephen King wrote. It picks up basically where the book story ends. It's like a sequel to the book story.

That said, it's not good. So few things in this movie make any sense at all, it's so forced. There is no continuity, no "story," no character development, it's like a kaleidoscope of predictable gimmicks for the sake of a non-scary, C-level CGI monster that also makes absolutely no sense.

I'm going to concur with all the reviews about the first obvious flaw: even after learning the monster hates light, they wander around in the dark the entire time - using lighters and candles for a light source...? It is not set in 1880 either. You know the electricity works - there are dim lamps that somehow only illuminate a 3-foot space. It's blatant and forced. Not once does anyone try to turn on a light when going into any room, even the basement? At least in other movie they try to turn on the basement light and it burns out or something. Not here - small children just wander down into the pitch black basement without thinking about trying a light switch? Yeah right. They even sit in the kitchen in the dark. It's annoying how far out of human nature that is.

The relationships between the characters are not believable and also forced. A lot of standard 80s bullying from high school girls that wouldn't pass as realistic today. The sisters seem to have amnesia after every encounter with the boogeyman and go on with their lives like nothing happened. The father is highly unlikable for barely having a personality and the dialogue between them all is also predictable and unrealistic. The mystery woman who shows up mid-movie is 1. A terrible actress and 2. Confusing and obnoxiously cliche.

There are several obvious issues with what the monster is - is it supernatural or not? Depends on the scene! Does it eat kids and leave a bloody mess or does it steal their essence like Dark Crystal skeksis? Depends on the scene. Does it only come from the closet or is it just omnipresent in every dark corner? Again - the movie doesn't know. It is whatever seems to fit the scene at the time, and the movie can't even agree with itself. Again - it's obvious.

There really isn't anything memorable about this movie, and nothing original, even though there was a lot of potential if someone with talent and imagination had taken it on. It contradicts itself more than once which leaves you more confused and irritated than anything else. The writers just plug whatever random horror cliche they can think of into the scenes and never clean up the mess. There are just way to many inconsistencies for this to be taken seriously in any way.

I'm sorry for Stephen King. They took a great story and did a hatchet job on it, really making it - and I'll use this term again - a cliche.

The Thing (1982)

If you haven't seen this, you haven't lived

[9/10 · 27 December 2021]

The Thing is a remake, now with its own re-re-make, but nothing compares to this version. The special effects are very impressive for 1982. The scene with the dog kennel is still unsettling and I've been watching this for 35 years.

The cast is impressive and the acting is gold. The characters they create are relatable, committed, and relate to one another perfectly. Yes this is a horror movie but the dynamics between characters is the real strength. The ending is the perfect mix of knowing exactly how it ends and still not having any idea at all. You know - but do you really?

There are a lot of questions and inconsistencies that pop up throughout the movie and the basic premise of "stick together" seems lost on this group... I guess there wouldn't be a movie otherwise. I shrug it off as none of them are geniuses in any way. The "test" is questionable since the basic idea of a life form transmitting through blood always made me wonder. - why are they using the same knife...? Now they are all Things! But honestly, for most of those, it took me decades - and my adult daughter pointing them out - to notice. They are all forgivable.

We have a "winter horror" movie marathon and this is always the kick off. Love it.

Cooties (2014)

Go into it with an VERY open mind

[5/10 · 27 December 2021]

Watched this solely because it had Elijah Woods and zombies. I am not sure what I expected but the first 20-30 minutes had me wondering if I should just turn it off now.

It is seriously low budget B, maybe C or D material. We decided it was right up the same alley as Killer Clowns with a pinch of Shawn of the Dead. If you have a taste for this genre, take a drink or two and a hit or two and turn it on.

The cast list was impressive but it was obvious a lot of the cast wasn't completely comfortable with the ad libbed scenes. The "gore" was like Spirit Halloween props, there were a lot of unexplained story lines that never went anywhere, and even for a movie that made little sense, certain parts made absolutely no sense. Some of the gags just died from predictability.

Given that - I did NOT turn it off after the 20-30 minute cringe period. At this point a golden Rainn Wilson ad lib rant popped in relating Elijah Wood's character to LOTR and we all just started cackling! At that point on the movie I approached it from a different point of view. Kind of like the second time you watch Napoleon Dynamite... the first time you watch with one eyebrow up thinking "what the hell am I watching?" The second time you figure out the problem is with you - you're expecting too much! The most entertaining thing about this is how ridiculous you feel watching it. If you can't embrace that, just leave it alone.

If you can embrace that, there were some pretty good laughs, some funny characters, but - don't expect much! It really feels like they had $20 and access to a school for a day and just started making things up as they went. If you have an hour and a half of your life time to mindlessly burn, you'll probably find some value in spending it with this movie.

