Change Your Image
fallingfornever5
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Longlegs (2024)
I wanted to like it more than I liked it
As a kid, I remember my dad bringing home "Seven" and "Copycat" from the video store. I can still recall the tense anxiety those movies induced in me - especially "Seven." The first time I saw the trailer for "Longlegs" I was reminded of those feelings. It felt uncomfortable and tense, and it hooked me in instantly!
I wanted to know more about the movie, but I contained myself, opting to go into it blindly - hoping for the same resonance as I got from those VHS tapes in the 90s. But, boy, was I disappointed.
"Longlegs" opens beautifully. The opening shots are unsettling, mainly due to the bright white backdrop in which they're set, but sadly the discomfort doesn't hang around. This is one of the biggest downfalls of the movie, especially when the trailer(s) promised so much. Luckily, the material was interesting enough to keep me invested - unfortunately that investment only lasted for around the first hour. The film attempts to throw some curveballs at you, but if you're observant enough, they will likely end up as home run hits by you, rather than a no hitter by the filmmakers.
Though I won't spoil what happens in the film - especially toward the end - I will say that the revelation of what's goin on, and what the motives of people are, will leave you feeling one of two ways: 1. Like it was an interesting idea and premise, or 2. Like the filmmakers had an initial idea but were unsure how to fully execute it, so they went with a cop out payoff that required less thought or explanation. If your expectations are anywhere close to what mine were, it's likely you'll settle on number 2.
Overall, I don't think "Longlegs" is the worst horror movie I've ever seen, or even the worst horror film I've seen this year, but it is yet another one with a fantastic first half that is somewhat ruined by an unrealistic, plot hole riddled, lackluster ending.
Lot Lizards (2022)
You Want a P**** Tonight, Daddy?
Throughout my years on Earth, I've seen films that create entire subgenres, generate millions of copycats and clones, and often bring forth a new generation of quality filmmakers. One of biggest examples of this could be Tarantino and Rodriguez in the early/mid 90s. These filmmakers gave us slick cinematography, witty and hip dialog and characters with charisma and charm, while being both bad a** and cool. If you were a cinephile in the 90s, and well into the 2000s, you wanted to see every movie possible that was reminiscent to "Pulp Fiction" or "Reservoir Dogs." Me, on the other hand, I've always preferred atmosphere over smooth talking and flashy camera angles -- likely why I would take "Inglorious Bastards" and "Hateful Eight" over the rest of Tarantino's catalogue. But, that's neither here nor there. What's important, is where we've come in those years.
It's not uncommon for actors to be given some liberties with dialogue, or for the cast to have some input on how to improve the quality of a film or scene. Heck, I worked as a special effects artist on a film and was given the opportunity to provide a great deal of input on how to improve scenes due to my knowledge of the genre we were working on.
When I think of improv, I think of actors like Robin Williams and Bill Murray. Guys who've had whole scenes changed just so they fit around the improvised dialog. I've read interviews and articles where actors would talk about being handed scripts with no dialogue for their characters, just an outline of what would be happening in the scene. What an honor that must be. An honor bestowed upon only the most skilled actors in the industry. I assume the script (if there was one) for "Lot Lizards" was done in a similar fashion...only without the prestige, and highly skilled actors.
Now, before I start, I want to say that this film is far from "Desperado" or "Kill Bill"...heck, it's far from "Four Rooms"...or dare I say, "Sharkboy and Lavagirl." There are no flashy camera angles, or slick dialogue, and the characters don't permeate the screen with that je ne sais quoi that made for bad a** feme fatales like The Bride -- in fact, there are only about two different camera angles in the entire film!
"Lot Lizards" will in no way, be shamed for it's no budget attempt at filmmaking. However, I don't think amateur filmmaking can be excused on the grounds of micro/no-budget.
Having a degree in Creative Writing, I'm no stranger to being critiqued or critiquing others. One of the biggest things I'd learned is how to accurately critique a person's work to be balanced, and not give only praise or only suggestions for improvement, but rather a nice middle-ground. This review will be no different.
I assume, like most, I was intrigued instantly by the movie's title -- "Lot Lizards." There are no frills, nothing elegant, just flat out, "This movie is about lot lizards." It, along with the overly polished bad Photoshop cover a la something you'd see at Family Video in their straight to video section in 2008, was enough to make my wife and I want to watch it.
I suppose this would be a good place to note that if you watch this on Tubi for free, like we did, you'll find the TV-14 rating to be grossly deceptive and greatly inaccurate.
After watching the trailer, we decided that it was the perfect film for a mid-week movie night...and boy were we right!
I've seen multiple comedies over the last several years that barely got a single chuckle out of me, and more than a few scoffs and annoyed eye rolls. Now, to be honest, my type of comedy is more based in perfectly timed absurdity, and envelope pushing, quick witted, and/ or intelligent punchlines. So, the comedy of women who talk about their lady bits, and all of their quirky sexual experiences, or guys who team up together just to point out how short one is and how muscular the other is, doesn't really do much for me. With that, I have to confess that "Lot Lizards" made me laugh harder than I have (at a movie) in several years. Lines like, "You want a p***y tonight, daddy?", "We got a dead a** p1mp up in here!" (Maid talking to the police), a character calling a trick to apologize for leaving him early, and him explaining that "...after you left, I had to j*** off", or every flat line delivered by the character of Mimi, make the movie a laugh fest. If you're a person who laughed at the terrible dialogue of movies like "The Room", "Karen", or "Shark Attack 3: Megalodon" you'll love it here.
Not only is the dialogue hilarious, but 99% of the acting is delivered in a way that is insanely over the top -- with Mimi taking up the 1% with her performance that's comparable to watching a piece of bread go stale. The character of Tez is hands down my favorite character in the film. A fresh out of prison past p1mp that's looking to take back the streets. Now, please don't let that character breakdown get you excited or expecting more than what it is, because 85% of the time he's just pressing guns to women's heads or pimp slapping them into the next season -- all of which will have you laughing you a** off. Please, don't think I condone violence towards women. Nothing could be farther from the truth...but man, some of these things -- especially toward Sugar -- had me in tears from laughter. Not to mention in the climax of the film when one of the rival working girls gets sh0t in the knee by him as he takes a shower. Beside the hilarity, we also get the pinnacle of Mimi's acting with, "D***, you sh0t me in the knee." On top of the hilarious dialogue, and the overacting, we get a storyline that kind of goes somewhere, while also not going anywhere. Pointless side stories are introduced at random and never touched on again. Examples include: Stormy's relationship with her mother who is also the maid at the hotel the women bring tricks to, even though we're never sure if she's supposed to be the maid or not, a man from Texas that two of the girls rob and he goes looking for them, only to just stop without the audience ever knowing he did, the one girl being sent away because her husband abuses her...and then he falls in love with another lot lizard (Just writing that had me laughing). People get k1lled, k1ll others, get kidnapped, kidnap others, rob people, and I'm pretty sure that no one in the area where the film was being filmed knew it was going on.
There are two scenes that stand out to me, one where Sugar doesn't want to turn a trick and tells him that she has diseases, tons of them -- all of them -- before Tez runs up, says, "Hey, hold on, she don't got any diseases," he then says, "Sugar, can I talk to you," and grabs her hair pressing a gun to her head. During that moment another girl who is supposed to play a working girl backs away with a look of genuine terror in her face.
The other scene is one that takes place after the girls are robbed by a guy who decides he doesn't need to cover his face and brings his lootings to another lizard a few streets away. The women then drive up to him, get out, and proceed to demand their money back at gun point. It's not a funny scene, however, the girls grab him lot lizard and press a gun to her head, during this part a car can be seen pulling into a parking spot behind the actors, and immediately put the car in reverse and quickly leave.
I could harp on the bad cinematography, the boring and uninspired camera angles, or the awful sound, but I feel it only adds to the unintentional humor of the entire experience. It should be common knowledge that angles should change frequently and that certain techniques should be used to give the audience clues about the character...for instance, filming a character upward often shows power or dominance, whereas filming down on a character can show that they're weak. This film, however, throws all that out the window for nothing but mid ranged shots that stay the same for 5-10 minutes at a time. Things like this will make you appreciate Tyle Perry movies. But, again, as part of the entire package they work so perfectly.