The Hobbit (I) (2003 Video Game)

Well done, love this game

[9/10 · 9 October 2021]

I know this came out almost 20 years ago now, but it is still very replayable. Game cubes are immortal, we can't seem to destroy ours, and GC had some of the best games ever done. We pull ours out to play this once a year or so, and have since it came out 18 years ago! My then-kids are adults now and they still love this.

The music is great and the voice acting is also well done. The graphics used to be top notch and now they stink, but the design of the 3D world has always been impressive to me. The puzzles are well thought out and game play follows the book well.

It's really easy, and we can complete it in a day. We have yet to 100% it in 18 years though! One day maybe.

The only complaints are the camera is a nightmare, weird glitches sometimes, and Bilbo is a really uncoordinated jumper ! But thats probably me.... It's super outdated now but it is still entertaining.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Skip it. Read the book.

[2/10 · 4 November 2015]

I fell in love with Lord of the Rings, like most people did, in 2001. The movie took a classic novel and recreated it in a way that I'm sure Tolkien would have given a nod to. It gave us the same things that the book gave us when we were kids - imagination, emotion, laughs, tears - and only a couple of times did we really notice the computer generated effects, that, were, in all honesty, impressive and wowing for the time. But, it was in a way that did not take away from the natural-ism of the environment or the characters or story people have loved for decades. As the series went on, that changed. Though Peter Jackson originally kept to Tolkien's story, he started doing a "George Lucas" on us. Heart, soul, character development, storyline - it began to all be replaced with exaggerated CGI special effects and green screen work that became ever more obvious and distracting. By the third movie, I was ready to be done. I forgot why I cared at first and I had to re-read the book to remember the real magic of Tolkien again.

But it didn't end, unfortunately. Jackson decided to 'Lucas' up "The Hobbit." And, this time, he didn't just over-effect it to the point where it was distracting and obnoxious. He decided he was ABOVE Tolkien, and he completely changed the story of the book, the characters of the book, the relationships between them. I watched the first two Hobbit movies, and I couldn't watch the third. My children cried. Not because it was sad, because it was not "The Hobbit." It wasn't even "Lord of the Rings." It was Star Wars Episode I... only Lucas has an up on Jackson, because he actually WROTE HIS OWN story. Jackson just hi-jacked his, and crashed it.

The CGI effects in this are smothering. The setting feels so claustrophobic. Its obvious that the acting suffers from the lack of a setting/environment, but it doesn't matter, because the focus of the movie is on battle scenes where more and more and more effects can be used. The characters that are reprised from the original feel drier, emptier, even sadder.

The Hobbit was originally a children's adventure book. It is a fun - FUN - read. When I think of The Hobbit, the word I get is "fun." This movie recreates the dark, dreary, war-torn vibe of the Return of the King, and it feels sad and depressing the majority of the time. And, of course, we have to create a make-believe love story between two completely incompatible species and spend SO much time building on that so that it eventually becomes an obnoxious eye-roll jerker. Several character relationships were re-written to meet Jackson's need for personal tension and build up to made-up showdowns between characters who have imaginary "personal problems" with each other. These do not add to the movie, they detract more than anything. This movie leaves you upset, confused, and a little sad. Completely opposite of the book.

Now, of course, everyone is going to say "it doesn't have to be exactly like the book!" This is true... if we're talking about some obscure book that the majority of people have never read. But not all books are equal. There is a reason there is no 'Fahrenheit 451' movie. In many cases, movies are contemporary to the books that inspired them, and the movie actually makes people read the book (especially now). A lot of books only become classics because of their movies. The Hobbit is NOT one of these. It has been widely read for a long time, by many generations. Most people have read The Hobbit at some point in their lives. Its required reading in a lot of schools. In Britain, it is a national treasure, as is JRR Tolkien. You cannot take on such a well-known, broadly read, and deeply loved book like this and think you are above it, or you can improve on it, or that people who have loved it for many, many years aren't going to notice or care. A classic piece of literature like this is above us, not the other way around. There is something about these kinds of books that transcends us. Our "take" on them isn't valid, they are perfect as they are. Even worshiped by some people. When so many people know exactly what the story is, who the characters are, what the plot and purpose is, manipulating that destroys it's magic. It doesn't matter how visually stunning you make it, or how epic the battle scenes are. When you choose to take that responsibility to represent something so beloved, you have to do it with a certain reverence that I think was felt in the first LOTR movie, but waned after every one. There was no respect shown for this book in this movie. No appreciation. Respect started to be replaced with commercialization. For someone to think they can improve on it, or change it to make more money (ie. drag a short story out into three 3-hour movies)... something about that feels disrespectful and prideful. Like disrespecting your elders.

Even if you don't love the book or haven't read it, this movie has so little heart. Its drowning in computerization, the fun has been replaced by dark ire, and sadness, and awkwardness, and these things are hard to look past. The actors themselves are amazing, but its so hard to see it through the CGI that takes over. It turns the characters into accessories instead of centerpieces. It was easy to get bored, as someone who doesn't watch movies specifically for special effects. This movie was made to showcase CGI effects only, and to make money - and that is how it feels.