Overall, I have to give this movie a bad score because I have to rate it fairly, and just because I loved it for its "So bad, it's a masterpiece" qualities, I have to accurately rate it for those who may not be going in looking for something as absurd as it's blunt and already funny name suggests.
If you're looking for a movie that you can watch with a group of friends (or even alone) and laugh uncontrollably at, then this is the movie for you, and I would give it an easy 9/10. If you're a serious movie fan, looking for a gritty, hard-edged drama/thriller/revenge film about abused street workers trying to get by, then look elsewhere because this isn't it.
The United States of Insanity (2021)
Hilarious, entertaining, and extremely thought provoking
The film provides an in depth look into not only the Insane Clown Posse, but the loyal fan group, The Juggalos. It takes a deep dive into the life of the members, from childhood through the inception of their musical personas - Violent J, and Shaggy 2 Dope.
Normally, I'd do a review or critique using the sandwich method (starting with what I liked, then going into what I think could have been better, then wrapping it up with more positives) but this film, I feel needs to start with the negatives, and after I explain them, it'll be more obvious why I chose to go this route.
I will be direct in saying that this movie is an easy 8/10. It's absolutely hilarious, and entertaining throughout, however the two major issues and things that keep it from being a 10/10 for me come from the inconsistency in story telling, and what feels like a lack of clear understanding (with the filmmakers) on what the documentary is about.
The film jumps around quite a bit, and at times the segments almost feel disconnected from one another. What I mean is that we'll be following ICP as they talk about where they grew up, and then it'll switch to the Juggalos talking about their experiences with law enforcement, then it'll talk about The Gathering of the Juggalos, and then more stories about Juggalos, and then more backstory on the musicians. The story is weaved together like a pair of shoelaces, which can be interesting, but it also takes away from the narrative at times.
The other thing that I feel hurts this film is that it seems like the filmmakers were unsure of what they wanted to focus on in the film. We often jump between ICP as the focal point, to the FBI labeling Juggalos as a gang as the focal point, to Juggalos and The Gathering as the focal point. Now, I've seen plenty of documentaries in my life, and understand that it's important to have individual stories and arcs within the main blanket story, however, this film feels like it's missing that main blanket, and instead wants all of these stories to be the main story. The film is marketed as ICP/Juggalos v The FBI, yet I'd say only 35 - 40 minutes of the almost 2 hour run time seems to focus on that, with the rest being mainly about ICP and the world they built. This isn't a massive issue, as without ICP there are no Juggalos, and vice versa.
Now, with the two negatives out of the way, I can jump into what I loved about the film.
The filmmakers did something that seems to be difficult to do (at least from what I've seen in some recent documentaries) and that is to take both sides of the argument into consideration and present facts for both sides to the viewer. They present all information in an unbiased way, allowing people from all parties to express their thoughts, feelings, opinions, and data without criticism. It never blatantly tells the audience, "These people are clearly wrong" or "These people are clearly right" but rather let's the audience decide for themselves.
Another thing I loved in the film is the perfectly placed humor. With documentaries, it's imperative to understand that the grey area is key, and extremes on either side can cause the audience to lose confidence in the story teller. This is especially true when dealing with subject matter that is serious - such as people's lives being ruined by law enforcement over what t-shirt they were wearing, or band they were listening to at the wrong place/time. This film understands how absurd the idea of being considered a criminal over listening to the music of two guys who paint themselves up like clowns and sing about killing pedophiles and domestic abusers is, and it shows that understanding through very subtle insertions of humor. A funny news headline here, old interview clip there, or perfectly placed punchline to a serious segment. For instance, there is a scene where a woman is discussing her husband - a longtime fan of ICP - and how he's serving life in prison. She smiles and explains that she brought his mugshot to a meet and greet to have signed by the band. The camera focuses on the photo long enough for the audience to process the absurdity of the scene, and soak in the hilarity of it all. A woman bringing her husbands mugshot to his favorite band to get signed. Not only is the strangeness of the request to have a mugshot signed comedic, but what the members of the group say to the woman, and her husband (who she calls during the signing) during it, is the icing on the comedic cake. These types of scenes are sprinkled perfectly throughout the film, and add the perfect level of humor to an otherwise serious documentary.
The last point I'd like to make is how deeply intriguing the film is, along with the message of, "If it can happen to them, it can happen to you." This is not a film FOR Juggalos, but rather a film ABOUT Juggalos, and the acceptance and understanding that they lack from most of society. It's insane to think that the government can deem someone as dangerous or a criminal based on who their favorite band is. And it makes you take a step back and really think about a question that pops up frequently in the film, "If Juggalos can be considered a gang by the FBI for being fans of ICP, then what else can the FBI claim people are gang members for?" We watch and learn about how a group of people's rights are imposed upon based on something as simple as musical preferences, and it leaves the audience pondering. Do a few bad apples spoil the bunch? Can we make a judgment based solely on the actions of a few outliers? What if it was you?
I loved every moment of this film, and was entertained throughout. It was engaging, informative, and intriguing from start to finish.
(A very strong) 8/10
Be sure to stay after the credits if you're a fan of ICP, as there is about 15 minutes of bonus live footage.
Halloween Kills (2021)
Great kills overshadowed by bad script
Before going into anything I always assume that everything is going to be a 4, 5, 10 star rating (depending on the scale) and that all things are going to be A+ products. To me, it allows for a slightly more optimistic perspective than assuming everything is going to disappoint and will have work its way up to prove me wrong. With that said, I was expecting "Halloween Kills" to have a 6/4, 8/5, and 16/10.
I was beyond excited for this film, as Michael Myers has always been my favorite slasher. I saw the original on Laserdisc as a kid, and remember being terrified the whole drive home. The normal look of Haddonfield resembled my own neighborhood, and I always thought that if their town could match mine, then the boogeyman could exist too.
Before I go into what I liked and disliked about "Halloween Kills" I'll say that I loved 2018's Halloween. I think it was focused, self-aware, and a movie that believed in what it was trying to do - give the fans something they've wanted for a long time. I think "Halloween Kills" tries to do that, but in a less original, and far less subtle way.
I'm not going to give a rundown of what happens in the movie, because if you're reading this then odds are you watched it already and may be looking to see what others thought both comparatively and contrastingly to your own opinion.
To start off, I want to focus on the thing the movie does best, the kills. In horror movies, the inclusion of comedy is something that needs to be placed very meticulously, it can make or break scenes and the entire atmosphere of the film. There are a few kills that are off the wall enough to have a comedy edge to them, but they work. The cartoonish way that some of the characters meet their fate at the hands of Myers are so original and unique that you can't help but smile or laugh (in a good way). Without a doubt, the brutality of the film is its strongest point, and to me, it's easy to see why gorehounds would love this movie. It's the type of excessive gore that you see in ambitious indie and extreme foreign horror films, or exploitation films from the 70s, but not what you'd get in a mainstream, Hollywood movie. To me, it's easy to see that this is where the screenwriters' set their focus, and the death toll seems to be the only true consistency we get in the film (that's positive at least).
I think where this film really fails, however, is that it's its own worst enemy. The screenplay seems to focus so much on wanting to please the fans who were mad about 2018's lack of onscreen violence, that they put almost all of their focus on that. The other thing that it felt like, to me at least, is that the filmmakers wanted to be accepted so badly by the fans that they directly reused shots from older movies, took plot points and setups from older movies, and tried to give everyone Loomis like catchphrases and pieces of dialogue. It reminded me of an hour and 40 minute long film version of the Steve Buscemi "How do you do, fellow kids?" gif. So many of the things done in this film go against everything you learn as a screenwriter. We're taught, screenplay 101: "Show, don't tell." I don't want every character telling me, "40 years ago, Michael killed my daughter", "40 years ago, I survived Michael Myers", "The Boogeyman is real, and after 40 years he's come home." This movie makes it a point to remind us of the events of the first movie, to where it feels like something about that day is mentioned in almost every dialog exchange. On top of that, the dialog, in general, is cringeworthy. The way people talk in this movie is no where near how people talk in real life. If I came face to face with a serial killer that I survived 40 years prior, and lived with the effects of the trauma all that time, the last thing I'd do is snap off some witty one liner before attempting to hurt him. Tommy's character repeats everything he says for dramatic effect, and when Brackett says his, "Everyone's entitled to one good scare" line I dropped my head, in my hands. The constant one-liners and unnatural dialog was the killing point of the movie for me, or one of the at least.