Pumpkinhead (1988)

80's "stalker/slasher" elevated

[7/10 · 4 November 2015]

I pretty much only watch horror movie (I don't know why) and this has always been one of my personal favorites. Though it does follow the old formula of a stalker slashing screaming teens, there is more to it than JUST that.

Start with Lance Henriksen, who is an amazing actor and so much better than he is given credit. He is natural and emotional and he makes you feel sadness and regret and things you don't normally get out of B horror.

Of course, Stan Winston, who was a genius in special effects and creature design and did not disappoint with the Pumpkinhead creature. It is not your typical rubber hand puppet. It IS a character in the movie with facial expressions, body gestures, and a quality that is not typically found in movies of this level. It is easy to forget it is an actor inside, and that is hard to come by.

Story / Characters - some are great. I wish the movie would have steered clear of the stereotypical snotty teenagers on a party weekend, because it has more potential than that. I'm not sure if that was the only group of people that it was OK to kill in movies at the time - partying teenagers...? It makes it difficult to illicit any kind of emotion for them either positive or negative, because it tries so hard to make you hate them that by the time it wants you to feel bad for them, its too late. The whole movie is about regretting your wrath and vengeance, so I always felt like I should feel worse for these people, and never really did. Regardless, the locals are pretty great and remind me of some actual people I know, or have known. Mr. Wallace is a classic to me.

The biggest issue for me, and this is stupid, was the setting and the lighting! After you have watched a movie 100s of times, you notice when there are two moons, and they are both neon blue. Or that backwoods West Virginia seems to look a lot like Barstow, California. Or random lightning with no source and no thunder. I understand the lighting (and lightning) is for effect, and it is a pretty strong visual effect combined with the awesome Pumpkinhead creature, if you're not thinking about it. I started to think about it...

The Blob (1988)

Good horror film from the 80's

[7/10 · 4 November 2015]

In a time when so many "horror" films had no story, no point, bad acting, and the same rehashed "slasher" villains AND rehashed party teen victims, The Blob was definitely a stand out GOOD horror movie.

I'll be honest, I've never seen the old original, so I have no clue how similar or not they are. But I can compare them to similar movies of the 80's and this one is much smarter. There is an intriguing story to it, some decent acting, a couple of well-timed funny moments, thought-out characters, and the "gore" level mixed in with simple tasks we all do and take for granted make it a pretty fun watch. I never stick my hand in a sink drain without thinking of this movie!

For the time, the effects were also not too bad. Some bad green screen here and there and a couple of wacky things that were probably scary at the time, but for the most part they were believable and scary, and definitely gross.

The ending - or the finale anyway - is the worst part. I never really swallowed the solution as believable. Not the idea of the solution, but the execution of it.

As far as 80's horror films go, this one is one to see.

Fright Night (2011)

Fun movie, good re-imagination

[7/10 · 4 November 2015]

A lot of people have slammed this for not being true to the first one, but I think that's the good part of it. Its like a good song cover, it takes the original and doesn't just copy cat it, it changes a few things, gives it a personal twist, without totally destroying the integrity of the original. There are a lot of connections that were made obvious, but not ridiculously obvious. The biggest difference between them is this one is more vampire, and less love. If you're expecting a love story, or seduction, watch the original. That is the biggest difference - Jerry uses Amy, Jerry doesn't love Amy.

This was a fun, updated version, which - I thought - made more sense than the first. It had more back story, anyway, so you understood why Jerry chose that neighborhood, and not just "oh a vampire moved in randomly." Sarandon's Jerry was like a 1980's GQ mag highlighting sweater fashion. Sideways glances in half lighting and talk of love and pain constantly. I was always more afraid of his little friend, who seemed more devious. Collin Farrel is definitely more menacing and believable as a shrewd killer vampire. Sometimes he is uneasy and jittery, followed by a relaxed "cool" and it keeps it uncomfortable in a good way. And his "animal" responses are unexpected, natural, and appreciated.

The rest of the cast was also excellent, I thought. The real star is easily David Tennant who is hilarious, and you have to love him. Christopher Mintz-Plasse twist on "Evil" was good and believable, I felt much more for him than I did in the first movies. I really never "got" Evil in the first movie, but this one makes him much more real and not just an obnoxious hyperactive sidekick. Imogen Poots' "Amy" was such an improvement on the first movie's Amy who was SO whiny and annoying.

If you watch movies specifically for special effects, you can pass on this one. The effects are not good. Bad CGI. And some things, in retrospect don't make much sense - and I think those things are mainly the character's responses. I kept thinking "why is he not more upset about this?" or "why didn't someone notice this?" or "Really - no one is questioning this??"

BUT, the movie itself is pretty good and if you overlook the bad effects and the unrealistic lack of concern sometimes, you'll probably like it and have fun watching it. You had to have some kind of ability to overlook stupidity to watch the first one anyway, right?