There are times, however, where the nods work, but it's only when they're subtle. In the flashback, we hear about Loomis shooting him, but even if you missed that line, they show the broken window and spouting in the Myers house, so we know it's at least towards or after the end of the original Halloween. We have the Silver Shamrock masks nodding to Halloween 3, and the pitchfork which is a nod to Halloween 5. To me, those are things I want to see as a fan, not hear "I wasn't at the scene because I had to tell my wife he killed our daughter and desecrated her body." Again, show don't tell.
One of the most interesting points of the movie for me, was the mob of citizens ready to kill Michael. But, even with that, I was kind of disappointed. We're shown Tommy rallying the troops, and creating small militias throughout the town, but yet no one from those groups sees Michael. There was an opportunity to show us how dangerous Michael was by having him be spotted by the militia and killing them (rather than slowly stabbing an old man 5 times in the back), or to show how dangerous the militia was by having them destroy and burn a building because they chased someone in that they thought was him. The pandemonium of the mob mindset could have been explored much deeper, and sent the town into shambles much more than it did.
I know I said I wasn't going to go over everything that happened in the film because I don't wanna dumb down anything for potential readers, but in this part I will touch on some scene specific points.
One of the biggest issues I had with this movie, comes from a single scene. I've read several reviews that felt the same way I did about other aspects of the movie, but no one touched on this. I had a huge problem with the hospital scene involving the mentally ill patient. I hate that the man is set up in the beginning on the news broadcast, then shown escaping the car, and then never seen again until the hospital. That is a complete waste of a character, especially one that could have been utilized better. We live in a time of social media. Imagine if people in Haddonfield had taken videos of him wondering the street, or hiding from people, or hell, imagine if they would have included a scene of one of the militia groups getting killed by Michael, and then later someone got a photo of the mentally ill man walking by the scene and it was posted online. There could have been a huge setup and a much more believable one, before he walked into the hospital. Instead, he stumbles in, everyone assumes he's Michael, and they attack. What we get is easily the most tense, organic, emotional scene in the film. Throughout, we see Karen trying to reason with her mother and daughter, but neither listen, and here she tries to protect an innocent man, but again no one listens. The tension builds and builds as the man becomes trapped like an animal, before jumping from a window to take his own life. It's a guy wrenching scene, but it's topped off with what I felt like was an attempt at badly timed comedy. When he hits the ground, the volume changes, emphasizing the thud and reaction of the crowd, and then we see his body. His brains are scattered and his finger and eye twitch. To me, that specific part of the scene felt like it was done in bad taste. "Let's give the audience some more carnage." I would have rather have seen the rioters faces change, the close up shots of the sheriff and Karen, and then a zoomed in shot of his eye as it fluttered for a few seconds and then went still. I think it would have been a much more powerful ending than the exploitative gore we were given. Hell, they could have followed it up with the side shot of his exploded head that we also got. It may just be me, but I again, I feel like an organic scene was ruined by that lack of subtlety.
The last point I'd like to make, is that the movie doesn't really feel like it pushed the series along. If I could compare it to anything, in that regard, I'd compare it to "The Last Jedi." We watched a movie where the point of the movie was simply to act as filler between the first part of the trilogy, and the third. Like "The Last Jedi" this is how "Halloween Kills" felt, in my opinion. There were several opportunities that characters had to put Myers down for good, but they didn't finish the job, because they couldn't...it's the second film, you can't kill him until the third - duh! And so, it ends just like 2018's with the ignorance of our main protagonists assuming he's been killed, only to rise from the ashes, and kill again.
Overall, I wasn't a fan of the movie. I went in expecting to love it, but find myself logging it just above my least favorite entries in the series. If you're a young person looking to watch a movie overloaded with cool kills, while not having to process substance, this is a good movie for you. If you want something that really drives the series forward, with interesting and intelligent characters, interactions, and dialog exchanges, I think you'll find yourself disappointed. The atmosphere, the look and feel of the flashbacks, and the unique kills are really this films bread and butter. But things like the unnatural interactions, and choices that the characters make, along with everyone having to have a catch phrase, one-liner, or epic "hero" speech really drags the movie down. Like I said before, this movie is its own worst enemy.
(A very generous) 5/10.